House of Commons
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
1. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the tripartite mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
We are supporting the temporary Gaza reconstruction mechanism to facilitate the import of construction materials into Gaza. Almost 40,000 people have now been able to buy materials to repair their homes. There is still a lot more to do, but the mechanism is a step in the right direction.
Dame Anne McGuire
Does the Secretary of State agree that the UN needs to take action to ensure that all the building materials going into Gaza are used to alleviate the dire conditions of the Gazan people, rather than diverted by Hamas for military purposes?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Lady is quite right to raise that as an issue to be considered. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that what she is worried about is happening. In addition, part of our support for the reconstruction mechanism has been to fund a monitoring process so that the right checks can be made to avoid such things happening.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has said. How on earth does she know that Hamas is not using such material to build tunnels for terrorist purposes? How do we know?
Justine Greening
There is a mechanism to check and control the materials as they come into Gaza. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the very difficult issues involved in reconstruction. Even with the mechanism in place, we expect reconstruction to take two to three years. Ultimately, the alternative to not using this sensible mechanism is for Gazans who have been forced out of their homes and have lost their homes simply to have nowhere to live. That situation is clearly not sustainable—it would certainly not be good for the many children who live in Gaza—and we are therefore right to be taking action to address it.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 746, standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House? It salutes the Big Ride from Edinburgh to London by 1,000 cyclists, which will take place later this year to provide funds for the Middle East Children’s Alliance, a non-profit organisation dedicated to helping deprived children who are war victims in Gaza. The right hon. Lady has an admirable record on this issue. Is she willing to give her support to the Big Ride?
Justine Greening
I was not aware of the early-day motion that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I will certainly take a look at it. It sounds as if it is a very valuable fundraising effort. As I have set out, we are absolutely determined to play our part in supporting the Palestinian Authority to enable it steadily to rebuild after the conflict in Gaza.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Many of my constituents, including a group called Knighton Action for Peace and Justice, have grave concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. How are the Government using their influence to encourage Israel and Palestine to reach a more satisfactory agreement about water resources in the occupied territories?
Justine Greening
A significant amount of infrastructure was damaged during the crisis over the summer. Part of the £20 million we committed at the reconstruction conference attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to help to replace the infrastructure that has been lost. All the discussion and debate we can have today is simply palliative while a long-term political settlement is being reached, which is the only thing that can in the end improve the long-term prospects of people living in that part of the world.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 100,000 homes were destroyed or damaged in the most recent crisis in Gaza, and flooding, heavy snow and plummeting temperatures have now intensified the terrible conditions faced by Palestinian men, women and children. While I was in the Occupied Palestinian Territories last month people were literally freezing to death because they struggled to get hold of the materials they need to rebuild. Will the Secretary of State explain why her Government pledged £20 million to help such efforts, but have so far disbursed only a quarter of that figure?
Justine Greening
It is important that the hon. Gentleman reflects on the broader assistance that we provide. As he will be aware, over the summer we provided £17 million of emergency assistance. I have talked about the £20 million that we have pledged to the Gaza reconstruction mechanism, which we are in the process of delivering. He will be aware that from 2011 to 2014, we pledged significant resources of about £350 million. We are one of the leading supporters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides key day-to-day services. He is right to draw attention to the conditions in which people are living. That is why we provide so much support, of which I am sure he is supportive.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
2. What support her Department has provided to Commonwealth multilateral agencies since May 2010; and whether she plans to change the funding her Department provides to those organisations.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
Since 2009, DFID has provided £180 million to six Commonwealth organisations. The budget is some £50 million this year and it will remain so in the next financial year.
Chi Onwurah
The diversity of the Commonwealth of nations is part of its strength. Programmes such as the Commonwealth scholarships and the Local Government Forum build on that by supporting education and the exchange of best practice among Commonwealth citizens and Governments. Does the Minister agree that at a time of rising extremism, both political and religious, in a number of Commonwealth countries, the contribution of those programmes should be celebrated and extended to build shared values and understanding?
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
3. What steps she is taking to target humanitarian assistance at the poorest children in the developing world.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
We work with agencies such as UNICEF and Save the Children to meet the immediate needs of children, but our key agenda is to link humanitarian assistance with long-term development.
Mr Allen
Getting food and shelter to children is essential, but will the Minister consider the global investment that is necessary in the social and emotional rehabilitation of children? That will make them less traumatised by their experience; enable them to raise good families of their own and to rebuild their cultures; and, perhaps above all, make them more resistant to political and religious fundamentalism.
Mr Swayne
Yes; absolutely. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in driving forward that agenda. He is right that people will not achieve their potential while they are traumatised and do not have education and proper support. One third of refugee children are without primary education and some three quarters are without secondary education. It is for that reason that we have more than doubled our budget for education in conflict-affected and fragile states. We are determined to drive forward that agenda internationally.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
An outstandingly good charity in my constituency, Alive & Well, ships essential equipment such as water purification equipment to some of the poorest children in the world, particularly in Sierra Leone. The next shipment was due to go on 24 February, but the charity has discovered that the import duties that are being applied by the Government of Sierra Leone, which are up to 100% of the value of the goods, will make it impossible. Will the Minister take up the matter with his opposite number in the Sierra Leonean authorities to reduce the unfair import duties?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Almost 5 million children die every year across the globe, principally because of malnutrition. What targets are being set internationally to ensure that that figure reduces year on year?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
4. What steps her Department is taking to support children affected by the conflict in Syria.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK has pledged £700 million so far in response to the Syria crisis, providing food, medical care and relief items to some of those most in need, including children. That includes the £50 million that I announced at the UN General Assembly for the No Lost Generation initiative, which will provide education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children who are affected by the crisis in Syria and the region.
Mr Jones
Children who are displaced by the Syrian crisis not only lose their homes, but are at risk of having their life chances permanently and irreparably damaged. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to help ensure that Syrian refugee children can not only expect adequate primary and secondary education, but have some hope of higher education?
Justine Greening
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the need to address the lack of education for children affected by this crisis, and the package that I mentioned announcing at the UN covers three new programmes specifically for education for Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan and Lebanon. Those programmes will be about improving the quality of education, particularly for early-grade primary school children in Jordan, and integrating Syrian refugee children into the system. My right hon. Friend is right to say that more needs to be done, and we launched the international No Lost Generation initiative precisely to get more and broader support for the issue.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
14. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is simply not possible for some of those children to receive the support and treatment they need in countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, and that her Government should be doing more to resettle Syrian children and their families in this country?
Justine Greening
I agree it is important that we play our role in the refugee crisis and provide refuge to people affected by it, which is precisely what we are doing. On helping children where they are—the overwhelming majority of children affected are still in the region—we are working hand in hand with the Lebanese Government to ensure that there is the capacity for children to get education. There is more to be done, but we can be proud of the leading role played by the UK.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
On the visit to Jordan and Lebanon by the International Development Committee last year we saw the huge amount of work that those countries are doing to support children affected by the conflicts. What is the Department doing to ensure that the children of Jordan and Lebanon do not suffer because of the huge burdens placed on their public school systems?
Justine Greening
We are working directly with both those Governments to ensure that our programmes help not only Syrian refugee children but, particularly in Lebanon, a host of children who were in school but perhaps did not get the textbooks they needed. We have provided a much broader package, and it is important that host communities are helped to cope with the strains that the refugees are putting on them.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Over a year ago, the Government committed to allowing a small number of refugees from Syria into the UK, including children with specific medical needs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many children from Syria with specific needs have been allowed to come to the UK?
Justine Greening
I do not have that precise information but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. As I said in response to an earlier question, that programme is in place to help Syrian refugees who particularly need to take advantage of it. The most important thing is to get broad international support to help the 3.8 million refugees who are now in the region and need assistance.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
5. What the cost has been of the UK’s contribution to the response to the Ebola outbreak to date.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK has committed £325 million to tackling the Ebola crisis. The UK is leading the international response to the crisis in Sierra Leone by diagnosing and isolating Ebola cases more quickly, trebling the number of treatment beds, supporting burial teams, and assisting in the research for a vaccine.
Richard Graham
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that at the recent London conference, Britain was able to persuade other Governments to contribute financially? Does she agree that we should be proud of the hugely positive contribution made by Great Britain through DFID’s budget—symbolised by Nurse Cafferkey and others with medical and other expertise—to resolving the Ebola outbreak?
Justine Greening
Yes; the international effort has involved not only financial assistance from a host of countries, but assistance in kind from countries such as Australia which is helping to set up Ebola treatment centres. I pay tribute to the work done across the Government, not just in my Department. As my hon. Friend says, vital work has been done by Public Health England, NHS workers and our amazing Ministry of Defence and soldiers who have done an incredible job. Without their efforts none of this would have been possible, and thanks to them we are now turning the corner.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady’s permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that one of the key lessons of Ebola was the need for more research and development on vaccines. Between 2008 and 2013, Britain gave £40 million to support the work of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. I understand that IAVI’s research contributed to the science that led to the fast-track Ebola vaccines, yet she has slashed the UK’s support for IAVI from £40 million to just £5 million for 2013 to 2018. Does she regret that 86% cut?
Justine Greening
No, I do not. The hon. Lady talks about the science, but we stopped funding the vaccine research because the basic science to support a vaccine was not in place. To have continued putting money into this research, when the early indications were that it was not going to deliver a vaccine, would not only have been a waste of money, but done a disservice to our investment into tackling AIDS. I should also point out that, in 2009-10, the Government invested £249 million in tackling HIV/AIDS, but in 2013-14 we increased that by 50% to £372 million.
Mary Creagh
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady heard me say that IAVI’s research contributed to some of the science that led to the Ebola vaccine. The point of research is that it builds knowledge.
The world must never again be left so exposed to Ebola. The good news that Ebola infections are falling in Liberia has meant that the trial of Brincidofovir as a drug therapy for Ebola was halted last Friday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need urgently to roll out the Ebola vaccine trials from Liberia to Sierra Leone and Guinea to discover which vaccine works?
Justine Greening
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware, but we have worked hand in hand with the Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline to help those trials to come forward faster. In fact, the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster , my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Oliver Letwin), has played a pivotal role internationally in ensuring that those trials could progress. It would be more constructive if she asked some relevant questions, rather than scoring pointless political points.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent progress has been made on negotiations to agree the sustainable development goals.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
8. What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in preparations to set new UN development goals in September 2015.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK plays a leading role internationally at the EU and UN and bilaterally to push for an ambitious and implementable post-2015 framework. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) will know, the first session of intergovernmental negotiations on the SDGs has concluded, and the open working group proposal includes 17 goals and 169 targets. We support the breadth and balance of the proposal but will be arguing for a much more concise and workable agenda as negotiations progress.
Seema Malhotra
Millennium development goal 3 was to promote gender equality and empower women. Will the Secretary of State be championing the inclusion in the new SDGs of texts on ending violence against women and girls and supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as statements in the declaration of the commission on the status of women?
Justine Greening
Absolutely—yes. The Government play a leading role in raising the issue of violence against women and girls, and I pay tribute to the amazing work done by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). I can assure her that we will continue to play that role.
Naomi Long
The Secretary of State has already indicated the complexity of the goals under discussion. What steps are being taken to ensure effective integration of the different goals, particularly the proposed target on under-fives mortality and those on water, sanitation and hygiene, given that most diarrhoeal diseases result from a lack of investment in that sector?
Justine Greening
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. The key to success in getting a sensible outcome for a new post-2015 framework is to ensure that it is not a shopping list, but that it actually works as an overall strategy to bring change on the ground and lift people out of poverty over the next 15 years.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
My Department continues to work closely and effectively with the Sierra Leonean Government to defeat Ebola, and our strategy is working—there are now signs that the infection rate is falling. We are far from complacent, however, because many cases remain, and we will see our mission through to the very end.
Since the last session of DFID questions, I have attended the Gavi replenishment conference in Berlin, at which Gavi surpassed its replenishment target of $7.5 billion from donors, which will help to immunise 300 million additional children and save more than 5 million lives. The Government have confirmed an additional commitment to Gavi of £1 billion in funding from 2016 to 2020.
Guy Opperman
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. On Syria, along with many colleagues I visited the Nizip 2 camp on the Turkish border last year and met the 17,000 refugees based there, half of whom were children. What the children particularly need is books in Arabic, so they can learn and then become the doctors and engineers they want to be. What steps are the Secretary of State and her Department taking to ensure that these children get the Arabic books they need?
Justine Greening
I too have had the chance to visit one of the refugee camps on the Syrian/Turkish border. The Turkish Government have put an immense amount of investment into supporting those people, and indeed providing some of the best quality refugee facilities that I have seen. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that textbooks are an important part of that. We have provided textbooks in Lebanon; I would be happy to look further at the point that he has raised.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
T2. I will take my moment, Mr Speaker. Over 30 years ago, this country was very generous in response to the Ethiopian famine, but now, over the last three years, we have given £1 billion in aid—despite the fact that the security forces in Ethiopia are raping, torturing and killing. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in Ethiopia on these matters?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Lady is right to raise her concerns about the behaviour of the police and security services. We raise our concerns, too. That should not overshadow the rest of the important work we are doing to help people in Ethiopia steadily to lift themselves out of poverty. If we consider development over the last 30 years, we can really see that Ethiopia has come on a tremendous way since it first appeared on our TV screens when it was facing the famine of 1984.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T3. Following on from the question about Gaza, may I ask what this Government are doing to assist the Palestinian Authority in their economic development of the west bank?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of economic development. In respect of our bilateral programme, we work on three key areas, and one of those, of course, is indeed wealth creation. We are promoting private sector development that can contribute to state and peace building by increasing fiscal sustainability and reducing unemployment and poverty.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
T4. In the light of the problems with the Private Infrastructure Development Group, does the Secretary of State believe we get good value for money from the £12 billion a year overseas aid budget?
Justine Greening
Yes, I do. We have been more clear-cut about the outcomes we are trying to achieve. As for the facility the hon. Gentleman mentions, it has pulled in £6.8 billion-worth of investment in infrastructure in some of the poorest countries in the world, which will help them steadily to make their way out of poverty. Surely creating the markets of the future is one of the smartest things we can do if we want to stay prosperous ourselves.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
T5. More cowardly and unforgiveable executions have again reminded us of the depths of ISIL’s depravity. As temperatures plummet in northern Iraq, will the Secretary of State update us on progress in providing humanitarian assistance to the 5.2 million Iraqis affected by this brutal conflict?
Justine Greening
Yes, I will. It is worth saying that the reason we have women and girls at the heart of our international development agenda is that we know they have no rights whatever in so many parts of the world, so my hon. Friend is absolutely—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. These are extremely important matters, affecting very vulnerable people. The answers from the Secretary of State should be heard.
Justine Greening
On Iraq in particular, we work extremely hard on the so-called winterisation approach, ensuring that tents are warm, that people have blankets and that appropriate shelter, food and sanitation are in place. That has been done, but the challenge in the region is now immense. The Syrian crisis alone has seen 3.8 million refugees.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Many people who live and work in the United Kingdom, including people in my constituency, wish to send money back to their families in other parts of the world. Initiatives from companies such as Xendpay are starting to challenge some of the costs of money transfer. What is the Secretary of State doing to address the charging of exorbitant fees of up to 20% for money transfer services such as those provided by Western Union?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the role played by remittances, which are a key part of the grand sweep of cash flow into developing countries. As she will know, we are working very hard in countries such as Somalia to ensure that families can continue to send money back to their relatives. I agree with her that one of the most important things we can do is introduce competition to the market, as well as helping to develop banking services so that people have more choice.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T8. What work is the Department doing to bring about behavioural change in areas that are affected by Ebola, and has it made an assessment of the impact of that on transmission rates?
Justine Greening
So-called social mobilisation has been key to bearing down on transmission rates. We understand that they are now well under 1%, which is great news. If we are to combat local outbreaks, however, it is vital that people understand how to stay safe, and DFID has played a major role in bringing together a consortium of different organisations to help to ensure that that happens.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the sickening murders in Syria of the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto and the Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Moaz al-Kasasbeh, and I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with their families at this very difficult time. We should also think of our own pilots and their families, and of all those who serve. I can assure the House that we will not stop until the murderous ISIL extremists who are behind this, and their poisonous ideology, are eradicated.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Phil Wilson
May I associate myself with the comments that the Prime Minister has just made?
A constituent of mine, an agency worker, told me that he pays income tax only if he works overtime. Part of his wages is paid in expenses, even when he is on holiday, which affects his national insurance contributions and therefore his benefit and pension entitlement. The sum of £16 a week is deducted from his wages to administer his payroll, and he even has to pay for his own pay slip. Is that any way in which to treat our working people?
The Prime Minister
We are looking into abuse by the so-called umbrella companies that can sometimes bring such things about, but the broader point is that I want to help people like that by cutting their taxes and taking them out of income tax altogether. We have already taken 3 million of the lowest-paid people out of income tax altogether, and we plan to enable people to earn £12,500 before they start to pay income tax, which will take another 1 million out of it altogether.
Mr David Willetts (Havant) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister welcome the increase in the number of students—especially those from the poorest backgrounds—who are applying for university places? Will he confirm that both universities and students would lose as a result of the reduction in funding that would be caused by a cut in fees? How could a policy that helped only rich graduates possibly be called progressive?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The coalition’s university policy was a long-term policy which has resulted in a record number of students going to university, as well as an increase in the number of university students from the poorest backgrounds. That is good for our country, good for students, and good for universities. What a contrast with Labour Members, who told us four years ago that they were going to get rid of tuition fees and who, four years later, have absolutely nothing to say about it. When will they make up their minds?
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in condemning the appalling murders of the Jordanian pilot and the Japanese hostages by ISIL. These were sickening and despicable acts, and simply reinforce our determination to defeat that evil organisation.
Everyone pays stamp duty on stock market transactions except those involved in hedge funds, who are allowed to avoid it. That is costing many hundreds of millions of pounds. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that for 13 years, during many of which the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, they did absolutely nothing about this. What this Government have done is more than any previous Government to make sure that individuals and companies pay their taxes properly. I have to say I am delighted that he has raised the economy on the morning after his shadow Chancellor could not name one single business leader who backed Labour.
Edward Miliband
This is Prime Minister’s questions and the Prime Minister should try to answer the question. I asked him a very specific question about why hedge funds are not paying stamp duty on stock market transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is being funded to the tune of £47 million by the hedge funds. Everyone knows that is why he is refusing to act, but what is his explanation?
The Prime Minister
Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we came into office foreigners did not pay stamp duty on the properties they bought, foreigners did not pay capital gains tax on the properties they bought, and because of his tax rates City hedge fund managers were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned their offices. That is what we had to sort out. But let me put it to him again: the day after his shadow Chancellor was asked on television whether he could think of one single business leader, do you know what he said, Mr Speaker? He said, “Bill Somebody”! Bill Somebody is not a person—Bill Somebody is Labour’s policy.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the Prime Minister what people on the Opposition Benches are doing: we are standing up for hard-working families and businesses while he is a friend of the tax avoiders. I am going to keep asking him the question until he answers it. It is a very specific question about hedge funds avoiding stamp duty on their share transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is bankrolled by the hedge funds. He claims he wants to act on tax avoidance. Why will he not act?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman has a good submission for the Budget, he can talk to the Chancellor about it. He says what they are doing on his side of the House. Let me tell him what he has been doing on his side of the House: two former Labour Health Secretaries completely condemned his health policy; all the leading university vice-chancellors condemned his university policy; and he cannot find one single business leader to back his economic policy. Is it any wonder that the Chuckle Brothers have lodged an official complaint and said they do not want to be compared to the two clowns opposite?
Edward Miliband
I am afraid I am going to keep asking the question until the Prime Minister has an answer. Let me explain it to him. [Interruption.] You can’t help him George; you’re too far away. Let me explain it to him very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting. The questions and the answers will be heard. This is a democratic Chamber and no one, but no one, is going to be shouted down. The point is very simple and very obvious, and I hope everyone can grasp it.
Edward Miliband
Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions, but the hedge funds are protected. We have been calling for action on this. It could raise hundreds of millions of pounds. Why will he not act?
The Prime Minister
We have acted on stamp duty. We will continue to act on stamp duty, but the right hon. Gentleman sat for 13 years in the Treasury and never did anything about it. If he wants to make sure that he acts on tax avoidance and evasion, why does he not start with Labour’s biggest donor, Mr John Mills— yes, we all remember this—who gave his donation in shares in order to cut his tax bill? Has he paid back the taxes yet?
Edward Miliband
I am really pleased the Prime Minister wants to talk about donors. Let us talk about his donors: £7 million—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question will be heard. It is a very simple point. I have had to make it a second time, and I will make it as many times as necessary: the right hon. Gentleman will be heard.
Edward Miliband
I was talking about the Prime Minister’s donors, Mr Speaker: £7 million from Lord Laidlaw, a tax exile living in Monaco; £3 million from Michael Hintze with a company based in Jersey; and Michael Spencer, who gave him £4 million, involved in the LIBOR scandal. Same old Tories.
Now, let us give the Prime Minister a fifth chance. I know he does not do his homework, but this is his fifth chance. The hedge funds are avoiding tax to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he now promise, from that Dispatch Box, to act for the national health service?
The Prime Minister
We had Labour for 13 years: no action on stamp duty, foreigners not paying stamp duty, foreigners not paying capital gains tax, no bank levy. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tax exiles: Andrew Rosenfeld, the man who raises his money, was for years a tax exile living in Geneva. That is what we get. But is it any wonder the right hon. Gentleman wants to find one particular issue to raise today? He cannot talk about minimum wages because his policy is to cut them, he cannot talk about energy prices because his policy is to keep them up, he cannot talk about universities because his policy is to trash them, and he cannot name a single business leader who supports Labour. No wonder the person who wrote “Things can only get better” says it no longer applies to Labour.
Edward Miliband
So basically, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out: five chances to answer the question, no answer coming. Let us close that tax loophole so we can have more doctors, more nurses, more care workers and more midwives. This is the difference: this is a Prime Minister who will not tackle tax avoidance for the simple reason that too many of his friends would get caught in the net. They are the party of Mayfair hedge funds and Monaco tax avoiders, and under him you always know that it is one rule for those at the top and another rule for everyone else.
The Prime Minister
There is only one person who has been found out this week and that is the leader of the Labour party: his economic policy has collapsed; his health policy has collapsed; his universities policy has collapsed. The most vital election in a generation is coming, and people can see the choice: a Labour party that is anti-enterprise, anti-business and that is falling apart under scrutiny, and a Conservative party turning this country around. That is the choice: competence from us, chaos from them.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This week we have seen that fear is spreading across this land among senior business people. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course of his—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question must be heard. If he wants to continue the last bit of it, he can: spit it out.
Steve Baker
Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course to prosperity with his long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
We will stay the course, because we can now see 1.75 million more people in work, the deficit down by half, the British economy growing faster than any major economy in western Europe, and business and enterprise large and small saying we have the right plan and we should stick to that plan. That is what we will do: it is competence versus chaos.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Q2. They were elected by fewer than 15% of the public and their first elections cost £80 million: why will the Prime Minister not scrap these ridiculous police and crime commissioners and instead put the money into front-line policing that would keep our communities safe?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might want to ask why her former colleague Alun Michael stood for one of these posts. I think this is bringing accountability to our police service, because everybody knows there is now one person they have to account to. In the past, people did not know how to access their police authorities; they do now.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Q3. When my right hon. Friend visits Yorkshire tomorrow, he will be spoilt for choice by the number of businesses that are investing in creating jobs in Leeds, bringing unemployment in my Pudsey constituency down 55%, in Leeds West down 39%, and in Morley and Outwood down 51%. Does that not show that all parts of Leeds are contributing to the northern economic powerhouse, thanks to this Government’s economic policies?
The Prime Minister
I am very much looking forward to explaining how our long-term economic plan will really benefit and continue to benefit Yorkshire and north-east Lincolnshire. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have got employment up by 114,000 since the election; private sector employment is up by almost 200,000 since the election. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The shadow Chancellor says come to Morley and Outwood. Believe me, I will be there, and I am afraid to say I have a plan to increase unemployment in that constituency by one, to give him a bit more time to remember a single business man who supports him.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Labour party was in power for 13 years and failed to deliver a single additional power to Scotland that was outlined in the vow. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems have been in power for five years and, like Labour, they are not proposing the real home rule that was promised. Do the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party now understand why the voters of Scotland are sick of the Westminster parties, in contrast with the SNP, which will always put Scotland first?
The Prime Minister
This coalition Government have actually taken part in a massive exercise of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, and have already set out a significant extra increase in powers that will take place whoever is standing at this Dispatch Box after the election. Yes, we have had a Westminster Government here for the last five years. We have an SNP Government in Scotland, and as the new Labour leader in Scotland has pointed out, under the SNP, A and E waiting times in Scotland are now worse than they are in England. So apparently, it is all right to compare Scotland and England, but of course, it is not all right to compare England and Wales. That is interesting, is it not? It is a fascinating political strategy for the Scottish Labour leader to say that life is always better under the Tories, but I agree.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Q4. Given the success the Prime Minister claims for the coalition’s long-term economic plan, why, if allowed to govern alone, does he want to change it to bring in even deeper cuts to public services?
The Prime Minister
I believe that after seven years of economic growth, which is what we will have had by 2018, we should be starting to pay down the deficit by running a surplus. I think that is something that every business and every family in the country will understand. You need to fix the roof when the sun is shining, and as far as I can see, it is only the Conservative party that will offer that at the next election.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Q5. When the Prime Minister comes to Yorkshire, he might reflect on the promise he made to a Barnsley business to support efforts to secure a major international contract to manufacture solar panels. Billions of pounds of investment depend upon him keeping his word, but delays in Whitehall mean that the deal is now at risk. Will the Prime Minister do what he said he would do: intervene to make sure that we can bring hundreds of good, skilled jobs to this country?
The Prime Minister
I understand that UK Trade & Investment, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Foreign Office have all been providing advice and support to Solar Europa, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and have met it on a number of occasions. We want to promote all projects that can create jobs in the UK and benefit relations with international partners. So I will look to see if there is anything that can be done in the Whitehall system that is getting in the way of this company, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
My constituent Mr Mohammed Naved Bashir was arrested in December. Despite pointing out on numerous occasions that he had a different name from that of the wanted man, he was held in prison cells in Halifax for three days. It was confirmed that the police had arrested the wrong person only when he was transported and presented to a judge in Glasgow. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to look into this case and perhaps supply the answers that Mr Bashir is not getting to the questions he is putting to the police?
The Prime Minister
This sounds like a very concerning case. My understanding is that West Yorkshire police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Mr Bashir. I cannot give the House the specifics of the case because it involves ongoing legal action, but I will discuss it with the Home Secretary as my hon. Friend asks. Of course, one option would be for Mr Bashir to make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but let me try to get my hon. Friend some more information about this.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q6. I know that the Prime Minister has followed closely the recent upheaval in the NHS in north Staffordshire, involving the Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent hospitals merger, the PET-CT scanner and the waiting times at accident and emergency. His Government commissioned KPMG to produce the Staffordshire “distressed economy” report, but it is being withheld. Will he now commit to publishing the full report so that we can all see his real plans for the NHS in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire?
The Prime Minister
I will look closely at the specific issue that the hon. Lady has raised. As she knows, the safety of patients in Staffordshire is absolutely our main priority. I know that the University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust is working hard with the trust development authority and the other parties involved to manage a safe and timely transition of services, and I think that all parties should work together to do that. I have to say that that is not helped by the Leader of the Opposition going to Stafford and deliberately scaremongering and trying to frighten local people. He has said that Stafford hospital is on “the road to closure”. This is what he means by “weaponising” the NHS. It is an absolutely disgraceful tactic. The hon. Lady knows it is not true, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it is not true but he has not got the gumption to say so.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Q7. I know that the Prime Minister shares the gratitude expressed on both sides of the House for the sacrifices made by our health care professionals and members of our armed forces, including my constituent Lieutenant Marc White, who have risked their lives to help the people of Sierra Leone to combat the scourge of Ebola. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a way should be found to recognise their bravery?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that everyone would like me to put on record my praise for those incredibly brave people who have worked in very difficult conditions, including over Christmas. They include doctors and nurses from our NHS and people from our armed forces, our civil service and non-governmental organisations. They are helping to save thousands of lives in Africa and protecting the UK from the potentially disastrous consequences of the disease spreading. In recognition of the bravery of those from the UK, I intend to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the introduction of a new medal to pay tribute to their efforts. Details will be out in due course, and this should be in place by the summer. It is absolutely right to say that those people are incredibly brave and that we owe them an immense debt of gratitude.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s “Green Budget” from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that median wages were still almost 5% lower last year than they were in 2008. Will the Prime Minister now admit that families across the country are indeed facing a cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
What the “Green Budget” today shows—I think we should take this as an important reference work—is that Labour would lead to an extra £170 billion of borrowing. That is the official figure. The shadow Chancellor was busy yesterday. In another of his interventions, he said on Radio 2 that “debt would be higher”. The cat is out of the bag. It is official: Labour would borrow, tax and spend more, and do all the things to put us back into the mess we got out of.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Q8. In recent weeks, Dover and east Kent have suffered gridlock due to problems at the port of Dover and the fire in the channel tunnel. Will the Prime Minister support the finding of a long-term solution to the problem? Will he consider making this a national strategic priority and using lorry levy funds to help to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this question, and I know how hard he works for people in Dover and across east Kent. I understand that he met the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) about this, and as a result we have ordered an urgent review to look at the contingency arrangements for the M20/A20 and for the M2/A2 in the event of severe disruption at Eurotunnel and the channel ports, taking account of the recent congestion. It is important that we learn the lessons from this incident, and if the report comes up with good suggestions, we will look at them very carefully.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In 2010 the Prime Minister said that if he failed to deliver on his promises, voters should kick him out—his promise on pointless reorganisations of the NHS, his promise on immigration in the tens of thousands, his promise to wipe out the deficit in this Parliament. He has broken his contract with the British people. If he is a man of his word, there is a P45 with “Cameron” on it. He should take it, take that lot and go.
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman the commitments that I made. I said we would turn the British economy round—we have turned the economy round. I said we would get the country back to work—there are 1.75 million more jobs. I said we would get the deficit down—it is down by a half. I said we would protect the NHS and we have protected the NHS. I said I would look after Britain’s pensioners—we kept our promise to pensioners. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the competition will be at the next election—competence and a long-term plan from the Government, chaos from Labour.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Q9. On Friday I visited the Cranswick pork facility in my constituency. It now employs 1,500 people at that site alone, hundreds more than in 2010. A lot of that investment came about because Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers opened up the Chinese market and have kept it open. Will the Prime Minister come and visit the facility, see the northern powerhouse in action, and see the effect of a long-term economic plan with exports at its heart?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. One of the largest and most important manufacturing sectors in Britain is the food sector. It is very competitive. We need to do more to promote exports and my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Secretary is doing just that. The Chinese market represents an enormous opportunity. A number of important trade missions have already been carried out there, but we are also pushing within Europe for a free trade agreement with China. Other countries, including New Zealand, have shown the massive amount of benefit that that can bring to their country, and Britain will always be at the forefront of arguing for these trade agreements.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q10. Does the Prime Minister know of anyone who owns or works for a UK- registered company that uses a Luxembourg-based holding company in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I want to see more and more companies headquartered here in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. We inherited a situation where company after company was leaving our shores. Because we now have competitive tax rates and a business-friendly Government, more and more businesses are coming here, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Last week six-year-old Sam Brown from my constituency, with 10-year-old Kamal from London, came to see the Prime Minister to deliver personal letters to him about the NHS England failure to come up with a process to allow the NHS to fund the drugs they need for Morquio syndrome, which also apply to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. NHS England is still dragging its heels. Will the Prime Minister, who I know has taken an interest in this, please intervene to come up with an interim solution so that all these children can get the drugs that they need?
The Prime Minister
I well remember meeting the hon. Gentleman and the young boy with Duchenne muscular dystrophy syndrome. I have looked into this. The consultation is under way and will finish at the end of April. Following this, the NHS will make a decision as quickly as possible whether or not routinely to fund Translarna. I have discussed this with the Health Secretary and we will do everything we can to help.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Q11. In 2010 the Government withdrew £80 million from five schools in my constituency. This destabilised the school in the village of Ryton so much that it is being forced against the will of all concerned to become an academy. The curriculum is constantly being cut, dedicated staff have lost their jobs and there is more of the same to come in the summer. What do I tell my constituent Lauren White, who loves this school, when she has seen her chosen career disappear before her very eyes?
The Prime Minister
All the evidence is that schools that have converted to academy status have seen their standards improve at a faster rate than maintained schools. Is it not interesting that the party that started to promote academies has given up on that good reform, as well as the other reforms it has given up on? We have put extra money in for school places, we are seeing improvements in school standards and we have said that any schools that are either inadequate or require improvement will need to be taken over by an academy if they do not have a proper plan for improvement. All parents who want to see their children succeed at school will welcome that.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Q12. My right hon. Friend has been admirably robust at combating anti-Semitism, and this Government have been generous in supporting security measures at state faith schools. However, 120 community buildings are now at risk of a terrorist attack of the type we saw in Paris. Will he commit to looking at creating a counter-terrorism fund to help maintain the security measures at these community buildings?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have met the Jewish Leadership Council and discussed this issue in the light of the Paris attacks. As he knows, the schools security grant, which we introduced, has made available £2.3 million of funding in the current year to protect security at Jewish schools, and it will be maintained next year. The Education Secretary is also going to meet the Community Security Trust to see whether we can do more to help Jewish independent schools. In my view, we need to do everything we can to help this community feel safe and secure in our country. I would hate it for British Jews not to feel that they have a home here in Britain—safe, secure and a vital part of our community.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Q15. It is now two years since a meningitis B vaccine was licensed for use across the EU. To achieve its effect of being able to prevent more than 80% of meningitis B cases here, it needs to be on the routine immunisation schedule for the NHS. The Prime Minister sounded hopeful in the House in November. Can he give us some indication as to when there will be a conclusion to the negotiations between the Government and Novartis?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I cannot give any further update; the discussions are still under way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this would be a vital step forward, because of the horrors of this disease. But he also knows that there would be huge cost issues if we were to make sure that this was made available. So those discussions with the drug company are vital. They are ongoing, and if I can give him an update in a letter, I will do so.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Q13. The whole of Herefordshire is behind a transformative project to create a new university specialising in engineering and technology, and, in particular, the agri-technology, defence and security sectors. That is possible only because of the Government’s universities policy and their decision to lift the cap on student numbers. Will the Prime Minister look hard, with the Chancellor, at the potential to award some public capital funding to support this enormously worthwhile project?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that uncapping university numbers removes the cap on aspiration. We want to have a country where everyone can have the choice of an apprenticeship or a university place. He is right that some areas of our country, including Herefordshire, have been under-served by university provision, which is why we have got the extra £200 million available in the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—capital investment. I know he is discussing this with the Chancellor to see whether we could make available some of this funding for the scheme he talked about. Let me say how important it is that we maintain a long-term plan for funding our universities. Young people in Britain want to know that we have the best universities in Europe and that they will continue to be that way. That is why what the university vice-chancellors have said this week about how our plans are working and costed, and Labour plans are completely unworking and uncosted, is so important.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Last night, the Prime Minister was on television saying that he would crack down on firms that move abroad to avoid paying their tax. So my question is this: when the Government launched the taxpayer-backed national loan guarantee scheme in 2012, why did the Prime Minister decide to allow companies based offshore in tax havens to apply for this form of state aid?
The Prime Minister
The national loan guarantee scheme was run by the banks, and it was the banks that chose what companies to fund. Let me say this: we have done more than any previous Government to ensure that companies pay their taxes. We inherited a situation from Labour in which foreigners were not paying stamp duty, companies were leaving Britain, and we were giving knighthoods to bankers who had failed Britain. All of that has changed.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Q14. This week is the anniversary of the great storm that ripped up the railway line at Dawlish in my constituency. I thank the Prime Minister and Network Rail for their very fast action to restore the line. Will he confirm his ongoing commitment to the South West rail link and the future funding for it?
The Prime Minister
First, let me join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the orange army that did such a fantastic job at Dawlish in getting that line back on track in such a short time. As she knows, we have also committed a further £30 million towards resilience and protection this year, but, more importantly, we are working with the South West Peninsula rail task force to bring together all the strategic and local transport schemes. I am absolutely determined that the south-west will have strong connections—road, rail and air—with the rest of the country, and those connections are absolutely vital to our long-term plan.
Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
As the House knows, the Government established this inquiry so that we could get to the bottom of whether important institutions—public sector bodies as well as non- state organisations—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
In November, in my last statement to the House about the inquiry, I said that in appointing two chairmen who had failed to win the trust of survivors, we had got things wrong. I said, as we worked out how to move forward, that we would listen to survivors and their representatives, and that if we stay patient and work together we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to find out what has happened in the past and what is still happening now, and to stop it happening in the future.
Since my last statement, I have held meetings with young survivors, adult survivors and groups that represent thousands of survivors in total. During those meetings, many people shared their experiences no matter how painful or how difficult it was to speak out. In doing so, the young survivors displayed immense courage, as did the older survivors who showed me how abuse that has taken place decades ago can feel like it took place yesterday, and how they have had to live with the consequences of that abuse for the whole of their adult lives. I am grateful to all of them.
Throughout those meetings, for every person who told their story, there was one common goal: to save others from the abuse that they had suffered. So let me be clear: I am now more determined than ever to expose the people behind these despicable crimes; the people and institutions that knew about the abuse but did not act and that failed to help when it was their duty—sometimes their very purpose—to do so; and the people and institutions that, in some cases, positively covered up evidence of abuse.
Other common themes emerged from those meetings and from the wider feedback that survivors have given me. Although there is no single point of view for the many thousands who have suffered—and that means that not every survivor will agree with everything that I announce today—there is a remarkable degree of consensus on what is needed for this inquiry as it goes about its important work.
Survivors have been clear about the type of chairman who would command their confidence. They have said that they want to see powers of compulsion to make sure all witnesses give evidence, and that we need to revise the inquiry’s terms of reference. They have raised the importance of help and support as this inquiry triggers memories that cause great pain, and, finally, they have emphasised the importance of prosecuting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes where evidence emerges.
I will turn first to the matter of the chairman. After my previous statement, the Home Office received more than 150 nominations from survivors, their representatives, MPs and members of the public. The Home Office also contacted Commonwealth countries, via the Foreign Office, to identify any suitable candidates. Each and every name was assessed against a set of criteria, incorporating the views of survivors on the most important factors. The criteria included: the appropriate skills to carry out this complex task; experience of the subject matter; and the absence of any direct links to any individual about whom people might have concerns, or any institution or organisation that might fall under the scope of the inquiry. A copy of the criteria will today be placed in the House Library and published in full on the gov.uk website.
Following an initial sift, due diligence checks were carried out on all the remaining names, which included academics, social workers, people from the charitable sector and a significant number of judges and members of the legal profession. The list was narrowed down to a shortlist of those who matched the set of criteria and were most suited to taking on the undoubtedly challenging role. I then took the views of a small group of survivors, all members of larger groups, who represent more than 100,000 individual survivors.
As the House will remember, during the debate on 22 January I said that I would reach my decision by the end of January and update the House shortly thereafter. Based on the clear feedback from survivors, and the assessment of the nominations against the agreed criteria, I can tell the House that I plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as the new chairman of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
Justice Goddard is a judge of the High Court of New Zealand. She is a highly respected member of the judiciary who has been at the forefront of criminal law and procedure. As chairman of New Zealand’s Independent Police Conduct Authority, she conducted an inquiry into the policing of child abuse in New Zealand, and she is also a member of the United Nations sub-committee on prevention of torture. She will bring a wealth of expertise to the role of chairman and, crucially, will be as removed as possible from the organisations and institutions that might become the focus of the inquiry.
I can confirm that I have discussed Justice Goddard’s appointment with the shadow Home Secretary, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her constructive comments and bipartisan approach. The House will also remember that I agreed with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that the nominated panel chairman would attend a pre-appointment hearing before the Home Affairs Committee, which will bring further transparency to the appointment process. I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee, has agreed that this will take place on 11 February. I have asked the Committee to publish its report as soon as possible.
I will now turn to the form of the inquiry. As I told the Home Affairs Committee on 15 December, I am clear that the inquiry should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. I also said there were three ways to do that: first, by establishing a royal commission; secondly, by converting the current inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, subject to consultation with the chairman once appointed; or, thirdly, by setting up a new statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act.
Having taken in-depth legal advice and discussed the options with survivors, I have concluded that a royal commission would not have the same robustness in law as a statutory inquiry. In particular, it would not have the same clarity over its powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. I have decided not to convert the current inquiry, because doing so would not address the concerns of survivors about the degree of transparency in the original appointments process. I have therefore decided upon the third option of establishing a new statutory inquiry with a panel.
I want to make it clear that that is by no means a criticism of the current panel members, who were selected on the basis of their expertise and commitment to getting to the truth about child abuse in this country. The fact that the panel is being dissolved has nothing to do with their ability or integrity, and I want to place on the record my gratitude to them for the work they have done so far. I have asked the panel to produce a report on their work so far, which I am sure will provide valuable assistance to the incoming chairman.
In order to make sure that the appointment of the new panel is as transparent as possible, I will publish in full the criteria by which each new member will be selected and place a copy in the House Library and on gov.uk. I hope that the original members and the expert adviser to the panel, Professor Alexis Jay, will put themselves forward to be considered against those criteria if they so wish. I can confirm that Ben Emmerson QC will remain as counsel to the inquiry. I will wish to discuss the make-up of the new panel with Justice Goddard, but I am clear that each member must have the right skills and expertise to do the job, satisfy the statutory requirements of impartiality, and command the confidence of survivors.
So the process is being reset, and that means that I will also revisit the terms of reference. In accordance with the Inquiries Act, these will need to be discussed with Justice Goddard, but I want to assure survivors and the House that I have heard the strong call that the inquiry’s remit should go back further than the current time limit of 1970. There are, however, good reasons for confining the inquiry’s scope to England and Wales. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey are already under way, while the Scottish Government have announced their own inquiry into child abuse—but I shall discuss this with the new chairman. In the event that the geographical scope remains the same, I propose that a clear protocol is agreed to make sure that no information falls through the cracks and that no people or institutions escape scrutiny, censure or justice.
I wish once more to reassure the House that the Official Secrets Act will not be a bar to giving evidence to this inquiry. I am clear that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of Government and access to all relevant information, including secret information where appropriate. I shall be writing to Secretaries of State to ask for their full co-operation, and I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to all Departments and agencies, and to public sector organisations, including local authorities, setting out the need for full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry.
I should now like to turn to the important issue of support. Survivors have fought hard for this inquiry, and they have done so knowing the intense emotional toll it will take. Charities have already reported a huge increase in demand for their services as more and more people come forward, many for the first time. That is why, in December, I announced a £2 million fund available to non-statutory organisations that had seen an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child abuse inquiry. A further £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales was also announced. I am pleased to announce that these funds are now available and organisations can now bid for them. Going forward, further support will be needed for those who wish to give evidence to the inquiry and the many thousands of people who may be affected by its work. It is essential that these people are given the help they need, and I expect appropriate Government funding to be made available at the next spending review.
The final issue survivors have raised with me is the need to do everything we can to ensure that the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are prosecuted wherever possible, and of course I share that aim. I can confirm that a co-ordinated national policing response will link directly into the inquiry and will be able to follow up any lead the inquiry uncovers that requires a policing response. This will be led by Simon Bailey, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigations as part of Operation Hydrant, which will co-ordinate all child abuse investigations concerning people of public prominence or those offences that took place in institutional settings. The Hydrant team will be responsible for the recording of all referrals from the inquiry that relate to potentially criminal abuse and failures to act. It will also oversee the quality of responses from police forces to any requests for information from the panel. It is also important that there is a central point of contact within the Crown Prosecution Service for any referrals resulting from the inquiry. I can confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has appointed her legal adviser, Neil Moore, to this vital role.
There is one separate but related matter on which I promised to update the House. As part of the review that the Home Office commissioned of Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC last July, we asked a number of other Government Departments, as well as the Security Service and the police, to undertake a careful search of their records. Following reports in the press last month about a Cabinet Office file title listed in the national archives, the Cabinet Office has undertaken urgent work to establish why this file was not identified as part of its original search for the Wanless and Whittam review, and whether it was a duplicate of a file that was held at the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. This work has established that it was not an exact duplicate; the two files are different, but contain much of the same material. The Cabinet Office file has additional material that the Home Office file does not, and vice versa. Some of this additional Cabinet Office material falls within in the scope of the Wanless and Whittam review. My officials have since spoken to Peter Wanless and summarised the additional information it contains, and he has confirmed that it would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
None the less, the file should have been identified when the Home Office first asked the Cabinet Office to conduct searches in connection with the Wanless and Whittam review. My right hon. Friend Minister for the Cabinet Office will today table a written ministerial statement explaining that as a result of the discovery of the file the Cabinet Office has undertaken additional searches of its papers and files. As a result, Cabinet Office officials have identified a small number of additional files that should also have been identified and passed to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam last summer. I have said that they must be shared with Wanless and Whittam immediately, with the Goddard inquiry and Hart inquiry, should they wish to see them, and with the police. My right hon. Friend has agreed.
It is imperative that the whole Government co-operate fully with the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse and provide full access to any information that is requested. I have of course asked for these files, in common with all other relevant documents held by Government, to be made available to the inquiry so that it leaves no stone unturned in its bid to get the truth.
That brings me to my final point. I have said before and I shall say again that what we have seen so far in Rotherham, Oxford, Greater Manchester and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will give a statement on Louise Casey’s report on Rotherham borough council, which will contain further evidence of its failure to protect vulnerable children. With every passing day and every new revelation, it is clear that the sexual abuse of children has taken place and is still taking place on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend.
What we do know is that the authorities have in different ways let down too many children and adult survivors. In many cases, people in positions of authority have abused their power. Now, those of us in privileged positions of public service must show that we have listened, we have heard, we have learned and we will come together not to avoid difficult questions but to expose hard truths. Most importantly, we will keep in mind the people on whose behalf we seek justice, the survivors of these appalling crimes.
On that note, I end by thanking survivors for their patience, their determination and their willingness to help us get this right. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Savile, the BBC and the national health service, the north Wales care homes, Rochdale, the Elm guest house and too many others: too many institutions that failed to listen to children, failed to protect them, turned a blind eye while they were abused and, in some cases, even covered up awful crimes. Those who endured abuse need justice. They want the truth, they want answers about what will change for the future and they need support. We all want to know that abusers and criminals are being prosecuted and stopped, that children are being heard and kept safe and that the same mistakes are not being made over and over again. That is why the inquiry is so important, why it must work to get the truth and also why it must set out the reforms we need for the future. It is why we will support it and why we wish Justice Lowell Goddard well in getting it swiftly under way.
It has now been 213 days since the Home Secretary first announced an inquiry and more than two years since we first called for it. It has now had three false starts under the first two chosen chairs, as well as the process of panel hearings that the Home Secretary launched in November and that she has now had to abandon.
We cannot afford for the Home Secretary to fail on this again, so we need to be clear that the previous problems have been resolved. First, the two previous chairs went because the Home Office did not apply due diligence and the Home Secretary did not consult survivors. I welcome the fact that she has now met many groups of survivors. Will she assure us that there has been due diligence? I strongly welcome, too, the additional support for survivors and I hope that she will keep the level of support under review and talk to the Department of Health about the support that it will need to provide. How will she ensure that survivors have an ongoing voice in shaping the inquiry, perhaps learning the lessons from Northern Ireland and other countries?
Secondly, the inquiry was repeatedly not put on a sustainable footing and concern was raised about its independence from the Home Office. Making the inquiry statutory is welcome and is something that we called for. Have the counsel to and staff of the inquiry been appointed by the Home Office or by the chair, and what will their relationship be with the Home Office?
Thirdly, there has been considerable confusion over the role of the panel. Can she assure us that it will continue to include survivors and explain what its role will be? Is this a panel inquiry chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard or a judicial inquiry by Justice Goddard, advised by the panel?
Fourthly, the scope and purpose of the inquiry has not previously been clear. I agree that it must consider the institutional failure and make recommendations for the future. I also agree that individual crimes must be investigated by the police, rather than the panel, and I strongly welcome the greater clarity she has announced today about how criminal investigations will be handled and co-ordinated by the police and prosecution. What about the continued question of whether there was a cover-up in Whitehall or Westminster of very serious crimes over many decades? Extremely serious allegations have been made, but they have not been investigated.
Today, the Home Secretary has had to tell the House that more files were missing from the Wanless review, including files on briefings to the Prime Minister of the day, which came to light only when something was discovered by accident in the National Archives. Have the Foreign Office, MI6, Downing street and other Departments now been asked to look at their files, and why was that not done before, when the Wanless review started?
The Home Secretary will know, too, that no one has looked more widely at allegations that have been made about cover-ups or decisions not to investigate or prosecute in that period. Will she clarify whether she expects the Goddard inquiry to look in detail at those allegations and whether it will have the investigative capacity to do so? For example, will it be able to look at top-secret information held by the security agencies? If that is not its purpose, who will pursue that investigation? It is clear that people will expect us to get the truth of what happened within Government.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and social services have the resources to deal with these serious cases right now? The current police investigations are immensely important and she will know that there are grave allegations in the papers only today that must be pursued. The police must have the ability to pursue serious investigations wherever they lead, but forces have said that they are struggling to cope with the cases that are now rightly coming forward, both current and past cases, particularly given the scale of officer cuts that they have experienced. We know that there are long and dangerous delays, too, in the National Crime Agency in dealing with online abuse. The Home Secretary rightly talked about her renewed determination to tackle the problem, and this is the area in which we need to act urgently. What is she doing to respond to the extremely serious concerns that police forces and social services still lack both the capacity and the policies to investigate and keep children safe today?
For too long, this appalling crime has been ignored. Children who called for help were not heard and too many of them are still not being listened to. I know that the whole House will want the inquiry to work, to be thorough and effective and to support the announcements that the Home Secretary made today.
The Home Secretary concluded by asking for patience, but she will know better than anyone that the inquiry has gone wrong too many times already and that we still need assurance that the measures will be in place to protect children today. She will know that patience is running out and that we need action to support child protection now and to get this inquiry finally and properly under way so that it can get to the truth and provide the justice and reforms we need to keep all our children safe. The whole House will unite behind ensuring that that can happen.
Mrs May
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her commitment to the inquiry. One of the issues raised with me by survivors is that they want to be certain there is cross-party support for the inquiry so they can be confident that it will continue. From what she has said, I think we can give a very clear message that the whole House is of one accord in saying that the inquiry should be able to do what we all want—to get to the truth.
The right hon. Lady asked about the panel hearings. She said that I had set up the listening events. Of course, I did not set them up; they were set up by the independent inquiry panel. The panel decided to stop them in the middle of January, partly in expectation that a decision would be made about how the inquiry was being taken forward. I have been very clear that I have asked the panel to report on the work it has done so far. That will ensure that nothing undertaken by the original inquiry is lost in the process, and that its work can be taken forward, as appropriate, to the new panel inquiry.
I assure the right hon. Lady that greater due diligence has taken place in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, including lengthy interviews with the individual concerned. On the role and ongoing voice of survivors, I have been very clear that it is important for the panel inquiry to be informed by survivors. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will therefore be an important part of the panel inquiry.
The right hon. Lady asked about advisers to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the possibility of individuals being advisers—or assessors, as they are called—to a panel. I will explore with Justice Goddard how we can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is truly heard in the inquiry’s work.
The inquiry will be an inquiry panel, with Justice Goddard as its chairman. Appointments of staff to the inquiry will be undertaken in consultation with Justice Goddard. The staff—the secretariat—are and will be independent of the Home Office.
The right hon. Lady referred to the issues around the cover-up in Whitehall and Westminster. I have been clear about the files, and we will renew our efforts to ensure that proper searches are undertaken across Government. When I last made a statement to the House, I was very clear that I could not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there has been no cover-up. One of the things that the inquiry will look at, and which I expect it to be able to unearth, is whether there was a cover-up in the past. That is important for us all, but particularly for survivors and those involved in the acts that might have been subject to such a cover-up.
Another of the issues relates to investigative capacity. The formal process is that I will discuss the make-up of the panel with Justice Goddard. We have already had some discussions about the investigative experience of panel members to make sure that they can do what is necessary in their work. As I said in my statement, we have clearly told the Security Service and the police that information they have relevant to the inquiry should be brought forward to it.
At one stage the right hon. Lady said that the police do not have the policies to investigate. I have to say to her that the police do have the policies and powers to investigate. One of the issues in the recent Rotherham case, sadly, was that the police had the ability to investigate, but—I am afraid because of what I have already described as dereliction of duty—they did not investigate. We must deal with that attitude as much as anything else. That is why we are working with the national policing lead to put in extra support for investigations across the country to make sure that such investigations can go where they need to go and can identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I commend the Home Secretary on her announcement? There can be doubt of the integrity and thoroughness of the approach she has announced. I am sure that, even now, people are searching for unsuitable links to Justice Goddard. Does she agree that, realistically, this is the last chance saloon for this essential inquiry? It is essential for everyone to row in behind the inquiry, which will need robust support. Justice Goddard will need robust support from the Home Secretary, the Government and the Opposition, and everyone who wants to get to the bottom of the truth in this sordid matter.
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him and a number of other MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] He is in a different place from normal. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have all been particularly active in dealing with this issue, and I commend them for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is absolutely right. My intention, hope and expectation is that the inquiry will now be able to get up and running, and to undertake the work it needs to do to bring truth and justice to the people who, sadly, have suffered from these terrible crimes. As I said in my statement, what I am announcing today will not be supported 100% by everybody. I hope, however, that everybody accepts that we need to get the inquiry under way, and that we need to support those involved—Justice Goddard and the panel members, when they are selected—to ensure that they can do the job we all want them to do.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the chair, since I will be at the pre-appointment hearing next Tuesday. May I say to the Home Secretary that although the inquiry—I hope it will get under way very shortly—should obviously be as thorough as possible, it should not go on endlessly for years and become another Chilcot? The people who have suffered so much, about whom the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary spoke very eloquently, deserve a conclusion. That is why it is so essential for the inquiry to come to a conclusion well within, say, 12 months.
Mrs May
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the inquiry coming to a conclusion well within 12 months. I think that it will take longer than 12 months, but, as he said, it is important that it does not go on endlessly, seemingly being pushed ever and ever further into the future, with no report. This will of course be for the chairman of the inquiry to determine, but my own view is that it would be helpful to set a date by which a report will be made, even if at that point the inquiry says that it needs to do further work in certain areas. People need to see that there will be a report. Indeed, the inquiry will need to consider how to keep people updated on an ongoing basis during its work so that they do not feel that it is just going on behind closed doors.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Foreign Office recently turned a blind eye to child abuse in St Helena. We are also aware of the recent banning of the American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from investigating child abuse in Jersey. In both cases, that was done by UK Government authorities in recent years; I am not arguing that Ministers were involved. Are those cases within the inquiry’s terms of reference?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on the abuse that may have taken place in both those geographical areas. I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him. Work is of course already being done in relation to Jersey. It would not be appropriate for this inquiry to look at Jersey and St Helena. As I have said, I expect the inquiry to confine itself to England and Wales. I will of course need to discuss that with the chairman, but that is my expectation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary will know of my interest in this matter, because of my 10 years as Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. May I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)? If this is seen as being kicked into the long grass, a lot of people will be very disappointed.
A major inquiry such as this one has to be based on good policing, for which resources must be provided, as well as good quality research. Some of the evidence from Operation Pallial is causing us to worry about that. I want every person guilty of child abuse to be prosecuted and punished, but such inquiries always include false allegations of abuse that destroy people’s lives, often because such people are put on bail and never charged. In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, I saw the lives of social workers, teachers and head teachers destroyed by false allegations. Can we get the balance right in how the criminal justice system works?
Mrs May
It is obviously important that we get the balance right. I am very clear that it is not for the inquiry to investigate individual allegations that could lead to criminal charges being brought. Those are matters for the police. I have indicated that under Operation Hydrant, arrangements will be put in place to look at the quality of the response of police forces across the country to ensure that nobody falls between the various stools of the different inquiries.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about people who find themselves on bail, but who are not charged. The Government intend to deal with that issue through the changes that we have proposed. We are looking at a limit for bail, except in exceptional circumstances, because I recognise the concern for people who are put on bail for many months, but who are not charged. That is the case across a range of crimes and is not confined to child sexual abuse. Such people can be in limbo for a considerable time. That is why the Government are looking at the whole question of how long bail should last.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Many people will warmly welcome the progress that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today. I commend her for the listening process that she undertook before the announcement. My constituent Tom Perry, who has spoken out bravely, met her and came to my surgery last week to give me positive feedback about the meeting.
As the Home Secretary knows, I have raised before the matter of resources for organisations that provide support to the survivors of abuse. I would like to know that, despite the announcement today, she will keep those resources under review, so that if the £4.8 million that has been announced is not enough, more funds will be available.
Mrs May
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken an interest in this issue. I was pleased to meet her constituent, which I have done on more than one occasion. On resources, we are looking ahead to a new spending review. As I said in my statement, I will work with ministerial colleagues across Government to look at the various aspects of this business, including the support that is needed for victims and survivors, and not just at the aspects that relate to the Home Office. We will take that forward into the comprehensive spending review to ensure that funding is available to provide what is necessary for those who will be affected by the very fact of the inquiry and by coming forward. There will be many people for whom the inquiry will raise difficult memories, and support needs to be available.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I particularly welcome the statutory nature of the inquiry. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about whether there will be a senior police assessor or adviser who can act as a liaison between the ongoing police investigations and the inquiry to ensure that one is not allowed to frustrate the other?
The Home Secretary and all hon. Members have used repeatedly the word “survivor”, which is wonderful. May I make a quick plea to the press and the media who are following this debate and this issue to use the word “survivor” and not the word “victim”, because every time they use that word, it adds to the hurt and the disrespect?
Mrs May
On the first point that the hon. Lady raised, as I said in answer to another question, we will have to look at the investigative capacity that needs to be available to the inquiry panel, but under Operation Hydrant, Chief Constable Simon Bailey will work to ensure that there are appropriate links between the inquiry and the police investigations. What is important is that nothing falls between the various exercises and that information is shared appropriately between the investigations and the inquiry panel.
On the second point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about language. It is important that we use the language of survivors or, in some cases, of victims and survivors. There is another element in respect of language. Sometimes people refer to “historic” cases of child abuse. Many of these cases took place in the past, but for those who suffered them, they are not historic—they live with them every single day. I say to the House and to all outside who comment on this matter that we should be very careful about the language we use. We should not use inappropriate terms that are hurtful and that could cause harm to individuals.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arriving at the right solution to the heinous, dangerous and difficult situation that she has been faced with. May I say on behalf of those of us who campaigned for a 2005 Act inquiry to be applied to this matter because of our experience of other 2005 Act inquiries that she has done exactly the right thing? May I also say what a good move it is to ensure that Ben Emmerson stays as counsel to the inquiry? This is a tremendous move in the right direction and I am certain that my right hon. Friend is completely right.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We received a very clear message that the inquiry needed statutory powers, which is why I have brought them forward. It is important that the inquiry is able to compel people to give evidence and that appropriate sanctions are in place in relation to that. I thank him for his comments, given his experience in this area.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. Very sadly, a constituent of mine was horribly abused throughout his teenage years at Highgate Wood school in the London borough of Haringey. That led to a conviction last summer. There are suggestions that there were other examples of abuse at that school and in the London borough of Haringey. Will that matter fall within the scope of the inquiry?
Mrs May
The inquiry will look at abuse that has taken place in state institutions and non-state institutions. It will look at why it was possible for that abuse to take place. Those who are in authority in a school have a duty to protect the children and not to abuse them. The inquiry will look at whether the duty of care was exercised properly by people in those institutions, and at what lessons we need to learn to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the future.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Mr Speaker will not be surprised to hear that my position as an ethnic minority immigrant from New Zealand adds to my support for the statement. One thing that I have noticed in New Zealand is that it suffers from “tall poppy syndrome”. That came through at the last election in New Zealand, when very unpleasant, anonymous accusations were made. I suspect that someone with the standing and career of Justice Goddard will have been the subject of such false and probably anonymous accusations. If my right hon. Friend is aware of any such accusations, can she kill them dead now?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the appointment of a New Zealand judge. It became apparent during the due diligence process that there is a blog with an accusation against Justice Lowell Goddard relating to a potential cover-up. I have spoken to her and to New Zealand’s Attorney-General about it, and I have been assured that there is absolutely no truth to the allegation. That information was shared with a number of survivors and they were comfortable with the explanation that was given. I am clear not only that Justice Goddard has the necessary experience in this area, but, crucially, that her track record shows—for example, in the work that she did to look at police conduct in these matters—that she is willing to go where the evidence takes her, without fear or favour.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Home Secretary for the discussion so far. I welcome the widening and deepening of the inquiry, and the renewal of the drive to “expose hard truths”, as she rightly put it. Indeed, some very disturbing truths can be expected.
I welcome the fact that the remit will go back further, but I worry about its not being extended beyond England and Wales, because that might not be enough. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland is doing some very good work. However, we have a place called Kincora, which has been a running sore for 40 years. Although some of what is said may be rumour, there are deep suspicions that the security services, the Official Secrets Act and all sorts of things were used to cover up some very nasty practices in that place. Indeed, there are suggestions that it was used to compromise loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles in the ’70s and early ’80s. I plead with the Home Secretary to include the Kincora situation, because the outworkings of Kincora extend beyond the shores of Northern Ireland and involve key organisations and parts of the state.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the inquiry, and I have considered whether it should cover Kincora. I came to the view that it is appropriate for that issue to be considered by the Hart inquiry, and that process is up and running. We must ensure that clear protocols are in place so that any information or evidence that comes forward that links the two inquiries or relates to people across them both can be shared properly, and so that full and proper consideration is given to those issues. As I said earlier, all parts of the government, including the Security Service, should make available any information that they hold that is relevant to either the Goddard inquiry or to the Hart inquiry into Kincora.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement. Justice Lowell Goddard is an inspired appointment in the best traditions of Commonwealth appointments to major inquiries in this country, so there is historical precedence for that. Some survivors groups have brought up the issue of a royal commission with the power to compel witnesses. Will the panel that the Home Secretary is setting up have that power?
Mrs May
The panel is not being set up under a royal commission, although we did consider that and a number of people pointed to the Australian experience. A royal commission can be similar to a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, but in some aspects it does not have quite the same legal certainty. That is why I decided to go down the route of a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, and the chairman of the panel will have power to compel witnesses—it is clear that everybody feels that that power is necessary for the inquiry to be conducted properly.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Home Secretary and I have corresponded on this issue, and I raised it in November in the Chamber although I am still not clear about the answer. In Wales, the Wales Office and North Wales police were suspected of a cover-up. I know that documents went missing in north Wales; there were statements and letters and so on, and we still do not have answers on where those are and who is looking into that. Will the Home Secretary assure me and the people of Wales that somebody in this inquiry will consider what went on in Wales at that time?
Mrs May
The inquiry will cover Wales as well as England, and it will be for the chairman and the panel to determine what issues they wish to consider. I expect that any evidence held by Members of the House, or others, or suggestions for issues that need to be considered by the inquiry, should be forwarded to the inquiry secretariat so that they can be properly considered by the chairman and the panel. It is possible to bring about a prosecution, as we saw in Operation Pallial and as a result of work done by the National Crime Agency when looking into issues in north Wales. The issues in Wales will certainly be covered.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her determination to see a statutory inquiry set up, as well as her plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard and her recognition of the advantages of having such a chair—Justice Goddard is a judge and has a background in inquiring into child abuse, human rights and police complaints. Will the Home Secretary consult the chair—if the appointment is cleared—about how we can strengthen the powers, sanctions and directions issued by the Independent Police Complaints Commission? It is not good enough that our police and the directorate of professional standards can blatantly disregard the IPCC’s rulings and recommendations, and for our police to consider themselves a law unto themselves.
Mrs May
The Government have made a number of changes to the IPCC which mean that fewer investigations of a serious nature will be carried out by the police. Serious and sensitive complaints against the police will be dealt with by the IPCC, and we are looking more generally at the complaints system and disciplinary system within the police. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am certainly willing to refer it to the chair of the inquiry for consideration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for confirming that the Hart inquiry will take place in Northern Ireland. Will that inquiry have the power to request those living on the UK mainland to attend it? If it is discovered that those involved in the inquiries have been in both Belfast and London, will evidence be exchanged between those inquiries?
Mrs May
It is certainly the intention to establish protocols between the inquiries so that evidence can be exchanged between them where appropriate, and evidence held on the mainland that is relevant to the Hart inquiry should be made available to that inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific point about the powers of the Hart inquiry in relation to individuals resident on the mainland, and if I may I will check the answer and write to him to ensure that I give him an accurate reply.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her commitment to getting this right, particularly in committing to support for survivors. She is right to identify the emotional toll that the inquiry will take. When survivors gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee they were worried that financial barriers would prevent some people from giving evidence. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that child abuse survivors and organisations that help and support them will get the financial support they need to ensure that they are not excluded from giving evidence to the inquiry?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend a degree of assurance about that. As I said, we are making money available to groups that support survivors who are affected by the child abuse inquiry, especially when the number of requests and calls on their time and resources have increased significantly as a result of the announcement of the inquiry. The inquiry panel and chairman will need to consider how to ensure that arrangements are in place, so that those who wish to give evidence are able to do so and do not feel that there is a barrier to that.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Will thought be given to setting up a system where there is ongoing communication between survivors and the inquiry, so that the survivors maintain their confidence in the inquiry and its processes?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises an important point. In a sense, this inquiry is like no other before it in terms of the subject matter it is dealing with, and it must obviously maintain the confidence of survivors. Information and communication will be an important issue for the inquiry panel, and I certainly intend that to be addressed by the chairman at an early stage.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her obvious commitment to getting this inquiry right. People are concerned that there has not been enough co-ordination between the different police investigations around the country—that comes up time and again. In her statement she mentioned Simon Bailey’s work in charge of Operation Hydrant. As she said, his job is to follow up any lead that the inquiry uncovers, and to be responsible for recording all referrals from the inquiry that relate to criminal abuse. Will she reassure the House that Simon Bailey’s job will involve ensuring proper co-ordination between those inquiries, and that there is not just a liaison with the inquiry but between the various police outfits that are already up and running?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. At an earlier stage, Chief Constable Simon Bailey raised with me his concern to ensure that investigations are properly joined up between police forces, and that information that might be helpful to an investigation in one force is not held by another force and not passed on. Part of his work in Operation Hydrant will be to co-ordinate all child sexual abuse investigations that concern people of public prominence or institutional settings, and he will also consider the responses from police forces to the inquiry to ensure that they are of suitable quality.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I welcome the statement and hope it represents a fresh start for victims, whose confidence has been badly shaken in recent months. In particular, I welcome the reassurances given on the Official Secrets Act and the Secretary of State’s letter confirming that those reassurances will also apply to people giving evidence to the Hart inquiry. She is aware of my concerns about Kincora and the allegations that MI5 was involved in a cover-up. When she says she will discuss the inquiry’s jurisdictional limits with the new chairman, can she assure us that she will do so with an open mind? Can she also assure us that those who wish to give evidence who are covered by the Official Secrets Act and require documentation to support their evidence will, along with the inquiry itself, have access to that documentation?
Mrs May
There are arrangements in place to enable former Crown servants to give evidence to such inquiries, notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act. I have been clear with the House about my own view regarding the geographical extent, but of course the chairman will look at this with a fresh mind, so the matter will be discussed with her. I should point out, however, that the Hart inquiry is up and running and that the powers and jurisdictions of the two inquiries—in terms of lessons learned and recommendations—are different.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome the statement and action taken by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that few crimes are as repugnant as sexual abuse. However, just as we have a responsibility towards victims, so we have a responsibility towards those accused of involvement. Since the process began, there have been two unfounded claims against people, and I have a constituent whose life has been personally and financially ruined because of an unfounded accusation. Will we ensure not only that the guilty are brought to justice but that innocent people named in the inquiry do not experience the same problems as many of the survivors?
Mrs May
It is important that when allegations are made about individuals, they are properly investigated and clarified; that where appropriate, charges and prosecutions are brought; and that it is made clear where individuals named are found not guilty. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point that great care must be taken in dealing with allegations, and we are at pains to put in place appropriate processes, in relation to the inquiry and the police, to ensure that proper investigations take place.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I hope that this proves a fresh start and leads to a satisfactory outcome. What restrictions, if any, will be applied to members of the now dissolved panel talking about their experiences or sharing information obtained through being panel members?
Mrs May
The panel members were subject to a confidentiality agreement when they signed up. I am conscious that in the listening events they held, some people will have given very personal information and, as was pointed out, some of them might not wish that information to go forward to the new inquiry—which is what I have asked the panel to do for the report. We will work with survivors and others to ensure that if anybody has those concerns, their information will not go forward to the new panel.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The secrecy that surrounds child sexual abuse makes it particularly difficult to investigate and prosecute. Does the Home Secretary agree that members of the public could have an important role to play—not just those with personal or direct involvement, but those who might have information—and that such people should come forward to say what they have seen or what they know, to add to the body of evidence and enable this investigation to succeed?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We tend to talk about survivors coming forward to give evidence, but there might be people who are aware of things that took place who are not themselves survivors but who might have seen things happening, perhaps in a children’s home or some other setting. I would encourage all such people to come forward to give evidence, because it will be valuable to the inquiry.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Will the inquiry look into all inquiries, including Operation Rose in Northumberland, which has become known as a big whitewash?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I commend the Home Secretary for taking up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) some months ago of looking to the Commonwealth for an unquestionably independent chair. In particular, I commend the Home Secretary for the close co-ordination she has outlined between the inquiry and Operation Hydrant.
It has been a difficult journey since the Home Secretary first agreed to hold this inquiry. What lessons has she learned for the benefit of other Ministers needing to commission an inquiry?
Mrs May
I have learned the importance of listening to survivors. In the past, these sorts of inquiries often involved authorities doing something to people—if you like—and making the decisions. With this inquiry, we are seeing the importance of victims and survivors being part of the process. It is important that their voices be heard by, and can input into, the inquiry. It should not just be authorities deciding what happens; those with experience of the issue should be taken along and given a voice, so that their feelings and expertise can be considered.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Following on from that last question, last July, the Home Secretary made the decision to set up a non-statutory panel inquiry. Today, she is setting up a statutory inquiry. Why did she make the wrong decision last July?
Mrs May
I have said to the House before that I took the decision to set up the inquiry in the way I did last July because of the very good experience of the Hillsborough panel inquiry, which had done an excellent job and came forward with a hard-hitting report, leading to further action and now inquests into the events at Hillsborough. It was a good model that those involved felt had allowed all the evidence to be taken and appropriate recommendations to be made. In the light of all the discussions and concerns, however, people have said that the inquiry should have statutory powers, and so I took this decision. I could have stood here and carried on with the previous panel inquiry, but I was willing to say, “No, it was wrong to do it that way. I am willing to start again.” That was the right thing to do. I hope all Members agree.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House. She has shown us the great courtesy of keeping the House regularly informed on this matter. The difference between an average Minister and a great Minister is that when a great Minister gets something wrong, they correct their mistake, and that is what she has done.
What will happen if a witness is compelled to give evidence but tries to use the defence that they cannot disclose the information because it would break the Official Secrets Act? What is the situation then?
Mrs May
There are arrangements in place for authorities to enable people to give evidence, notwithstanding that it would break the Official Secrets Act. This issue is regularly raised, however, and I will ensure that the strongest possible arrangements are in place to ensure it can happen.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the foundations the Home Secretary has laid for the review. One local issue in north Yorkshire concerns the number of responsible bodies. I have spoken to victims, and they have a problem with the lack of co-ordination and the lack of training of the people dealing with the issue. In looking at funding and money, will she consider what help she can give to local organisations to work better and closer and in a more co-ordinated manner on child abuse and child exploitation?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises another important issue about how we deal with incidents currently taking place. I have been considering this matter along with a number of my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We have focused particularly on looking at what we can do in response to the Alexis Jay report on Rotherham, and my right hon. Friend is of course about to make his own statement on the Louise Casey inspection. The Government will come forward with a number of proposals that will hit at the very issues my hon. Friend has raised. He is right that we need to look at issues around training and co-ordination in respect of bodies looking at incidents, or potential incidents, of child sexual abuse today.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I very much welcome this measured statement. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there will be absolutely no hiding place—regardless of time, status or influence—for those involved in these abhorrent acts?
Mrs May
I am very clear that this inquiry should go where the evidence takes it and that there should be no hiding place for anybody. We should be very clear that the aim of this inquiry is to get to the truth—to find out what happened, but crucially also to learn the lessons to make sure that this cannot happen again.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement. What financial resources will be available to the panel inquiry? Will it have the finances it needs to allow the inquiry to go where it takes it, or will it face any constraints?
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Rotherham council.
Last August, Professor Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham described how vulnerable children have been repeatedly failed by a council paralysed by complacency, institutionalised political correctness and blatant failures of political and officer leadership.
With such serious documented failures, I told the House last September that it was clearly in the public interest to order a statutory inspection of Rotherham council. I appointed Louise Casey to undertake a formal best-value inspection of the council. Today, her inspection report has been laid before the House and published. I would like to thank Louise Casey and her inspection team for their hard work in producing this thorough report.
This report presents a disturbing picture of a council failing in its duty to protect vulnerable children and young people from harm. It reveals the council’s failure, both past and present, to accept, understand or combat the crimes of child sexual exploitation. It concludes that this culture of denial is intrinsic and has resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action taken against known perpetrators.
The report also confirms a complete failure of political and officer leadership in Rotherham. Let me outline some of the report’s conclusions. Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council. There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness that has cemented the council’s failures. Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or of upsetting community cohesion. The council is currently incapable of tackling its weakness without substantial intervention.
The council lacks political leadership. It is also directionless, and it is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be or how it will get there. It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members properly to represent the interests of local people. Some councillors have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or to their positions of responsibility. For example, the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.
Management is ineffective; there is no coherent senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive. There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around. There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in children’s services. Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and do not get translated into change.
In short, the report concludes that Rotherham council has failed its citizens, is failing to comply with the statutory best-value duty and it needs a fresh start. As a consequence of this conclusion, and in terms of statute, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best-value duty. It is failing in its duty to deliver quality local services for all and value for money to local taxpayers. I therefore need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am today writing to the council to ask if it wishes to make representations both on Louise Casey’s report and on the intervention package I am proposing.
My proposals are designed to give the council the new start it needs, and to put an immediate end to the council’s ongoing service and governance failings. To provide that new start, I am seeking to make an order under the Local Government Act 2000 to move Rotherham council to holding all-out elections in 2016 and every fourth year thereafter. The 2016 elections will be an opportunity for the people of Rotherham to renew the membership of their council, and to elect those in whom they can have confidence.
In the immediate term, I am minded to appoint commissioners who will provide new leadership, taking over the roles of the current wholly dysfunctional cabinet. I propose that these commissioners will initially exercise all the functions currently exercised by the cabinet—namely all the council’s executive functions. Their responsibilities will thus include children and young people’s services and adult social care. I propose that the commissioners will exercise other functions of the council where there can be no confidence in the present council’s ability to act responsibly.
Louise Casey’s report uncovered serious weaknesses in the council’s taxi licensing. Sufficient steps to ensure that only fit and proper persons are permitted to hold a taxi licence were not, and are not being, undertaken. There can be no confidence in the council’s licensing committee. I am minded that the commissioners should take control of all the council’s licensing functions. I also propose that the commissioners should have the functions of appointing the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer, and of nominating members to other bodies. I expect them, in exercising all their responsibilities, to have appropriate regard to any views that the council’s members may have on these matters.
It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham—particularly some of the most vulnerable in the borough—that I propose to take the wholly exceptional step of putting all those responsibilities, for a time, in the hands of commissioners who will be appointed by and accountable to me. My aim will be to return the responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible. From day one, the commissioners will have the role of considering and reporting to me what functions can be rolled back to the council, but only when they are confident that the functions will be exercised properly. I propose that, at the end of every quarter, they should review and report to me on what functions can be rolled back to ensure that there is a phased roll-back of functions throughout the intervention. My hope and expectation is that the roll-back can begin soon, and that after the 2016 elections major services can be returned, with the council resuming full responsibility for its range of services within four years.
As well as having the role of exercising the council’s functions, the commissioners will oversee and drive forward the service and governance improvements that the council will be required to undertake in order to comply with the statutory best-value duty. I propose to appoint a team of five commissioners who will exercise those functions jointly and severally. The team will consist of a lead commissioner to give overall leadership and direction to the intervention; a commissioner with a “managing director” role to lead the oversight of overall service and governance improvement, driving performance; a children’s commissioner, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who will be responsible for driving improvements in children’s services; and two further commissioners to support the work of the commission. I also propose to end taxpayer-funded reward for failure by requiring the council to stop special responsibility allowances for cabinet members without functions while commissioners are in post.
The council now has 14 days in which to make representations to me on the report and on my proposed intervention package. I will then carefully consider any representations that are made, and decide how to proceed. If I decide to intervene along these lines, I will make the necessary statutory directions under the Local Government Act 1999, and will appoint commissioners. I will also make the order under the 2000 Act. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to my making further directions if required. I will update the House on my conclusions in due course.
It is with a heavy heart that I am having to resort to such central intervention. The coalition Government are committed to strengthening local democracy and local accountability, but the voice of the victims must be clearly heard. The crimes committed against children are so appalling, and the council’s remedy is so utterly inadequate, that the Government cannot, in good conscience, turn a blind eye. The exceptional circumstances justify the intervention of Whitehall so that we can make the council address its failings and prevent what has happened from ever happening again. I believe that the public, in Rotherham and throughout the country, would expect nothing less.
The intervention package that I am proposing is broad and wide-ranging, and can be justified only in the most exceptional case. Rotherham is, I believe, such a case—a truly rare case, in which the children of Rotherham have been so badly let down by those who were elected to serve them. Councils throughout England have, on the whole, a good record of service, and are looking after their local communities. They are the heart of localism. That is something to protect and to cherish. The purpose of the action that I have proposed today is to restore good local governance to Rotherham, so that people can have confidence in their council again, and can take great pride in their borough.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the way in which he has handled this difficult matter. I also add my thanks to Louise Casey and her inspection team for the work that they have done.
Last September, the Jay report exposed the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. Today, once again, our thoughts are with the victims and the horror to which they were subjected. The report provided evidence that the council, together with other public bodies, had failed in its duty to protect Rotherham’s children. It was therefore right for the Secretary of State to establish the inquiry that has reported today.
Louise Casey’s report is, frankly, damning. It reveals very serious institutional failings, continuing denial of the problem, a damaging culture of sexism, bullying and discomfort about race, a failure to address past weaknesses, a greater interest in protecting the council’s reputation than, apparently, in protecting children, a lack of scrutiny and failure to challenge other agencies, and ineffective leadership. If we are to move forward, everyone involved must accept the truth. It is clear that the council has not yet done so, and, as a result, does not currently have the capacity to heal itself. I agree with the Secretary of State that a fresh start is needed, and I therefore welcome the statement that has been issued by Rotherham council’s cabinet in the last few minutes. It reads as follows:
“As a cabinet…we must take responsibility. We therefore announce our intention to resign our positions as soon as transitional arrangements can be put in place.”
In the light of that, I support the course of action that the Secretary of State has just announced, and, in particular, the sending in of commissioners to take over the functions of the cabinet. As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, it is a serious step to take, but the circumstances clearly warrant it, and I welcome the assurance he has given that his aim is to return responsibility to local democratic control when it is right to do so.
I have a number of questions to ask. When does the Secretary of State expect to be in a position to announce the names of the five commissioners, especially given the announcement that has just been made by Rotherham council about the current cabinet? What background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone when making the appointments? What progress reports will he and the House receive on the work that the commissioners undertake? What discussions has he had with the Education Secretary about Ofsted and its role in inspecting Rotherham, given the concerns expressed by the Communities and Local Government Committee?
When he commissioned the report, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had asked Louise Casey—in addition to her inspection of the council—to explore the links between Rotherham, the police and the justice system. Can he update the House on that part of her work, and when can we expect to see her findings, given that there will undoubtedly be lessons on which all local authorities should act? Sadly, as we know, the problems of child sexual exploitation are not confined to Rotherham.
The people of Rotherham—and all of us—remain angry, above all, with the perpetrators of the shocking abuse that took place over decades, and we are united in our determination both to see justice done and to act to prevent this from ever happening again. In doing so, we must also remain united in the face of those who will seek to use what has happened in Rotherham to divide the community.
Local authorities have great responsibilities, which they have a duty to exercise on behalf of the people they represent. When it comes to our children, there is no greater responsibility than to make sure that they are safe and protected. It is unforgivable that this did not happen here, but our joint task now is to work with the commissioners, the council, other public bodies and the people of Rotherham to put things right.
Mr Pickles
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and the substance of his response. He is bang on the money. By their wilful blindness to address this issue and by their reluctance to tackle issues relating to people of Pakistani heritage, they just made it worse. The problems we are going to face over the next few weeks, with those who will seek to exploit this, were made worse. We want to make it absolutely clear that the House is determined to deal with the question of child sexual exploitation without fear or favour. I very much welcome that.
On looking for commissioners, I consulted the right hon. Gentleman when we faced another situation and I shall be consulting him on this. Of course, we need to make it clear in that consultation that I am not in any way prejudicing the decision on whether to take the necessary action. That has to be clear. The cabinet has now resigned, which I think was the sensible thing to do. I do not think we can take that as the formal response, but I look forward to hearing what Rotherham has to say.
With regard to Ofsted, Louise Casey spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and arrangements have been made to talk further about the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to look at the report and will know that there are certain references to and worries with regard to the police force. Louise Casey has also spoken to the Home Secretary and we hope to make progress, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are certain matters it would not be seemly to talk about on the Floor of the House.
I am keen to get democratic control back to Rotherham. It is my intention to try to roll those services back. Initially, I looked at taking limited ones, but having looked through the whole process it was clear that it just simply was not possible. I needed to take the whole lot and then roll them back as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
I have been involved with local government for the best part of 40 years. This is heartbreaking. This is terrible. I used to lead a large council. I can see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the Opposition Benches—he used to lead a very large council. I used to be the chairman of a social services committee. I just cannot understand how people with responsibility, both officers and members, could ever, ever have allowed this to happen.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I share the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. For any of us who believe in local government, this is a tragedy. It is also, above all, a tragedy for the victims. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the boldness of his measure. Can he, in taking the matter forward, ensure that the commissioners appointed have particular expertise in their ranks in relation not only to the child care issues that are so critical, but to proper corporate governance, proper employment procedures and proper understanding of electoral administration, all of which will be critical in the period going forward?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend’s advice is very sensible. I actually believe that this is now one of the plum jobs in local government. This is a chance to restore good quality local government. We shall be looking right across the piece for people with enormous experience. Rotherham deserves the absolute best. I can assure the House I am determined to get people of immense quality to bring about that necessary change.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The report was very well researched. It is very robust and I accept it in full. I really welcome the intervention package that is being put in place, because Rotherham does deserve better. It has been let down. This is heartbreaking, but it is also disgusting—every page has a new horror on it. My plea is for the Secretary of State to put resources in place so we can move forward. I have been asking for five months for resources specifically to help the young people move on with their lives. We are not getting that and we need it.
I would like the House to recognise that this came about because of the tenacity of the survivors who kept coming forward and kept highlighting, over years and years and years, how they were being let down. They are the champions now, because they have caused the change that we so dearly needed for our town.
Mr Pickles
I agree with everything the hon. Lady says. It is certainly my intention to involve Members of Parliament from Rotherham to ensure that they are not just fully informed but able to participate in the strengthening. She makes a really good point about the way the report has been put together. It is very clear that this is a report in which the voice of the victim is heard. No one can say that the voice of the victim has been ignored here. We owe it to the victims of Rotherham to put something in place that we can all be very proud of.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Secretary of State said that the council went to some lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. Will he consider some mechanism whereby councils are formally made aware, maybe through declarations similar to those for Members’ interests, to a council’s monitoring officer and to the Secretary of State, whenever a letter before action or any threat of legal action is issued by a councillor, so that threats against staff, ex-employees, opposition councillors and even MPs are out in the open?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but the real tragedy in terms of governance and dealing with victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation is that it is not as though the safeguards were not there. It is not as though the whistleblower process and the protections were not there. The council had all the policies written down, but they were not there in practice. If someone blew a whistle in Rotherham, they were persecuted and bullied. They had a very bad time. We need to apply the same high standard that exists in just about every local authority in the country to Rotherham.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As I said when the Jay report was released, our whole town was shocked and shamed by its findings. This report is also deeply and comprehensively critical of our council and our police. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, Labour accepts Louise Casey’s findings and the actions the Secretary of State now plans to take. Locally, we will all work with the commissioners to put right in full the flaws set out in this report and to put in place in full the recommendations of the Jay report to help victims and bring perpetrators to justice. The Secretary of State has made a welcome promise to play his part. Will he start by releasing £750,000 of troubled families and transformation award funding withheld from Rotherham that the council and its agencies need to help to put right the problems set out in the Casey report?
Mr Pickles
That, clearly, is one of the first things I will look at. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I really want to address the elephant in the room. He said that Labour would do this. I do not expect anything less. I do not regard this as political at all. I fully understand that we are in a charged political system, but this is about a failure of local government. I could point to lots of Conservative local government where this would never happen. I have to tell the House that I could point to lots of Labour local government where this would not happen. This is almost a complete parody of what local government should look like.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I think it is true that this awful situation was, to a certain extent, exposed by investigative journalism from The Times, which listened to the victims when the police did not. Today, there is another report, I understand, of two councillors and a police officer in the area who may actually have been personally involved. I know my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the police, but building on what he said to the Labour party spokesman, will he reassure the House that the police will be thoroughly held to account and will now help the victims?
Mr Pickles
I am sure the chief constable of the force will recognise that there are some difficult questions that need answering, and I am sure that, with the help of the Home Secretary and of commissioners, we can work together to ensure those past misdeeds are investigated and the necessary action is taken. From reading through this report, what is especially necessary is an attitudinal approach. We need to address that attitudinal point in the police, the council and society in general.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to read the report earlier today in his Department. The inspection found that past and present failures to accept, understand and combat child sexual exploitation resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action against known perpetrators. That is wholly unacceptable, and may I tell the Secretary of State that I wholly support the action he is proposing?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished Member of this House and I am very grateful to have his support. I know he will use his good offices to help rebuild a team of officers and a team of politicians that will be able to take Rotherham forward.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Taxis have been, and almost certainly still are, the trafficking method of choice of abusers and exploiters across the north. I welcome the Secretary of State’s strong words on taxi regulation, and I welcome this very robust statement. May I urge him and his Department to look at every taxi licensing authority across the north and make sure they are doing exactly the right thing?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and I am particularly irked by the way in which taxis were used. A point has been made about putting in place new measures, but the regulations are pretty clear and straightforward. What we wanted was to see these regulations used. I wonder if I might answer my hon. Friend’s question in a slightly different way: I think lots of lessons will come out of this, and I will ensure that they are all learned very quickly by authorities that license taxis.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that as Chair of the Select Committee I had an advance look at the report. I have also spoken to Louise Casey, who is going to come to the Committee so that we can explore some of these issues in more detail. I wholly agree with the Secretary of State that this is not a party political matter just because this is a Conservative Secretary of State and this is a Labour council; this is about putting arrangements in place to help the children of Rotherham, who have been let down in the past. May I press him on one point, however? If he decides to appoint commissioners and they find that they need extra resources, particularly to help the young people who have been exploited and abused in the past and now need counselling and other assistance, will he respond positively to any request they make for such financial assistance?
Mr Pickles
I shall look very carefully at that, and at the way in which victims and survivors are compensated—perhaps outside this particular. I suspect it is possible that the council itself may well be facing some significant law cases, which it will have to defend. But of course I shall look very carefully on this, and I will also look to the hon. Gentleman to offer some advice on the choice of commissioners as well as on the matters he asks about.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Rotherham, like all local authorities responsible for children, submits a return to the Government on what is happening to the children—the SSDA903 return. Every year, Rotherham is audited on what happens with its finances, so that the finances are not fabricated. In the SSDA903 returns, certain children leave care for “other” reasons; they may be trafficked, they may be abused—we do not know. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to have an independent audit of what happens to these children, and what is happening to the children who leave care officially for “other” reasons?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman will know from many conversations I have had with him since I have held this post and before that I have a lot of sympathy with what he says, and that is one of the reasons why I am very proud to support the foyer movement. I certainly feel that as a nation we need to do a lot more in terms of offering assistance to people who leave the care system, but I go back to the point the hon. Gentleman just made: the returns looked great, but the reality on the ground did not.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I called for this intervention publicly six months ago, so naturally I welcome it, but what about the inspectors? We have an inspection regime for children’s services and for schools, but what is being done to hold them accountable and to ensure that the inspection regime is hearing and seeing what is going on?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I am sure he has not found it possible to read the whole report yet, but it makes it clear that the inspection takes place, the inspectors make recommendations about what should happen, the council says, “You’re absolutely right, and here is our new policy,” and then nothing happens. The issue is the process between “We know we should do it” and “We aren’t going to do it.” That is why I am taking this intervention today—or, rather, why I am thinking about taking this intervention today.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I suggest one thing the Secretary of State might like to consider doing immediately about child abuse? When the child victims of human trafficking come into local government care, they are not recorded as victims of human trafficking. If they were, when they disappeared there would be an indication that the council was failing.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters so he will know that we are trialling advocates for young people in these kinds of circumstances, and if that proves to be successful I hope we will see it rolled out rapidly. One thing that has been clear from all these cases is that the voice of the victim and voice of the survivor is just not heard, and we need to hear their voice.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
What is really shocking about Louise Casey’s findings is the existing level of denial among officers and councillors about the extent of child sexual exploitation in spite of the recent Jay report, but this is not unique to Rotherham. There is widespread complacency among agencies charged with protecting children and councils in believing CSE happens elsewhere. We need a sea-change in attitudes. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that councillors, who are really important, receive adequate training in awareness and identification of CSE in their areas?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady’s report on the same problem in Manchester was very illuminating, but we need only look at page 19 of the Rotherham report to see that 70% of current Rotherham councillors spoken to by Louise and her team disputed Professor Jay’s findings, and that was continuous—“The methodology was wrong, things were not right, they didn’t count this.” The figure of 1,400 is probably conservative in terms of the actual numbers involved. What is clear from Jay, Casey and the hon. Lady’s excellent report is that we need to understand that councillors in such circumstances have a special duty, and that is something I am going to look at most carefully, to ensure that people realise they have a role of intervention.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Local authority councillors have a specific role as corporate parents for some of the most vulnerable children in our community. It strikes me from what I have heard of this report that that role is misunderstood by many councillors. What more does the Secretary of State feel needs to be done to instil in councillors an understanding of this important role and the duty they have?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but I think we need to understand that, day in, day out in lots of local authorities, officers carry out that duty extremely carefully and diligently; Rotherham does not speak for the situation. Others may also need investigation but, sadly, Rotherham—this is not about the town but about the councillors and officials—is a peculiar leader in indifference and incompetence.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
When the Home Affairs Committee investigated child sexual abuse in Rochdale and in Rotherham, we did see a difference: there was at least some action in Rochdale, but we found complete denial in Rotherham, so I support the thrust of the intervention.
Even if single-party Labour control may not have caused what happened, it did allow it. Until UKIP broke through there in the local elections last year, there was virtually no party political competition in Rotherham. Pending the 2016 all-out elections, will the May 2015 elections go ahead to allow us to continue to hold the Labour councillors responsible to account at the ballot box?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point about the way Rochdale approached this. The May 2015 elections will take place. However, let me say to him that this is about people’s lives. This is about protecting children; it is not about whether some grubby politician is elected or not. If we seek to turn this into some kind of political football, we will be as bad as the failing councillors of Rotherham, and I am determined that that should not be the case.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his response to Louise Casey’s excellent report. He will know that I led a council whose children’s services had been rated by Ofsted in the bottom 3% nationally at the time of my election, but was rated as the best in the country by the time I left. The key to that improvement was acknowledgement of failure, clear expectations of staff and councillors, high quality training, but above all else voice for the vulnerable children, and that means giving them the power and the mechanisms to force those who do not want to listen to hear what they are saying and act on it. What mechanisms does the Secretary of State envisage councils adopting so that all vulnerable children in this circumstance can be heard?
Mr Pickles
I am not sure whether that was a job application. The hon. Gentleman is right, and the point is that we do not need to invent something to empower young people and the service; it is all there in plain sight, day in, day out in local authorities. The quality and emotional intelligence might vary, but it is there. That is why I am hopeful: I think we can turn Rotherham around relatively quickly, and I look forward to the day when the commissioners are a distant memory. I regret that the hon. Gentleman rules himself out for the post, but he may have views.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, recognise the work of Louise Casey in this excellent report, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I visited Rotherham earlier this week with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), we held a girls’ safety summit. The young women we talked to said that they felt that, in dealing with the issues Rotheram is facing, people were talking about them, not to them, and all that they heard was coming through the media. They felt hugely vulnerable, but nobody was actually speaking to them as young people. Has the Secretary of State considered as part of his plans what message of reassurance can be given to young people across Rotherham about how they will be protected in future?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point, and I would expect the commissioners to start that process. There are, after all, five commissioners, and although we cannot expect them to do everything we will be asking them to offer leadership, to give courage to officials and to get them running in some kind of proper order. Everything the hon. Lady referred to is available in other local authorities, although not necessarily all, but I am absolutely determined that the fundamental, systemic failure of local government we have seen in Rotherham will not be allowed to spread like a cancer elsewhere. In truth—forgive me for saying this—this is a wake-up call for all local authorities: the Government will not stand idly by and watch them fritter away good resources and let down their populations.
Points of Order
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wrote to the Prime Minister just a few days before Christmas seeking his support for those who have gone voluntarily to dangerous locations in Africa where people are suffering from and dying from Ebola. I felt that their unstinting and selfless work should be recognised and acknowledged in some formal way, and I received an acknowledgement of that letter, but have heard nothing further.
I was somewhat surprised that earlier today, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), the Prime Minister said that he was looking to recognise such volunteers and was taking that forward. Is it not somewhat discourteous to announce that in this place when he has not even replied to my initial letter?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I do understand why he feels aggrieved at not having received a reply to his letter. It is not a matter of order for the Chair and although all letters should of course be answered, it is not for me to say quite where the letter is in the system. I am sure that the Prime Minister, as a matter of course, responds to many thousands of letters and does his best to do so in a timely and courteous way. Whilst understanding the hon. Gentleman’s irritation—and I do—perhaps we can just take pride in the fact that there is to be such recognition. He has got his point on the record, but if it is understood by him and by the House, I think it best to leave it there.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we approached midday today, the noise in the Chamber went up, as so often happens just before and during Prime Minister’s questions, and I and others, and yourself too, found it even more difficult than usual to hear colleagues asking and Ministers answering International Development questions. Although it is natural that the noise level goes up and it is right and proper that you try to control it, I do wonder whether the microphone levels may be lower than they used to be, or whether the loudspeakers at the back of the seats are perhaps turned down a bit too much because of fear of feedback. May I ask that the technicians investigate this, so that we can better hear not just you, Mr Speaker, but Ministers and questioners?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that these matters can be looked into, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction to the hon. Gentleman that we will always profit by his counsels. We will leave it there for now.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the hon. Gentleman; I am saving him up. I saved up the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) momentarily, and we have now dealt with him. Let us first hear a point of order from Mr Reckless.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was shouting in my ear, so I did not hear the Secretary of State’s answer to my question—will councillors elected in Rotherham in 2011 be held to account at the ballot box in May, or is the Secretary of State extending their term by a year?
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that. I think the Secretary of State did give a clear answer, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a perfectly reasonable question and I am sure the Secretary of State is happy to repeat his answer.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The 2015 elections continue as normal.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. A last point of order, I think, for now, from Mr Peter Bone.
Mr Bone
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had two exceptionally important statements today, and with your great courtesy, as usual, you have got every Back Bencher in. However, it is a little unfair on the Opposition, on a day when they have two official Opposition day debates. We do have the Leader of the House here. Is there any mechanism whereby we can extend today to make up for the two hours the Opposition have lost?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair-minded, and a champion of the rights of all parliamentarians. As he knows, I would be perfectly happy to sit here for an indefinite number of hours because I enjoy nothing more than listening to all hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House expressing their views. There may be people attending to our proceedings who think, “What a strange chap”, but the fact is that I like listening to hon. and right hon. Members. I do not sense any great desire on the part of the Leader of the House urgently to accommodate the hon. Gentleman’s fair-mindedness, but he is a very fit and lithe fellow and if he wishes to leap from his seat to offer comfort and encouragement to the hon. Gentleman, there would be no happier Member of the House than I.
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course we try to avoid having a large number of statements on Opposition days, but sometimes it is unavoidable and there were good reasons for having both those statements today. I am sure that that is understood across the House. To extend the ensuing debate would have required a motion to be placed on the Order Paper earlier, and that has not been done.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I shall take this opportunity to mention that nine Back Benchers are seeking to contribute to the first debate, on apprenticeships, and 11 to the second debate, on electoral registration. In conformity with our normal procedures, there can be no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I feel sure that in each case the Minister and shadow Minister will tailor their contributions accordingly in order to facilitate their Back-Bench colleagues, which is a way of saying, “Get it out pretty pithily”. We will leave it there.
Bills presented
House of Commons Commission Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr William Hague, supported by Tom Brake and Mr Sam Gyimah, presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 so as to make provision about the membership of the House of Commons Commission, so as to confer a new strategic function on the Commission, and so as to make provision about the exercise of functions on behalf of the Commission or its members.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 169) with explanatory notes (Bill 169-EN).
Right to Buy and Right to Acquire Schemes (Research) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Dr Julian Huppert, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into the costs and benefits of extending control of all aspects of Right to Buy and Right to Acquire schemes entirely to Local Authorities, including the operation and consequences of such schemes and the introduction of the right of Local Authorities to suspend them; to report to Parliament within six months of the research being completed; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 167).
Public Sector Efficiency (Employee Participation)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public sector bodies to include in their annual reports and similar documents their responses to suggestions and proposals made by public sector employees for the efficiency and improvement of their service.
I hope that you will enjoy this, Mr Speaker. The introduction of this Bill is almost an act of atonement in itself. Over the past few decades, the House has been much occupied by what we like to refer to as public sector reform. In any word association test involving a member of the governing classes, the term “public service” would immediately elicit the word “reform”. In fact, we could mischievously define a public service as something that a politician feels the need to reform.
The words “public sector reform” in the mouth of a politician inspire dread and despair in equal measure in the hearts of those who work in the public sector. We in this place have happily burdened those people with restructuring, targets, changes in governance, commissioning, reorganisation, monitoring and so on, all in the laudable pursuit of greater efficiency, better performance and better value for the taxpayer’s pound. In the process, however, many of those changes have distorted practice in predictable and unhelpful ways and burdened public servants in frustrating ways. They have not always been aligned with professional judgment and they have rarely if ever boosted productivity and real efficiency.
My predecessor as MP for Southport back in 1906 was John Astbury QC. He is memorable for the following sentiment, which has found its way into several books of quotations. He is reported to have said indignantly:
“Reform? Reform? Are not things bad enough already?”
In truth, there has been quite a difference between reform and genuine improvement. Reforms are largely suggested by bright young things in think-tanks or consultancies who have little real-time experience of the institutions they wish to reform. Improvements usually come from incremental changes and from the example of those who toil day to day in a service. Initiatives cooked up here in the Commons have generally had little positive impact on productivity or the lived experience and daily work of those who actually do the work. We do not improve schools by calling them academies, and we do not improve hospitals by calling them foundation trusts. On a wet Thursday afternoon in the classroom or a busy Friday night in an accident and emergency department, the title on the board outside or the exact style of governance will make scant difference to how things actually turn out.
There is a negative view of public sector workers that sees them as a bunch of unionised time servers who need constantly to be checked on or coerced lest they traduce the public interest and squander public resources. In my experience, however, that is not how teachers, nurses, policemen and local government workers are. They are really very different from that. It is not naive to think that most public sector workers are happier serving the public interest, that they want to do it well, that they would sooner act with real purpose than to little effect and that, like all of us, they reflect on what they do. They pick out waste and spot inefficiency, and they get frustrated and downhearted when well-intentioned Governments misdirect or burden them or when service heads who are trying to please their masters ignore their reasonable representations. They do not necessarily need or benefit from ministerial decrees laying out in fine detail how they must pursue their craft. Nor does it help to follow up such decrees with heavy-handed inspection regimes that are more about bureaucratic compliance than genuine effectiveness.
The public sector ethos is not dead, but it must be cultivated and revived and not confused with commercial or personal self-interest. It is not unrealistic to think of the mass of people working on the front line as a huge untapped resource. My fear is that their advice will too often be ignored or drowned out by a plethora of desperate initiatives imposed from on high. I am therefore suggesting that a duty should be laid on public sector organisations of more than 50 people—this would not apply to smaller organisations—to include in their annual report or similar document their front-line workers’ suggestions for the improvement of the organisation or the efficiency of its services, along with the responses to those suggestions.
I am not denying the management’s right to manage; nor am I promoting some kind of Maoist upheaval. I am opposing the consistent turning of a deaf ear towards those on the front line. I believe a small step such as this would provoke a culture change, just as the introduction of diversity checks, health and safety checks and sustainability checks has done. The burden of dealing with a constrained budget would be a shared burden. The work force and their experience could be co-opted into plans for recovery, development and efficiency.
This approach is not unknown in the commercial sector, where good management walks the shop floor not in pursuit of grievances but in pursuit of good ideas. Under the Bill, organisations would be forced to respond to what staff had to say, or to ask themselves why their staff had so little to say. This would not be the same as assessments of staff satisfaction, although I would argue that a consulted, creative, involved staff is most likely to be a happy staff, and that staff are unavoidably involved in the pursuit of efficiency because they, like us, know the huge financial challenges that the country is facing.
The National Audit Office reliably tells us that local government is near to bankruptcy, that NHS finances are on a dangerous trajectory and that the thin blue line of the police force is becoming ever less visible, while the demands of the public show no sign of abating. Most of the economies that we have succeeded in making so far have been achieved through wage controls or manpower reductions. We are essentially doing less or paying less, but that does not equate to genuine efficiency improvements. We need to get much smarter.
We cannot revert to the polarisation that sometimes occurs in times of social stress whereby the public sector is set against the private sector and one is seen as a negative cost to the other. A good public sector and a vibrant private sector are the two pillars of a thriving society. Successful industry—we can learn from that—has learned the futility of micro-managing from the top, and learned to use properly those it employs.
Given the scale of the financial challenge that confronts the public sector, it could be said that what I am suggesting is mere tinkering, but incremental change mounts up. Incremental change is good change, and good cultural changes, if they are to occur at all, require buy-in at all levels. Good practice can be spread only by those who are involved in the practice. As hon. Members will recall, right at the start of the coalition the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister called for mass consultation within the public sector because of the colossal challenge we all face, but Governments are impatient, Ministers often do not want to manage, and in a flash we had restructurings galore, most notably the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is not the way to go.
Incorporating our public sector workers in the pursuit of genuine efficiency is not cosmetic. It is not simply a way of affording them the necessary dignity that they deserve, but is a genuine attempt to prompt and provoke cultural change and a practical way of boosting the productivity that we badly need. There is a place, I admit, for consultants, for think-tanks, even for political intervention, and for testing against external and internal standards, but there is no case for ignoring the daily experience of well motivated staff or under-estimating their desire to work well to high professional standards. What I am trying to do is to amplify their voice and hard-wire it into the system. That is what this Bill endeavours to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Pugh, John McDonnell, Meg Hillier, Mr John Leech, Andrew George, Mike Thornton, Greg Mulholland and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
John Pugh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 168).
Opposition Day
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Apprenticeships
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I advise hon. Members, both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that there are under two hours for this entire debate. I will do my best to make sure that everybody gets in. Depending on the length of the opening speeches, there will be a time limit, which I will let the House know as soon as I can.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy; notes with concern that the number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by 6,270 in the last year, that 24 per cent of these apprentices are receiving no formal training, and around one in five are not receiving the appropriate minimum wage; calls on the Government to institute a ten-year national goal to grow the number of apprenticeships for young people and boost the standing and value of technical and vocational education so that the same number of young people that go to university undertake a high-quality apprenticeship; and further calls on the Government to use the money it already spends on procurement to require suppliers for large Government contracts to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, safeguard apprenticeship quality with new standards so that all apprenticeships are at at least level three and last a minimum of two years, ensure Government plays its part by creating thousands more apprenticeships in the civil service, give city and country regions a role by devolving money for adult skills and give a central role to business through sector bodies to drive up standards and increase apprenticeship places.
I note what you have said about time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to drone on for too long.
I want to put this debate in context. It is not simply a debate on apprenticeships. The issue of apprenticeships is central to a wider debate about our economy and whether it is fit for purpose. The changing nature of the world is full of opportunity for Britain. Technology is transforming the way we live. New emerging economies with ballooning middle classes are providing a mass of opportunity for our businesses, but these forces of change are also bringing challenges: how do we deliver the goods for our people when the uncertainty which follows from all this creates insecurity for many?
As I have said before, the answer is to shape these forces of change and do all we can to ensure that everyone can access the opportunities available—in short, to ensure that everyone is connected to the new global economy and has a stake in the future. That requires an economy producing good, decent jobs that are fulfilling, afford a level of dignity, respect and security, and, above all, pay a wage that people can live off. Sadly, that vision is but a dream for too many in Britain today. Under the current Government, average wages have fallen by £1,600 a year on average. They have fallen by more than £3,200 in my constituency. Almost 5 million people are not earning a wage that they can live off. We are seeing rising insecurity, with 1.4 million zero-hour contracts. There are 3.5 million people in work who say they want extra hours.
As a result of all this, our fiscal deficit remains stubbornly high at £91 billion. The Office for Budget Responsibility was clear in its autumn outlook published with the autumn statement that the Government have failed to meet their two fiscal mandates in this Parliament because stagnating wages have led to a fall in national insurance and income tax receipts. However, the living standards crisis that I refer to and the persistence of the deficit are symptoms of a bigger problem: the failure of Government to help raise productivity across our economy.
Sure, Britain leads in aerospace, the automotive industry, business services, chemicals, the creative and digital industries, food, green tech and pharmaceuticals, among other industries. We should celebrate the success in these sectors, but across the economy overall, the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and the rest of the G7 grew to 17% in 2013, the largest difference since 1992. So on average it now takes a British worker until the end of Friday to produce what a German or French worker has finished before they clock off on Thursday.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to remark on the success in my constituency under this Government, with apprenticeships doubling to 1,500 a year. It is not just a matter of problems; it is also a matter of dealing with success. In many parts of the country where there is high growth and unemployment is falling—in Huntingdon it has fallen to 1%— we need better training so that employers can invest in their staff to deal with the lack of skills that exists as our economy improves.
Mr Umunna
I agree that quality is important, but apprenticeships in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have fallen by 11%. Many apprenticeships are not the high-quality apprenticeships that I think he refers to. Many of them are level 2.
There has been much debate in economic circles as to why we have gone backwards on productivity so fast under this Government. People have pointed to the lack of business investment, which is compounded by the problems that businesses have faced in getting access to finance, but skills shortages in our economy are also holding Britain back. Too many young people in particular do not have the skills our businesses require when they leave secondary education, and even among those who do have skills and qualifications, there is a mismatch between their skills and the demand for technician-level competency, particularly for jobs requiring people with science, technology, engineering and maths skills—the STEM skills.
To address this we need a major expansion of high-quality vocational and technical education, in particular apprenticeships for young people, offering more and better work-and-train opportunities in all sectors of the economy, giving them those skills which employers say are lacking.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On the number of apprenticeship starts in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will he comment on the fact that in 2010 340 people started apprenticeships and last year 880 people started them. Why does he think the number of apprenticeships has doubled in his constituency?
Mr Djanogly
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency had fallen, but I am looking at the House of Commons published figures—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Djanogly, you are continuing the debate; that is not a point of order for the Chair. We are pressed for time, and we need to make sure we hear the opening speeches from both sides and have the debate. You have not indicated that you want to speak, whereas others have. We need to get on to the debate, so I call Chuka Umunna.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Sit down please, Mr Graham. This is not the opportunity to make three quick points—it is an intervention. [Interruption.] No, I am going to be really strict on this. You wish to speak in this debate as well, and I am doing my best to protect time for Back Benchers. The convention of an intervention is: one point relevant to the point being made. So not three points, but one, thank you.
Richard Graham
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My one point is simply to ask the shadow Business Secretary whether he has considered what the impact of 2 million apprentices is on the wages of the lower earners, and whether it is not natural that a substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships will lead to more people not earning quite as much as they will in the future when they are better trained.
Andrew Gwynne
May I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he and the Labour Front-Bench team gave to my private Member’s Bill in the previous Session? The Government talked it out, and does he not think that that was a wasted opportunity, because for every £1 million of capital investment in public procurement, we could have secured an additional apprenticeship?
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I congratulated him at the time on his Bill, and we should continue to remind this House of the efforts that were made then and the wasted opportunity to which he refers. The reason he introduced that Bill was clearly because he read the OECD’s review of vocational education and training, which found that few countries achieve strong engagement in vocational education and training without a strong apprenticeship system. Now, that will not automatically happen on its own. Government must play an active role, not in a top-down, command-control fashion, but by using their convening power in an enterprising, entrepreneurial way, working in partnership with business to address the problem and to increase productivity. Before I explain how we aim to achieve that and consider what the Government have done during this Parliament, when I will touch on that 2 million figure, I want to say something about our record, because I am sure it will be referred to.
I accept that when Labour left office there was an outstanding need to increase the number and improve the quality of apprenticeships in our country, but before Government Members get too excited, I should say that it would be wrong to claim we did not make any progress. In government, we more than quadrupled the number of apprenticeship starts from a woeful 65,000 under the previous Major Government in 1996-1997 to 280,000 starts in our final year in office. Apprenticeships were simply not on the radar when we entered office; they were very much on the radar when we left office. We used the weight of government to begin the culture change we need. So from the 2012 Olympics to Building Schools for the Future projects up and down the country, we linked the creation of apprenticeships to public procurement across a number of Departments. We set up a dedicated National Apprenticeship Service to support and expand apprenticeships. I speak to many young people who tell me that they were signposted to the apprenticeship they are now doing by visiting the service’s website. Of course, it was also Labour in government that established national apprenticeship week in 2008, and the week is now an annual event in the national calendar. I am proud of our record. I am proud that this Labour party rescued apprenticeships from the scrapheap.
The current Government have sought to build on the foundations we put in place. They say that since we left office they have overseen the creation of 2 million new apprenticeship starts, and the hon. Member for Gloucester referred to those. I do not think there is any point boasting about numbers if the apprenticeships are not of sufficient quality. I will come to that in a moment, but first let us look at their claimed numbers. How many of the 2 million apprenticeships are really new apprenticeships and how many have emerged as a result of rebadging—in other words, re-labelling existing work a person is already doing in the workplace as an apprenticeship? A very large proportion of additional apprenticeship places created by this Government have come in the post-25 age brackets. The largest percentage rise in apprenticeships under this Government has actually been among the over-60s, where the increase has been 520%. According to the 2014 apprenticeship pay survey, 93% of adult apprentices already worked for their existing employer before starting their apprenticeship. That would suggest that many existing training schemes, such as those delivered under the old Train to Gain programme, have simply been rebadged and re-labelled as apprenticeships.
That is the situation on apprenticeships for adults. The shortage is perhaps most acute among young people, so what is happening to apprenticeship starts there? The number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by more than 6,000 in the past year. In fact, the number of 19 to 24 apprenticeship starts is currently falling in every single region outside London. Overall, the share of apprentices who are under 25 has fallen from 84% in 2009-10 to 64%, and the share of apprentices who are under 19 has fallen from 43% in the last year of the Labour Government to 28% under this one. So the simple fact is this: for all the boasts, there has been some jiggery-pokery with the numbers. The bottom line is that we need many more apprenticeships and we need to raise employer demand for them. Half our large employers do not offer any apprenticeships at all in Britain today—that is totally unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), the shadow skills Minister, has said previously, when it is harder to get an apprenticeship with Jaguar Land Rover than it is to get into an Oxford college, it is pretty obvious that more needs to be done.
The numbers are one thing, but I said that I would say something about quality. In most other northern European countries apprenticeships are level 3 qualifications lasting between two and five years, and they include at least one day a week of off-the-job learning, as well as significant on-the-job training. In England, most of the growth of apprenticeships in recent years has been at a level that would simply not be recognised in those countries. Just 35% of our apprenticeships are at level 3 or above, and just 2% are at level 4. In fact, according to the Department’s own figures, published in its apprenticeship pay survey, one in five apprentices does not even receive any formal training at the moment. The figure increases to almost a quarter of those in the 19 to 24 age bracket, who are not being properly trained. If we truly want to ensure more parity of esteem between the academic and the non-academic—between the way people view university degrees and the way they view these types of vocational and technical qualifications—how can we hope to do that when they are not of sufficiently good quality? We have got to raise standards. Even where apprentices are receiving training, far too many of them are still not receiving the appropriate minimum wage—15% are paid below the appropriate national minimum wage, with the figure rising to 20% for 19 to 20-year-olds.
I will come on to address how we intend to encourage more private sector employers to provide more and better quality apprenticeships appropriate to their needs, but surely government, as one of the biggest employers in the country, should be setting an example, both in recruiting as many apprentices as possible and in providing good-quality apprenticeships. The civil service apprenticeship scheme hired just 200 apprentices in 2014. That is 200 out of more than 400,000 civil servants, which is just not good enough. Never mind the Departments themselves, Government should be doing more in this area. They should use their clout as a procurer of goods and services to get more employers in the private sector to provide apprenticeships.
Our Labour colleagues in local government have already been leading the way in utilising procurement to boost apprenticeship numbers. Newham, Knowsley, Sheffield and Manchester have all developed strategies to use procurement contracts to create apprenticeship opportunities for young people locally. Central Government should do the same, as those opportunities are simply not happening to the degree and on the scale required.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the point about the importance of using the procurement system and Government money to drive improvement in apprenticeships. Does he agree that we need do that all the way through the supply chain so that smaller businesses, and not just larger ones, can and do take on apprentices?
Mr Umunna
We should do everything that we can to encourage all businesses to take on apprenticeships. We need to be mindful of the fact that sometimes that can be a bit more challenging for smaller businesses, and we should think how we can better support them to take on apprentices. It seems to me that, if there were fewer frameworks and more sector-driven apprenticeship frameworks, we could make the system less bureaucratic. But, absolutely, we should do as much as we can to make it easy for businesses to take on apprentices.
Jake Berry
On a point of interest, I have recruited an apprentice to work for me in my parliamentary office. When the hon. Gentleman says that we should do all that we can to recruit apprentices, I just wondered whether he has done so himself.
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) says that he has. I have not been able to because I am right up to my limit on my staff allowance, but I would very much like to. One challenge in representing an inner-London seat is the amount of casework that is involved, but I would love to take on an apprentice if we could all convince the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to provide us with more money to do so.
I have talked about what our record was and what this Government are doing, but what do we plan to do in the future? At the Labour party conference in 2014, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition outlined our ambitious six national goals for Britain in 2025, which included ensuring that as many school leavers go on to apprenticeships as go to university. That will require a dramatic increase in numbers. To achieve that, we will work in partnership with employers to ensure that apprenticeships are appropriate to their needs, which in turn will boost employer demand for them.
We will give employers, through sector and industry bodies, a greater role, ensuring that courses reflect their skills needs and that rigorous standards are set. The aim is for a skills system that is better aligned to the needs of employers and that delivers a pipeline of talented employees. We will also look to boost take-up by employers locally, which is best done by colleagues in local government working with their businesses locally and by those coming together to form combined authorities. We need to see more of such practice. Just look at the incredible progress that has been made by the Labour-run authority in Leeds under the leadership of Sir Keith Wakefield. The city’s new apprenticeship hub has doubled the number of apprentices in the city, especially among small and medium-sized businesses. Labour colleagues in Plymouth, Bury and Reading are actively engaging with local employers to boost apprenticeship opportunities, too, and we want to see lots more of that.
Alongside such practice, we would use the money that the Government already spend on procurement to require major suppliers on Government contracts to offer new apprenticeships. In that way, we can create thousands of new apprenticeship opportunities. That builds on the successful approach of the previous Labour Government. It is an approach that has been backed by the cross-party Business Innovation and Skills Committee, which has suggested that a minimum of one new apprenticeship place could be created for each £l million spent on public procurement. So a major project such as HS2 could, under Labour’s plans, lead to the creation of as many as 33,000 new apprenticeships.
As I said earlier, quality matters. Under Labour’s plans, all apprenticeships would last a minimum of two years and be level 3 qualifications to safeguard the trusted and historic apprenticeship brand, which has been tarnished in recent years. Those new rigorous standards would ensure that apprenticeships are, once again, a trusted gold standard and address the way they have been downgraded under this Government.
We were attacked for setting high standards by the Deputy Prime Minister in a frankly embarrassing and cack-handed response by him at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last March. He lambasted us for apparently wanting to halve the numbers of apprenticeships by requiring that all apprenticeships be set at level 3 and last for at least two years. The truth is that we want to rename intermediate apprenticeships to protect the “apprenticeship” brand. Apprenticeships that do not currently meet the criteria will continue but under a different name.
The Deputy Prime Minister also got very excited about the use of the word “deadweight” in the independent report into apprenticeships that was produced for us. Chaired by the Institute of Education’s Professor Chris Husbands, the report recommended that we adopt those criteria. What the Deputy Prime Minister failed to notice when he got himself so excited about the use of the word “deadweight” is that the Business Secretary had published a report in 2012 with the title “Assessing the Deadweight Loss Associated with Public Investment in Further Education and Skills.” Clearly, the sooner the Business Secretary successfully carries out his coup of his party, the better.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key reason for retaining level 1 as an entry for apprenticeships, is that apprenticeships offer an opportunity for lots of young people who do not have the education or the academic skills? If we do not let them in through a level 1, they will not have the opportunity to go up the apprenticeship ladder. That is a profoundly important point.
Mr Umunna
I am talking about not doing away with the qualifications of levels 1 and 2, but calling those levels something different and maintaining the badge of quality for apprenticeships by having them at level 3 and above. That will bring us in line with many other European countries.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting the apprenticeship brand. Level 1 is a pre-apprenticeship entry qualification. Levels 2 and 3 are recognised by the industry. A person cannot go on to a building site with a level 1, but they can with levels 2 and 3.
Mr Umunna
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have already talked about compliance with the national minimum wage. To tackle non-compliance and non-payment, Labour would give local authorities new powers to investigate and enforce the minimum wage. Hopefully, that will reduce the 15% of apprentices—[Interruption.] There will be headlines about how I cannot pronounce the word “apprenticeship”. Perhaps I should go back to school myself, but, to be honest, people mess up my name all the time. But, yes, we should be giving local authorities more of a role in identifying companies that are not complying with the requirements under the national minimum wage regulations.
Finally, we will make it very clear that we expect Departments across Government to provide apprenticeship opportunities. If we are elected in 91 days’ time and I am given a job by Prime Minister Miliband, I will be working with colleagues in the Labour Cabinet to ensure that we increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities across Whitehall.
I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. I do not think that there is a huge difference in views across the House, but it all comes down to competent, determined delivery of policy across Government. We are determined, across all Government Departments, to do all we can to reform and grow our economy. The provision of more and better quality apprenticeship is a key part of that and will help us to ensure that more people can achieve their aspirations and dreams. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House. I am clear that there is only one thing to do this May and that is to vote Labour.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am delighted that the Opposition have chosen apprenticeships as the topic for this debate. The motion’s opening line is an admirable statement of what we are trying to do:
“That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy”.
“Hear, hear” to that. It offers a good definition of what the Government have been doing: the number of apprenticeships has doubled from just over 1 million to 2 million over this Parliament, and as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has emphasised quality, I should say that the proportion of advanced and higher apprenticeships and longer apprenticeships has risen systematically as a result of our reforms.
We are therefore very comfortable debating apprenticeships. Indeed, the only subject that we would be more comfortable debating is job creation, which I think the Opposition have chosen for next week—the hon. Member for Streatham is very brave. I was trying to understand their thought processes in approaching the question. I suspect that they said to themselves, “Well, the Government actually have a pretty good record on all this stuff, so let’s try to find a negative number to debate. It doesn’t matter what it is, so long as it’s negative.” They did find a negative number. In 2013-14, for one year, and for one age group, there was a slight reduction—4%—in the number of apprenticeship starts. That fact is quite correct, but the argument built around it is utterly specious.
Let us look at that age group—19 to 24-year-olds—because it tells a good story about what has actually happened. I do not want to dismiss older apprenticeships, as the hon. Gentleman did, because many of them are extremely valuable in raising the productivity of the labour force. The time series gives us a good analysis of what has happened during our time in office. In the year before we came into government there were 114,000 apprenticeship starts for that age group, and in the last year for which we have records, 2013-14, the figure was 159,000, which means there was a 40% increase in the age group he defines as the most important. As has already been pointed out to him, there has been a 60% increase in Streatham, and a 75% increase in Hodge Hill.
The number of starts is one way of measuring apprenticeships, but in some ways participation is a better measure, because it captures the benefits of longer apprenticeships and fewer drop-outs. The situation with participation is even stronger. It suggests that over that period the numbers grew from 210,000 to 309,000, which is a 46% increase. Overall, participation in apprenticeships grew by 73%, and for advanced apprenticeships—level 3 and above—participation has grown by 90% under this Government.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous. I am glad that he has focused on the fall in the number of apprentices under the age of 25. Does he think that that trend can be reversed with the budget that the Chancellor has set out for his Department, as implied by the fiscal path for the years ahead? He knows as well as I do that if the science budget is protected, that implies a 44% cut for the Department. Does he think that it will be possible to reverse the fall in the number of apprentices with that kind of settlement?
Vince Cable
It is certainly possible, as I think we shall see when we get the 2014-15 figures. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should be investing more in apprenticeships, not less. That is certainly my clear objective. He might not have noticed, but the autumn statement included a commitment to £40 million extra for higher and advanced apprenticeships over the next two financial years, so we have every reason to be optimistic about achieving continued growth.
The figures I have cited, which I do not think are disputed, actually understate the improvement achieved, and for precisely the reason that the shadow Secretary of State emphasised: the necessary shift to longer apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships. When we came into government, the share of level 1 was above 40% for that age group, and it is now only 10%. We decided in 2012 not to include level 1 within the definition of an apprenticeship. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out, that was entry level. We now call those traineeships, so there is progression. It is valuable to have level 1, but we no longer describe it as an apprenticeship. If we take out the very short courses, in particular, which tended to dominate in the earlier period, we see that the number of people in the 19-to-24 age group has actually doubled, because of the preponderance of very short courses in the apprenticeship programmes we inherited.
Let us look at the higher level apprenticeships. For level 3 the number of starts has doubled. For higher—level 4, foundation degree and above—we have seen a tenfold increase since we came into government, from 1,700, which was negligible, to 18,000. There is an important point to make about levels. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham dismissed too easily the value of level 2 apprenticeships.
Vince Cable
Well, he seemed to imply that they were not quite apprenticeships. Actually, there is a lot of statistical evidence that people who do a level 2 apprenticeship and no more have significantly higher earnings than those who do not—about 11% or 12% over a three to five-year period. There are many important trades, such as bricklaying, in which a level 2 qualification offers valuable progression into a badly needed occupation. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be moving up the level chain, which we are doing, but I do not want him or anybody else to devalue level 2 qualifications or to seek to eliminate them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Graham is not taking part in this exchange. Just make your intervention, Mr Umunna.
Vince Cable
I hope that is a clarification that level 2 will not be removed from the hon. Gentleman’s definition of an apprenticeship, should he find himself in government. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right that this is some kind of ploy to reduce the numbers and save money.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is quite extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State has not read his own motion, which states very clearly
“so that all apprenticeships are at least level three”.
What is the role for level 2? My right hon. Friend is right to question that.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the message that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is sending to young people in my constituency who are studying hard right now for level 2 qualifications, and about the message he is sending to the colleges and staff who are working hard to ensure that they have the sorts of relationships with employers that can make that happen? Should he not think more carefully about what he says?
Vince Cable
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Level 2 qualifications are valuable in themselves, as she rightly emphasises, but they are also part of a progression route. Many people who do a level 2 qualification take a break before going back and doing a level 3. I hope that we have now clarified that level 2 is a part of apprenticeships.
Steve Rotheram
With regard to proper apprenticeships, it depends on what a person’s qualification is on entry. With a lower qualification threshold, they would do a national vocational qualification level 2, on the way to doing an NVQ level 3. It is not either/or; it is part of an apprenticeship.
Vince Cable
That is very helpful. The hon. Gentleman clearly speaks from experience and knowledge, and we respect that.
The figures are very clear: we have seen a big increase in volume and a big increase in quality. That did not happen by accident. It is important to talk through the constraints on the public finances that I inherited, and on which the hon. Member for Streatham elaborated with regard to the problems that will face the next Government. When I came into office, I was told that the previous Government had planned to cut the Department’s budget by 25% had they returned to office. That was clear and explicit. Indeed, we have had to confront that in office. Let us be clear that it would have been no different had he been doing my job.
The Department’s budget is dominated by two items: higher education, including teaching and student support, and adult skills. There are other, smaller items such as industrial support and science. We were therefore faced, in office, with some very painful and difficult decisions. The advice I got from the Opposition, in a particularly shrill and angry way, was that we must give priority to university undergraduates—future graduates. We did the calculations and found that had we followed the advice from the Opposition, and had we introduced the policy that I think—it is not totally clear—they are now considering introducing on tuition fees, we would have had to cut the adult skills budget by about 40%. Within that, we would have had to cut apprenticeships by even more, because, being of higher quality, they are more expensive than other forms of training. Apprenticeships, which the hon. Gentleman described as growing steadily throughout the time of the Labour Government, as they did, would have been emasculated as a result of the public spending cuts that I think his party would have made had it been in government, and that I was being advised to make.
I then made a decision, which I think was one of my better ones, to listen to the advice, to reject it, and to do the exact opposite. We took a serious political hit on higher education, but we did the right thing in ensuring that universities were properly funded and that we got a fair repayment system. We also made the decision to invest more, not less, in apprenticeships. That is how we have got to where we are, with not only the volume but the quality. That is because we followed up getting the volume by taking short apprenticeships of below one year out of the system; by significantly supporting advanced and higher level apprenticeships; and, perhaps most importantly—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this at all—by introducing employer ownership through giving business a greater say in how these funds are allocated. In all those ways, we have improved quality.
Let me deal with some of the other critical comments in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and motion. First, he quoted the figure, as he did when he was on television with me the other day, regarding what he calls the lack of formal training—[Interruption.] Indeed, there was a survey that suggested that some apprentices—
Vince Cable
There were a substantial number of surveys; I am quoting the one that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted.
Vince Cable
We have published a survey in which 24% of apprentices said that they had not received formal training. The hon. Gentleman has built his criticism around that.
Vince Cable
I am not disowning the report; it clearly exists. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition could be a little less silly and just try to follow the argument. The key is in the word “formal”. Many people do good apprenticeships in business that involve informal work in the workplace, and many people define good training in that way. The survey that we conducted, which the hon. Gentleman is having a little giggle about, tells us very clearly that 90% of those trainees are satisfied with their apprenticeships, while 72% are very satisfied. Ninety-seven per cent. said that they had been trained—sometimes informally, sometimes formally—and 90% got a job. Perhaps most crucially, there is a very high earnings premium. I have quoted the figure for level 2, and for level 3 it is significantly higher—about 16% three to five years after graduation. The proof of the pudding in is in the eating: these apprenticeships do provide satisfaction, jobs and higher salaries for the people who do them.
Let me address the minimum wage. The survey shows that 15% of people are not being paid the minimum wage. That figure is clearly too high, and unacceptable. The motion says that it is “one in five”. I am not sure who did the maths on this, but one in five is not 15%. Perhaps we need compulsory maths for Opposition Front Benchers as well as apprentices. The key point is that 15% is way down on the 30% figure that we inherited. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been part of these debates during the past year, we have significantly improved enforcement measures. We have increased penalties from £5,000 per firm to £20,000 per person, we have introduced naming and shaming, and we have increased the enforcement budget by 30%. We do take the minimum wage seriously. We believe that it must be enforced and that it should apply to apprentices as it should to anyone else.
The hon. Gentleman is right that procurement is a lever for the public sector to employ. We already have many examples of good practice in public sector procurement. Crossrail is a company that has really committed itself to high levels of apprenticeships. There are a couple of practical problems, as I hope he recognises; I think he hinted at one of them. First, for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, where we are trying to increase the share of public procurement, there is a conflict of objectives. Do we regard getting SMEs into procurement as more important than increasing their number of apprenticeships? There is no clear answer to that. Secondly, companies that are required to introduce apprenticeships would simply add that to the cost and it would be passed on to the public sector, so instead of a direct subsidy through our 50:50 payment system we would be providing indirect subsidies. These are not crippling objections. We need to reflect on how we can better use public procurement, but crude legislation and compulsion is probably not the best way. I accept that public procurement is a good vehicle, and we have to work on this.
Bill Esterson
I agree that it is a real challenge, given the current situation, to enable more SMEs, particularly the smallest businesses, to take on apprentices. Does the Secretary of State agree that countries such as Germany have cracked this problem over many years, and that there are things we can apply from Germany and elsewhere to achieve the goal of getting more small businesses to take on apprentices?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a German model that seems to work for that country, and Austria is another example. Their approach is different from ours, but it has given them consistently high levels of skills in manufacturing industries, in particular. We should learn from that. There is an element of compulsion and levying that we have moved away from in the UK. However, I am certainly happy to learn from Germany on this and other things.
Andrew Gwynne
There are also some very good examples here in England. May I commend to the Secretary of State the work of Labour-controlled Tameside council, which covers part of my constituency and which has established a local apprenticeship company from which SMEs can draw down apprentices, even though the local authority is running the company?
Vince Cable
Yes, I believe there are lot of good models of that kind, and I commend the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
That leads on to another issue that the shadow Business Secretary raised—devolution and how we capture decision making to a local level. He is right that we should have as much devolution as possible. That is what we are trying to do through the city deals and the local deals. There are many good models. Leeds is one, and Manchester is also getting off the ground. Sheffield is pioneering a lot of the local-level commissioning of apprenticeships that is particularly good for getting through to SMEs.
Devolution is not simply about local government or LEPs. One thing we had to do when I came into office was strip away some of the bureaucracy governing further education colleges as leading providers. We had to simplify greatly a very bureaucratic top-down system. Devolution is also about devolving to companies, and one of our major initiatives—employer ownership schemes and the trailblazers, which set industry-level standards—has reduced bureaucracy for small companies and helped them at industry level to formulate standards that they can use. Devolution is not just about local government.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that LEPs can be great champions of apprenticeships when they are given the power to do so? Today, the Worcestershire LEP announced that the ambitious target it set itself of having 10,000 people participating in apprenticeships in the county by 2015 has already been achieved. Is that not an example of how by using the existing structures in our existing counties, rather than creating artificial regions, we can drive forward apprenticeships and skills?
Vince Cable
That is one of the examples. The LEPs have demonstrated the success of devolution and there are many other models. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has done brilliant work locally by simply working with local colleges and local authorities. There are many local examples and that is what we should be trying to achieve.
I know that you want to bring more people into the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me make two points in conclusion.
Mr Byrne
Before the Secretary of State concludes, will he update the House on the potentially quite sweeping changes to how we fund apprenticeships in this country? The Minister for Skills and Equalities’ predecessor launched a wide-ranging consultation on direct payment through the PAYE system, but on 13 January the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), told the House that the process was in a state of suspended animation and that no further reform would be made. Will the Secretary of State tell the House this afternoon what on earth is going on?
Vince Cable
Our objective is to try to make the system of employer ownership much more extensive. We have had great success with our pilots and are anxious to extend the system. Different models have been canvassed and there has been a ministerial statement describing very clearly where we are. We are keen to do this in a way that creates incentives rather than disincentives for small businesses. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that we are not rushing into a scheme prematurely, but are consulting. That is exactly what Governments do, and when the Government are returned, if I am still in this post, I am sure that we will see a lot of action in that area.
Let me make my two concluding points. First, the shadow Business Secretary mentioned the importance of the status of apprenticeships. That is absolutely right. For far too long we have had a two-tier system under which supposedly clever people went to university and those who failed went on to vocational courses. We need to break that down. It is being broken down and there is a change in perception. A recent survey suggested that 57% of parents are willing to recommend an apprenticeship course to their children. Many of them can see the economic advantages of such a course and the status is changing.
The big issue is the one the shadow Business Secretary started with. I agree that for the sake of the economy we need significantly increased investment in people and skills. The figure we have in the Department is that every £1 million invested in apprenticeships yields an £18 million return to the economy. It is essential that we extend rather than contract the number of apprenticeships. We have a proud record of doing that and I want to see it continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to Members that there is little time left in the debate and that many people wish to speak. We will therefore have a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I am speaking in part about an inquiry by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills that took nine months and made many recommendations, I shall try to keep my comments within the time limit.
I welcome the debate and the cross-party agreement on the importance of apprenticeships and the skills agenda. I find the concentration on figures and party-political point scoring, shall we say, about the number of apprenticeships supremely unhelpful in determining our skills needs and how we will meet them. The Government, to their credit, have been prepared to invest £1.6 billion in apprenticeships in the past financial year, but we have seen a fall in the number of starters. Notwithstanding the substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships overall, we know that the increase has been much lower in construction and engineering apprenticeships, which are incredibly important in the development of our economy.
If we take the education system as a whole and add in the money we put into the apprenticeships programme, we see that we are investing a huge amount of money but are not addressing the skills imbalance in the economy. I will single out two crucial areas in which we need to improve our performance if we are to address the problem. The first area is the education system, particularly the careers service in schools. Much has been said about parity of esteem, and I welcome the concentration by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on reinforcing the status of apprenticeships, which is absolutely vital if we are ever to change the mindset in schools. If I have time, the second area on which I will comment is engagement with small businesses, but I will first talk about schools and the culture in the education system.
When the Committee visited Sheffield, it came across a very bright apprentice who had been offered a university place at school, but was virtually ostracised when he told the school that he would take an apprenticeship; he was not even invited to the school’s end-of-term event. That experience is reflected more widely. The Edge Foundation has said that 26% of those surveyed had been actively discouraged from becoming apprentices. I do not blame schools or teachers, because they are delivering on an agenda set by the Government. If the Government want to change the situation, they must set the agenda on Ofsted and monitoring to ensure that vocational training receives the same support and promotion in the education system as universities and A-levels.
Mr Walker
I agree completely with the Chair of the Select Committee. I recently held an event in my constituency for apprentices to talk to school careers advisers. One thing that came across very strongly was that apprentices and their employers told careers advisers that people expected to increase their earnings in the long run by going for an apprenticeship. Careers advisers seem to start from a natural assumption that apprentices are paid less. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is one of the myths we need to take on? The long-term earning potential of apprentices is often much higher.
Mr Bailey
I entirely agree. For too long the careers service has been seen as a bolt-on to the educational process, as reflected in criticisms by the Education Committee and Ofsted. I am not satisfied that the guidance issued to schools in April fully addresses that issue. The ability to understand a student’s potential and to place them in the most appropriate skills setting is absolutely essential both to the individual involved and to the economy as a whole. That area of education is grossly neglected.
I want to move on briefly to small businesses. In my experience, blue-chip companies understand apprenticeships, deliver on them and play a vital role. However, our economy is dominated by small businesses—more than 90% of businesses are small ones—and it is generally recognised that that sector has the potential to increase employment. It is essential to get more small businesses to take on apprentices, but all too often they do not have the capacity, time or finances to train them in skills.
I accept that the Government have recognised the need for more employer involvement, but the latest statement on 13 January fell short of what small businesses need both in relation to the funding regime and the guidelines necessary for them to have the confidence to take on apprentices. There is a lack of clarity and too much bureaucracy, and the Government need to take a consistent approach to small businesses if we are to overcome the problem.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
In my constituency of Basingstoke, the number of apprenticeships this year is double the number in 2009 under the last Government. Over the past four years, there have been more than 6,000 apprenticeships—1,600 in the last year alone.
I thank all the businesses who take on apprentices and the colleges that work so hard to make apprenticeships such a success. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), did not want to suggest that those businesses were simply rebadging existing training programmes, because that would belittle the incredible work that the many hundreds of businesses in my constituency that take part in the schemes put into making them a success.
I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that a future Conservative Government will make a £1 billion commitment to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships by 2020. That is the sort of commitment that businesses in my constituency want to see.
Why do I think that apprenticeships are so successful in my part of Hampshire? It is for three reasons. First, apprenticeships are part of the culture. We have one of the longest-running apprenticeship schemes in Basingstoke at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Employers believe in apprenticeships because they have seen how they work, whether it is Fujitsu or MiniTec. Whether they are large or small, businesses have seen how apprenticeships deliver quality staff.
Secondly, businesses in Basingstoke believe in apprenticeships because we have one of the top-performing colleges in Basingstoke college of technology, which delivers hundreds of apprenticeship schemes every year in subjects as diverse as IT, web design and child care. Such organisations are leading the way, and we should be celebrating them today.
The third element, which was picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in his intervention, is the role of local enterprise partnerships. My local LEP, Enterprise M3, put apprenticeships at the heart of its skills and employability strategy that was published two years ago. It is that leadership and commitment, which has come right from the top, that has helped us to secure so much support, particularly through growth deal funding, which has supported the establishment of key skills centres right across the LEP. That is just the sort of support that we need for this programme.
I want to make three further points in the time that is available to me. First, the hon. Member for Streatham made it clear in his opening statement for the Opposition that the motion focuses on young people, and rightly so. However, he seemed very dismissive of the role of apprenticeships for older people who have been established in the work force for a number of years. He needs to consider that position more carefully. My local college delivers three quarters of its apprenticeships to people who are over the age of 18.
Mr Umunna
It is entirely wrong of the right hon. Lady to describe me as dismissing apprenticeships for older people. My point is that we need to increase the numbers dramatically, particularly in respect of young people. It is totally wrong of her to misconstrue my comments in that way.
Maria Miller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear. It was a little less clear in his speech. The teaching staff at my local college will want to hear what he has just said, because it is important that we have a lifetime approach to training for people in our work force. Training does not stop when we leave college, school or university; it goes on through our lives. Apprenticeships offer an incredibly strong way for people to increase their skills and ensure that they have a high level of employability, particularly in areas such as mine, where we estimate that 50% of the job opportunities will require a higher education qualification in the future.
Secondly, I want to focus on the quality of apprenticeships. I commend the Government for driving up the standards of apprenticeships in recent years. However, I do not think that we should devalue the importance of level 2 apprenticeships. They are an immensely valuable way of making up for lost time at school or college for youngsters—or, indeed, older people—who do not have basic qualifications. I hope that the Opposition would want to rephrase the motion, because it tends to suggest that they are devaluing level 2 apprenticeships or writing them off altogether. I would not endorse that at all.
Finally, I know that the Minister is looking at funding routes that enable employers to get involved in apprenticeships, and I would like to talk to him about the process used by the Skills Funding Agency to allocate growth funding—perhaps he will meet me separately to discuss that. Currently, the SFA requires providers to recruit additional apprenticeships and then bid for funding. Opportunities to bid for funding are every three months, but the agency does not guarantee that extra funding will be allocated in that process. Colleges and employers should work together to maximise the opportunities for apprenticeships, and we must ensure that we do not lose opportunities simply because of the slowness of the process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid I was rather optimistic with the five-minute time limit, because five minutes plus interventions becomes seven minutes. I must now reduce the time limit to three minutes, although I will be kind to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) as he had no warning about that.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, in just 92 days I will have reached the end of my first term as an MP. In my mind, it is still inconceivable that I have made it from being an apprentice on a massive building site to being, well, an apprentice on a massive building site, and although my political apprenticeship is about to be completed, the Palace of Westminster is not a bad site to work on. When I walked through the gothic archway that leads to the Chamber for the first time, flanked on either side by the familiar green Benches that I had only ever seen on the telly, I thought that I would be the only brickie in Parliament. But no—not only is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) a former bricklayer, but no less than the Deputy Speaker himself is a time-served, trowel-carrying member of the building fraternity.
The Prime Minister was challenged by young people on the programme “Stand Up Be Counted”, and he said that although the apprenticeship wage is not that high, the training and experience that someone gets should lead to a good job. However, he did not say what he is doing to address the problem of wage rates. My party is right to advocate equality between an apprenticeship and an undergraduate degree, but there must be greater focus on training people for specific sectors where there is real employment growth.
The Construction Industry Training Board construction skills forecast predicts that the construction industry will need more than 200,000 entrants over the life of this Parliament. That is in part to cope with political priorities such as house building and road improvements, but also to deal with an ageing population in the work force, with many workers reaching retirement age. That means that an average of 40,000 construction workers will need to be trained each and every year. To put that in context, in the last financial year just over 1,000 apprentices completed construction apprenticeships.
Construction was hit hard by the global financial crisis and the Government’s austerity measures, and thousands of workers lost their jobs or were replaced by cheaper migrant workers. We have seen the continued casualisation of the industry, and the latest practice of umbrella companies top-slicing workers’ wages. That is why I am proud of the campaign led by my union—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—to stop quick-buck merchants and unscrupulous employers damaging the reputation of the whole industry in a way that puts off many young people from considering construction apprenticeships as an attractive employment option.
The situation is stark and a number of factors require addressing immediately. Careers advice is patchy at best, and we must get away from the perception that construction is just for low achievers. The gender imbalance is still acute. Out of the 13,500 apprenticeship starts last year, only 250 were female, and for the best part of a decade construction has not been an industry that guarantees secure employment.
Liverpool city council has a great apprenticeship model, should others be looking to replicate its success. However, unless the Government are serious about filling the considerable skills shortages that exist in the construction sector, it will be extremely difficult to deliver those infrastructure priorities and we will need to import increasing numbers of skilled workers from abroad.
I firmly believe that the Government can change the circumstances of ordinary people for the better, and if I am re-elected in a few months’ time and come back here, the Labour Government that we will form will give hope to a new generation that is looking for high-quality skills, training and employment in our costed apprenticeship programme. I hope I am returned to see it.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am sorry we have only a short time to discuss apprenticeships, which have changed my constituency massively over the last five years of this Government. In 2010, 630 under-24s were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and in the year before the election, there were 600 apprenticeship starts. During that time of high youth unemployment in my constituency, we saw something really bizarre: both the vacancy rate and, in certain sectors, the number of unemployed people rose. It was completely counterintuitive. The reason was that young people were leaving school without the menu of skills that our local high-tech, high-quality engineering and manufacturing businesses wanted.
We have heard about the importance of encouraging smaller businesses to take on apprenticeships. I took it upon myself to visit all the small businesses in my constituency and say, “Why are you not embedding apprenticeships in your business?” In 2010-11, I found that lots of those businesses, for myriad reasons, had simply given up on apprenticeships. I visited a weaving mill in Darwen and said to the owner, “It’s fantastic to see all your looms still going”—people think we have lost our textile industry in Lancashire, but it is still going strong—“but every single person working them has white hair.” I do not mean to criticise anyone with white hair, but in 10 years, if he has not got apprentices back into his business, his highly skilled British manufacturing business will shut.
The mill owner, along with other great employers in my constituency, such as JJO plc and WEC Engineering, came together to launch apprenticeships campaigns with the simple aim of recruiting 100 apprentices in 100 days. We have now had three of these campaigns. In the first one, we recruited 160 apprentices in 100 days; in the second, we recruited more than 200; and in last year’s, we recruited more than 300. In fact, the tie I am wearing for this debate was woven by a young apprentice who benefited from one of those campaigns. It is three campaigns old and is beginning to look its age—and it gives evidence of the number of lunches I have worn it for as well.
Businesses in my area embraced apprenticeships, so we have cut by half—to just 320—the number of unemployed young people and doubled the number of apprenticeships to more than 1,100. I am grateful for the support of businesses in my area in doing this.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on tabling the motion and focusing on 19 to 24-year-olds. When I had the honour to serve on the Front Bench, one of the things I took to it from my experience in Blackpool was that 19 to 24-year-olds were a key group that must not be left out of the process. Many in that age group have missed out on chances, perhaps because of disability, caring responsibilities, lifestyle or family disruption, but theirs is a key group for progression. There is certainly good practice in respect of that age range. I think of the “build up” programme in Blackpool college, which brings many apprentices into construction; the Lancashire apprenticeships scheme; and the skills and jobs fair I held last year involving 300 young people and 40 to 50 business participants.
As we have seen today, however, the Government were slow to match their rhetoric on 19 to 24-year-olds with the statistics. Why are they failing? In part, they are failing because they made such a disastrous mistake on traineeships. Traineeships were first mooted in 2012 by the Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was dawdled over for 18 months, and then became part of a long wrangle between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills over the definition of benefits. It had no marketing budget and no proper sell to colleges, and there was a continued failure to consult employers, as we see even today in comments in FE Week. The 19 to 24 age group needs to be encouraged.
This is a Government who, while lauding apprenticeships in the round, have hindered the potential to access them in detail. This perspective has constantly been undermined, as we have heard, by the lack of co-operation from the Department for Education, not least in relation to the shambles of careers advice. This Government have commissioned good reports from business people such as Doug Richard and Jason Holt, but then failed to act quickly or effectively on them. They have not listened to what businesses and business organisations have said—and none more so than on the policies of procurement, which we introduced in government with some wonderful examples such as Crossrail.
We have commissioned a trio of reports on FE, skills and apprenticeships, and we have recognised the need for mechanisms to secure a critical step change in the take-up of apprenticeships by small and medium-sized enterprises. As I pointed out when I spoke at Training 2000 at Bolton in 2012, greater connections with the supply chain about training and other things are all key mechanisms to getting things across to benefit 19 to 24-year-olds.
That is why in our devolution proposals we talk specifically about skills and apprenticeships. They offer a key role not just for local councils, but for unions and union learning fund people. In that process there must be a key role for apprenticeships in the service and creative sectors, as well as in logistics and transport. We are going to have infrastructure projects that will produce £50 billion of spend over the next few years. We need to make sure that significant numbers of apprenticeships come from that, rather than having the record of hype and disconnect between BIS and DFE, which has too often blotted out this Government’s copybook on skills, training and apprenticeships. We need a strategy of progression, which the Opposition Front-Bench team are taking forward.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. The limited time available means that I shall have to circumscribe what I was going to say. First of all, I appreciate that this is an Opposition day debate, so I appreciate that the Opposition will find things that they think we have done badly, and vice-versa. However, I want to rise above that, because the most positive aspect for me is that both sides recognise that apprenticeships have gone through—possibly started by the Opposition—a transformational process. I believe that the coalition has broadly carried that on successfully, so I am hopeful that whoever are in government after the general election will keep their feet flattened down on this whole apprenticeship agenda. It has been absolutely transformational for many hundreds of thousands of people across the nation.
I was the first MP after the general election to launch 100:100. It is not just that I was optimistic about defeating my coalition colleagues in Eastbourne, but that with a business background I had a clear understanding and appreciation that when good apprenticeships are put in place, they are both tremendously successful in securing employment for those who have been apprentices and beneficial to the companies involved. We achieved 181 rather than 100; since then, more than 3,500 apprenticeships have started in Eastbourne. It has helped to lift the confidence and mood of the constituency considerably. I am sure that it is also likely to be one reason why we have come through the recession so successfully.
I pay particular tribute to Sussex Downs college, whose apprenticeship unit has been outstanding. I have worked closely with the college right from the very beginning, and continue to do so. It is running at a conversion rate, for a number of different apprenticeship sectors, of 92%. I want that in Hansard, so I refer again to a 92% conversation rate of apprenticeships into jobs. Colleagues will know that very few Government employment schemes ever run at that rate of conversation. I congratulate Sussex Downs on its apprenticeship scheme.
Finally, on the status issue, I have been working closely with a number of different groups to try to set up something called “the Royal Association of Apprenticeships”. Depending on what happens after the general election, I hope to continue to make progress on that project. I am keen to work with leading Opposition figures as well, because the status aspect of apprenticeships is crucial, and if we could put together something like a royal association and make it work, it would enhance the status and gravitas of the whole concept of apprenticeships. I think this is necessary and will provide an important part of the jigsaw to improve apprenticeships generally for long into the future.
It has been a privilege to speak. Apprenticeships have been a game changer, and I look forward to that continuing for the next 20 years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the important role played by training providers in supplying the off-the-job learning that is such a crucial factor in apprenticeships. Hugh Baird college in Sefton does a fantastic job in partnership with the employers who look after the apprentices, across a range of sectors.
When I visited Michelin Tyre in Stoke a couple of years ago, I met engineers who were in their late 40s or early 50s. They were the youngest engineers in the company until a year or two ago, when the company suddenly realised that it had no way of replacing its engineers. We heard the same story from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). Michelin now employs a number of young, high-quality apprentices, who are doing fantastic work and developing the skills that the company needs. As we have heard, that is a familiar story.
The construction industry in the north-west needs 1,500 new bricklayers and 1,500 new roofers each year. Where are those skilled jobs to come from unless we get the apprenticeship agenda right? I hear from schools in my constituency that fewer pupils are studying vocational subjects such as design and technology. Of course we need to encourage young people to go to university, but all too often we value academic learning and qualifications at the expense of vocational learning and qualifications. The culture needs to change, but I fear that we are far from reaching that point. Whether deliberately or not, we distinguish between the two, and that absolutely has to change. As I said in an intervention, it is simply not an issue in Germany, where the vocational and academic paths run alongside each other. As is implied in the motion, the technical baccalaureate is important in enhancing the status of technical education and qualifications, as well as addressing the shortage of skills in the STEM subjects.
Concern was expressed to the Education Committee about the damage caused by the reduction in the number of professional careers advisers, and the removal of work experience as an option for many young people. Businesses have told me in my constituency, as well as in evidence given to our Committee, about the difficulties that that causes in preventing young people from being exposed to the fantastic opportunity that is presented by apprenticeships.
We must increase the number of apprentices. We need to make it far easier for businesses to take them on. We also need to make apprenticeships far more attractive to young people, and to ensure that vocational qualifications and learning in this country are regarded as being of the highest standard and value. That is why the motion is so important. I hope that it is passed, so that both our young people and the country as a whole can benefit.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I will set my remarks in the context of the successful Government industrial strategy, because it has driven the need for 83,000 additional engineers every year. I think it important to concentrate on our apprenticeship programme, which must start to fill that huge gap. The need is obvious. For example, £100 million has been invested in Airbus, in my constituency and elsewhere, to push forward the frontiers of technology, and firms in my constituency such as Renishaw, ABB, Delphi and Lister Shearing all want more engineers, because their order books are full and their export opportunities significant.
I want to make three points. First, we must ensure that the relationship between business and education improves by making it possible for business to tell education what it needs, and for education to appreciate the sheer numbers that are required in certain areas. That, of course, must include a focus on STEM subjects. Secondly, I think that further education colleges are the unsung heroes of this story. It might be worth while for us to start thinking about a kind of Russell group to include the very best FE colleges, so that they can lift themselves up, celebrate their success, and become the key deliverers of some of the apprenticeships to which I have referred.
Thirdly, we need to talk about apprenticeships in much more glowing terms than we often do, and one way to do that is to have a proper award. It is not enough just to give apprentices something from the business. There should be an award that says, “Wherever you are and whoever you are, you’ve done it and you should be proud. Here’s a certificate to salute that fact.”
Those three ideas are designed to improve what we understand an apprentice to be and to show why we value them so much. In my constituency, I try to do all these things in different ways. I established a festival of manufacturing and engineering, which is geared to ensuring that schools and business have an ongoing relationship. I salute the successful apprentices and firms who drive up standards and ensure that our real and growing economy is equipped with the skills to deliver the output and productivity we need. They are being created by various measures and by the long-term economic plan.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It falls on me to be tail-end Charlie in this debate on which so much consensus could and should have been reached, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) pointed out. We all, across the House, share enthusiasm for apprenticeships: their improvement, their widening and their breadth. Unfortunately, today that opportunity was lost in what was, frankly, a disgraceful speech by the shadow Business Secretary. His dire, tribal attempt to rubbish this Government’s—and, above all, the country’s —remarkable achievements in growing apprenticeships and shrinking youth unemployment led to a string of inaccurate and, frankly, almost offensive claims. Let me try to deal, very briefly, with some of them.
The shadow Business Secretary said that the numbers of young apprenticeships were down. The Secretary of State pointed out that they are slightly down for 19 to 24-year-olds in 2013-14. In Gloucester, however, they are still more than 80% higher than the comparable figure when the previous Government were in power, and were more than double that figure in 2012-13. Overall, apprenticeships for 19 to 24-year-olds in Gloucester are at 1,730 in the past three years, compared with 740 in the last three years of the Labour Government. The figures, however one tries to twist them, are remarkable.
The shadow Business Secretary said that many of the apprenticeships were not worth the paper they are written on. How insulting to the 5,000 new apprentices in Gloucester. He said, and it is in the motion, that level 2 apprenticeships are not worth anything at all. Let me tell the House that that is completely wrong. The evidence shows that many apprentices do a level 2 apprenticeship—for example, in business administration—for a year and then go on to do a level 3 apprenticeship in the second year. I know this to be true as the second MP to hire his own apprentice. The shadow Secretary of State admitted that he himself does not have an apprentice and I do not believe that any others on the Opposition Front Bench do. I am happy to take an intervention. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is saying that he does have one, which is encouraging, but it is disappointing that the shadow Business Secretary does not and does not have that first-hand experience.
Jake Berry
Very briefly, because I know we are pushed for time. On the point of MPs having apprentices—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made many interventions. I am sorry, but we are at the end of this debate.
Richard Graham
I think my hon. Friend was going to make the point that it is important that we lead by example and employ our own apprentices wherever possible.
The shadow Business Secretary went on to talk, with an element of derision, about the number of apprentices over 60 who have started since this Government came into power. I hope that my older constituents, Age UK and others will have noted that point carefully. In fact, he offended almost everybody I can imagine, including all the businesses, training colleges, councils and the NHS in Gloucester that have taken on apprenticeships in the past five years and have done so much to give the opportunities to young people that all of us across this House surely agree is incredibly important. In a sense, his final words rather summed up his speech. He finished by saying that he will be voting Labour. Well, I am delighted for the Leader of the Opposition that he has the vote of his shadow Business Secretary, but if that is the summary of his party’s strategy, it is pretty disappointing. We heard nothing about the opportunities to widen apprenticeships into more sectors, including nursing; the opportunities from the pilot scheme the Government have run to let employers take control of their training funds; and the ways in which the guilds can offer apprenticeships. There were many things that could and should have been covered today, and it is a great disappointment that they were not. I will certainly not be voting for this motion, but I do agree wholeheartedly with all the Members of this House who support apprenticeships and want to see more of them.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am not sure which debate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was in, but he certainly constructed a few windmills of his own to tilt at. No doubt, that will be of interest to his local press in what I know will be a tight contest.
This in general has been a very good debate. It has been especially heartening to see interest across the House in driving behind a shared ambition to boost the number of apprenticeships, to close the skills shortages and gaps that bedevil so much of our economy and to close the looming large productivity gap that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) alluded to in his opening remarks. The fact that there is now a 20% productivity gap between this country and the rest of the G7 is shocking, and it is going to make it very difficult for us as a country to earn our way out of the cost of living crisis in which this coalition Government have landed us.
It is simply impossible for us to raise wages in the way we want to unless we raise productivity rates and that, in turn, is going to require us to raise the level of skills in this country. As my hon. Friend said, we are very proud of our record in government in rescuing the apprenticeship programme from the Conservative Administration back in 1997. I think the grand total then was 65,000 apprentices, and we are very proud that we were able to raise that number to nearly 300,000 by the time we left office. We achieved that through some concerted policy measures, not least the creation of a National Apprenticeship Service, which was extremely successful in its short life. I am glad the current Government kept it on, although I am afraid it is now a somewhat eviscerated version of its former self.
We were the first Government to introduce a national apprenticeship week back in 2008, but crucially we learned the hard way—and it is a shame these lessons were not taken up in the way they could have been—that public procurement could be used to drive up apprenticeship numbers, and I was very pleased to see on Monday deep below Tottenham Court road the extraordinary work that Terry Morgan and the Crossrail team are undertaking there. That public procurement project has now driven about 440 new apprenticeship numbers into the system. That is a very good example of public procurement being used to increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.
A number of hon. Members have noted with appreciation that there is a degree of consensus in this debate, and the Government did do some things that sought to build on the firm foundations left by the last Labour Government. The skills strategy published in 2010 committed to improving apprenticeship standards, and the higher apprenticeship fund was a welcome innovation, as was the money for higher apprenticeship numbers that the Secretary of State referred to in response to an intervention from me.
The question, however, is whether the scale of this Government’s ambition is anywhere near the level that is needed to get this country out of the hole into which they have put us. It has been argued this afternoon that there are four or five important areas where the Government’s apprenticeship reforms have fallen short. First, there is the question of whether there is enough training in the apprenticeships that are available today. The Secretary of State did an heroic job of defending the data his Department published, but the truth is that nearly a quarter of the 19 to 24-year-old age group do not receive any formal training, which means an apprentice in England gets under seven hours of training a week. We do not think that is good enough, and neither do the Secretary of State’s own advisers. In fact, the Doug Richard review set the target at 20% for off-the-job training each week so, on the Secretary of State’s own data and by his own measures, his Department is failing to deliver the right level of training for apprentices. That obviously has a knock-on consequence for pay. I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that 15% of apprentices not receiving the minimum wage was a scandal and was not good enough and more action needed to be taken to end that abuse. If young people know that an apprenticeship is something that is not properly paid and where the Government are content to look the other way when they are abused by employers, it is going to be harder, not easier, to draw young people into apprenticeships. The level of ambition in driving out low pay from apprenticeships is not good enough, and I am afraid we did not hear enough on that front from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I hope the Minister will correct that deficit when he winds up.
It is pretty clear to us that apprenticeships are currently too short. Approximately a third of English apprenticeships last under 18 months—a shortcoming compared not simply with international standards but with other parts of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland only 12% of apprenticeships are that short, and only 17% are in Scotland. So the Government have much further to go in increasing the length of apprenticeships just to match other parts of the United Kingdom.
The measures undertaken to increase the number of higher apprenticeships are welcome, but the truth is that only 2% of apprentices go on to degree-level skills. There is no vocational, professional and technical path to a degree-level skill worth its name in this country, and we are absolutely determined to change that.
A number of Members rightly pointed out that underlying many of these shortcomings are problems in not just the apprenticeship system but the education system. The fact that we do not require everyone in our country to do English and maths up to the age of 18, as we recommend, is a problem. The fact that there is no gold-standard technical baccalaureate at the age of 18 is a problem. The fact that this Government have undertaken the wholesale destruction of our careers service is a problem, and the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), were absolutely right to point the finger at that problem, which we will be determined to fix.
Our young people face the challenge of a world in which one in six of their peers is still out of work. If they want to go to university, they will graduate with a bill of £44,000—a debt that, on average, they will not pay off until they are in their 50s. Not enough apprenticeships are available to them because the numbers are going down, and neither are there a meaningful number of opportunities to take them on to degree-level skills. The fact that only 2% of apprentices go on to acquire degree-level skills is a major problem that employers, particularly in engineering and science, argue is holding our country back. Many companies are not re-shoring jobs because of the skills shortage. Mike Wright, chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, said in an independent review commissioned by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that we are graduating only approximately half the number of engineers we need to make good the skills gap. That means that we have to transform the number of technicians coming on line each year through the apprenticeship system. Right now, the Government simply do not have plans in place to fix that imbalance.
The Secretary of State was sanguine about the fiscal outlook for his Department, but the truth is that if the Chancellor gets his way and the science budget is protected, the BIS budget will be cut by some 44%. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is not deliverable—certainly, his civil servants do; it is not a fiscal settlement that will allow him to build the bigger, better apprenticeship system that we need.
A different level of ambition is needed. We should set a goal of sending over the next 10 years as many young people into a high-quality apprenticeship as head on to university. That is the level of ambition we need in this country, and if we are to deliver on it, we need to get several things right. First, we need to ensure that our apprentices can compete with the best in the world, which is why level 3 is the right level of ambition. Level 2 is an important step on the road to that qualification, but if we want to compete with the best in the world and close the productivity gap, we need to set our standards high, not low. We therefore need radically to expand the number of higher-level apprenticeships. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that our priority in expanding the university system is to create thousands of new technical degrees that would allow apprentices to go on and study up to degree-level skills. Those are the kind of skills that our science-based businesses are asking for.
We need to accompany these changes with radical measures to devolve spending to city regions, which will often know their local labour market best, but above all we must harness public procurement on a completely different scale compared with the ambitions set out by this Government. That point was wisely made by the Chair of the Select Committee. I am glad that there is a shared ambition across the House on the aspiration but there needs to be a practical policy in place to deliver that aspiration, and Labour Members are determined to practise what we preach.
The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)
It came as a bit of a surprise to learn that the Opposition were proposing a debate on apprenticeships, because as we have heard during this excellent debate, the Government can point to a remarkable record of success in their apprenticeship programme. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that the number of apprenticeships in his constituency was 80% higher in the past year than in the last year of the previous Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) told the House that, through his efforts to create jobs fairs and no fewer than three apprenticeship fairs, unemployment in his constituency was now 50% lower than it was when he was elected to Parliament. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) that her local college, Basingstoke college, was keen to invest more money every year to create more apprenticeships, and I will of course be delighted to meet her and the college principal to discuss ways in which the college can bid more effectively for money in-year when it can identify ways to grow its programme.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who brought to the debate the enormous advantage of having completed an apprenticeship himself. I have no idea why he chose to give up that honourable trade for the one that he is now pursuing, but I am nevertheless full of admiration for him. He made an important contribution —compared with the woolly and glib thinking of those on his Front Bench—in pointing out the crucial importance of level 2 apprenticeships, particularly in construction. It would simply be wrong to tell the young men and women who are doing a level 2 apprenticeship in bricklaying that it was no longer going to be called an apprenticeship, even though they were employed, working hard, going to college and training, and even though they were securing valuable qualifications, of which many more are needed.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who made the particularly important point that there was a key link between apprenticeships and the industrial strategies that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has brought in. He also said that we needed to work with local economic partnerships to create apprenticeships that support the local growing sectors in his constituency and elsewhere. I am sorry that I have not yet been invited to his festival of manufacturing and engineering, but I look forward to receiving an invitation to the next one when he is re-elected in May.
We have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends about the good record of this Government. We have our record to be proud of, but Conservative Members also have a clear plan for the future. Unlike the Opposition’s proposals in the motion, our plan is fully costed and fully resourced.
Nick Boles
We will continue to improve the quality of apprenticeships through our Trailblazers programme by getting groups of employers to develop apprenticeship standards that deliver the skills that they need. We will also offer young people a clear choice: to earn or learn—to get a job or to go to university—or to combine earning and learning through an apprenticeship. It does young people no favours to let them start their lives in subsidised inactivity, neither earning nor learning, so we will restrict the benefits that young people receive and use the money saved from that and from the proceeds of a reduction in the benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 to fund 3 million high-quality apprenticeships between 2015 and 2020.
By contrast, what we have heard from the Opposition has been hopelessly vague. After the comprehensive demolition of the shadow Secretary of State’s policy on tuition fees by university vice-chancellors, he has clearly decided to try his luck with apprenticeships, but yet again we see that the right hon. Gentleman is better with atmospherics than with policy detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister is not giving way, and neither did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) when he was at the Dispatch Box. I must point out that the Front-Bench speakers in this debate have spoken for well over an hour, which is why Back Benchers have had very little time to speak. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I call the Minister.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition motion refers to an aspiration that there should be as many people starting apprenticeships as there are going to university. Treasury officials—not Ministers—have costed this policy and advised that it would cost £710 million in 2015-16. But when challenged about how they would pay for this, what tax they would put up, what other spending programme they would cut, answer came there none.
The Opposition motion also promotes the fantastically deluded idea that all apprenticeships should be level 3 and should last a minimum of two years. Treasury officials—again, not Ministers—costed this policy too. They advise that it would cost £680 million in 2015-16. Can the shadow Front-Bench team explain how they would pay for that, who would pay more tax, whose services would be cut? Of course not.
It is especially disappointing to see this policy soufflé survive the exacting inquiries of the Opposition’s very own Masterchef, the shadow Minister. He has a razor-sharp mind and a real zeal for reform, but I am afraid it is clear that he has been relegated to the sidelines, allowed out only on high days and holidays and, as we have just heard, forced to read from the Leader of the Opposition’s lazily profligate script. The flimsiness of the Labour party’s proposals for apprenticeships might be harmless enough in the early years of opposition. That, of course, is where the shadow Secretary of State has learned his trade. But in government, it would create chaos.
Employers, training providers and young people are making big decisions when they decide to invest in creating apprenticeships and in creating the training programmes to support apprenticeships and, as young people, deciding to commit to an apprenticeship. They need certainty and clarity if they are to have the confidence to make a long-term commitment to apprenticeships. They need a competent Government with a clear plan and a clear understanding of how much their plan will cost and how they will pay for it.
If there is a Conservative Government after 7 May, we will invest in apprenticeships, which will be jobs and will last more than 12 months. Every apprentice will have an employer. There will be 3 million of them between 2015 and 2020 and we will pay for them by reducing other areas of Government spending so that, as we have in this Parliament, we can increase our investment in the apprenticeships programme. I urge Members to support those parties that really understand how to grow apprenticeships, and to oppose the motion.
Question put.
Electoral Registration
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 289 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of a complete and accurate electoral register to the health of our democracy; welcomes the fact that 1.8 million voters have registered using online registration, but notes that, according to the Electoral Commission, 7.5 million eligible voters are missing from the register; notes with concern that an estimated one million voters have left the register in the past year and that the shift to individual electoral registration could see millions more fall off the register; calls on the Government and the Electoral Commission to do more to tackle under-registration, including block-registering students in university or college accommodation and people living in adult sheltered accommodation and care homes, introducing a schools registration scheme, on the model of the Northern Ireland Schools Initiative, to boost registration in time for the General Election on 7 May 2015, and maximising the use of national and local data sets in securing a complete register; and further calls on the Government to set a clear goal to reduce the numbers of missing voters and to delay fully implementing individual electoral registration until this goal is met.
As the Government’s timetable has meant limited time for debating this important matter, I shall focus my remarks on the motion and how we can ensure that the general election in 92 days’ time is as fair as possible. We want the electoral register to be as complete and accurate as possible—something that I hope we all want. After all, it is the lifeblood of our democracy. If a person is not on the list, they cannot vote—it is as simple as that.
However, the electoral register also performs a much wider civic function. It provides the building blocks that the Boundary Commission uses to decide parliamentary constituency boundaries. One of the fundamental principles of our legal system—trial by one’s peers—depends on the register, as it provides the list of those who can be called for jury service. Those who are not on the register will find it more difficult, and maybe even impossible, to secure credit or a mortgage.
That is why it is so appalling that according to the Electoral Commission’s own research some 7.5 million people are missing from the register. We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: young voters, students, those who have recently changed address, those who rent privately, the unemployed, those from ethnic minorities and those in socio-economic groups D and E—in other words, poorer members of society.
Some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet estimates of the proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds on it vary from 56% to 70%. If that were not a big enough problem, we know that there is also considerable variation in the rates of those who actually vote. Just 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2010 general election, and the figure for the over-65s was pushing 75%.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On 13 October 2011 the right hon. Gentleman said that 10 million people would lose the right to vote, but he has just said that the figure is only 7.5 million, so how has the situation improved since then?
Sadiq Khan
I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—that 7.5 million is somehow more acceptable? He will appreciate, because he cares about these matters, that it depends on what figures are referred to. The Electoral Commission has done some estimates, as have other academics. It might be a laughing matter for Conservative MPs, but we think that it is a very serious issue.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way in this incredibly important debate. Does he share the concern of many people in Liverpool that the figures for attainers—the under-18s who still need to go on the register in anticipation of becoming eligible to vote—show a 97% drop in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds on Liverpool’s electoral register as a result of the introduction of the Government’s new scheme, from 2,635 to just 76? Is he as appalled as I am about those new figures?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, the register that will be used for the general election in 92 days’ time will have missing from it those who have just reached the age of 18 and should be taking part in general elections. It is estimated that there will be 3.3 million first-time voters on 7 May, and we are concerned that too many of them will be missing from the register.
Almost three quarters of those who vote are in socio-economic class AB—the wealthiest—yet fewer than two thirds of C2s and Ds do so. Our elections are being fought on the basis of a seriously skewed register, with key groups and communities under-represented.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sadiq Khan
In a moment.
Our election results are being decided by voters who are older and more affluent. This is an appropriate time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Sadiq Khan
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we introduced the measure in 2009, and he supported it. Under our motion, we would not get rid of individual voter registration but ensure that there were safeguards before the next general election.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I represent an inner-city seat where we shall see a significant reduction in the overall number of our electors, and I am concerned about the implications of that. Individual voter registration came in cheek by jowl with the concerns about electoral fraud that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the genuine concern about the fact that we can now have postal votes at will? The number of postal votes went up from some 920,000 in the 1997 election to over 6 million in the last election. It is the concern about the misuse of postal votes that makes individual registration so important.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant to the motion, but I will deal with it directly. If he has concerns about the misuse of postal votes, I advise him to report them to the police and to the Electoral Commission. He will be aware of the numbers of prosecutions that there have been over the past few years. We have to be quite careful about using parliamentary privilege to make allegations. If he has specific examples, I ask him to refer them to the police and the Electoral Commission.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The constituency with the highest proportion of postal ballots is Tatton, with 96%. Is the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) aware that 93% of people transferred their postal ballots from household registration to individual registration? Postal ballots are valued by the voting public.
Sadiq Khan
That is a very important point. In some constituencies the number of people using postal votes is incredibly high. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was not suggesting that the voters in Tatton are committing electoral fraud.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a complete red herring? The Electoral Commission’s report of 2006, when we had all-postal pilots—in my own constituency, for example—found that fraud was not an issue.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, he was not suggesting that there was huge-scale fraud but pointing out the concerns that exist. He is nodding, so I think he accepts that.
Sadiq Khan
I will let the hon. Gentleman make one final point before I make progress.
Mark Field
I was suggesting not that there is widespread fraud but that the large number of postal votes makes it all the more important to ensure the sanctity and security of the electoral system. Taking the individual registration route was an important part of that. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman’s party, when in government, made it clear that we should go down this route. The concern that he is expressing about students and people from certain socio-economic groups is part and parcel of the individual registration process.
Sadiq Khan
I am grateful for that clarification, and to demonstrate what a nice guy I am, I shall give way one last time.
Chris Ruane
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. May I inform him and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that there has been one successful prosecution for postal ballot fraud in the past seven years?
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the point that I was seeking to make a short while ago.
There is some good news. Many people out there are not prepared to put up with this inequality. I pay tribute to all those involved in registering people to vote—it is a tough job, but critical—from local authority electoral registration officers to political party activists of all parties pounding the pavements, and from the NUS to HOPE not hate, Operation Black Vote and our trade unions, who tirelessly work to get people registered. I also pay tribute to the Daily Mirror’s No Vote No Voice campaign, getting its readers and their families and friends registered to vote.
In particular, I want to pay tribute to and thank Bite the Ballot, the architects of tomorrow’s national voter registration day. Anyone who has been involved in one of their sessions with young people cannot fail to be impressed by the infectious enthusiasm of Mike Sani and his team. It is a real pity that the Prime Minister chose to snub their leaders’ debate, although it is perhaps indicative of how some in the ruling classes view younger voters.
To complicate matters further, the whole way we go about registering to vote is undergoing a fundamental change. Yes, it was the last Government who, in 2009, legislated to introduce individual electoral registration. That legislation was shaped by the experiences in Northern Ireland—when they moved to IER, there was an 11% fall in the numbers registered, so to counter that a transition period was put in place for long enough to prevent a repeat. Safeguards were also put in place at key milestones to check against any deterioration in the completeness of the register. Colleagues on both sides of the House welcomed that careful and considerate approach to moving to IER.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), now Madam Deputy Speaker, who in those days spoke for the Conservative party, said:
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and of the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening.”
The then Liberal Democrat spokesman said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-12.]
After the last general election, the coalition, in its arrogance, decided to rip up the cross-party approach supported by all sides in the previous Parliament. The coalition agreement contained a commitment to
“speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration”,
and the Government introduced the reckless Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which removed the voluntary phase and instead introduced compulsory individual electoral registration from July 2014.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. He correctly predicted the drop-off in the electoral register, and the scrapping of the voluntary arrangement in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is the root cause of these problems. Does he share my concern that the loss of those electors will lead to the long-term deterioration of the electoral register?
Sadiq Khan
Absolutely. Having fewer and fewer people taking part in elections is a bad thing for all of us. The Government’s justification for getting rid of the voluntary phase was that it would save money, but it is right to remind the House that we warned that speeding up the process and stripping out the key safeguards was gambling with the completeness of the electoral register. We were not alone. Similar warnings were voiced by experts, academics, the Electoral Reform Society and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is in his place. We take no satisfaction in saying, “We told you so.”
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that anyone who was on the household register in July 2014 who is still in the same house remains on the new register today? Is that not a serious safeguard?
Sadiq Khan
I shall come to the data-matching shortly, but we have considered those on the register in December 2013 and those on the register in December 2014, after the data-matching. An estimated 1 million voters have dropped off the electoral register. For 1 million to be missing in a year is bad enough, but the trends in the groups that are unregistered is also worrying. Data coming in from local authorities are showing serious drops among students and those turning 18. In the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the number registering fell from 630 to 114 in just 12 months. As has been said, the figure for attainers registering in Liverpool has slumped from 2,300 to just 76. Three areas with large number of students —Cardiff, Newcastle and Brighton—have seen drops of between 9% and 10.5% in the numbers registered.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country, with an increasing number of young private renters—there are more private renters than home owners in the constituency—and people who move frequently drop off the register. I pay tribute to my borough of Hackney, which has put money and time into bringing the register up again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of doing so is also a problem for local tax payers?
Sadiq Khan
To give Members an idea of the scale of the challenge, local authorities now have to write to each individual voter rather than to each household, which is a huge expense. To be fair—because I like to be fair—the Deputy Prime Minister has finally woken up—
Sadiq Khan
A Tory Minister of course stands up when I mention the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way. Liverpool authority received £161,000, which was the third highest allocation for maximising registration funding in the country. If there is any question to ask about the drop-off in registrations, it should be directed towards the council.
Sadiq Khan
Let us get this right. Academics, experts, the Select Committee, the Electoral Reform Society and everyone else says “Slow down”, but the Government go ahead. We warn them that it will go wrong, but who do they blame when it goes wrong? Somebody else. They are the same old Tories.
Mr Kevan Jones
I must say that I take great exception to the Minister’s arrogance, because his letter—agreed with the Electoral Commission—missed off attainers, and that has led to the drop in the number of 17-year-olds being registered.
Sadiq Khan
Perhaps Ministers do not realise what officials in the Cabinet Office are sending out, but they have accepted that it was their mistake.
To be fair to the Minister, his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has finally woken up to the mess that this Government made by speeding up the process. That must be why, last month, the Deputy Prime Minister announced £9.8 million to help with registering voters who are currently under-represented. He accepted that he had messed up. Will the Minister confirm that that money is ring-fenced solely for electoral registration activities?
Another critical factor is the extreme pressure on local authorities because of the cuts imposed by this Government. Local authorities have to write to 48 million individual voters, instead of 20 million households. Unlike the Minister, who criticises them, I take my hat off to local authorities, most of which are doing a remarkable job dealing with this massive change in our democracy, all against a backdrop of enormous pressures on council budgets.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
In Coventry, more than 8,000 people have not been registered, the bulk of whom are students. Coventry city council, alongside the students, has organised a registration day tomorrow at both universities. The situation is very serious, and it is no good the Government blaming everybody else but themselves when things go wrong.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure we all agree it is outrageous that the Government are once again seeking to blame somebody else for cock-ups that they were warned about.
The electoral register is in a parlous state. It is just 92 days until the general election, and just 75 days until the deadline for registration on 20 April. We need action, and we need it now. Doing nothing is not an option. The main thrust of our motion is to propose a number of remedies to which the House should give its backing. A particular priority must be young people. All the evidence shows that if people vote when they first become eligible, they are more likely to vote for the rest of their lives, because voting becomes a habit. The opposite is also true: if people do not vote early in life, taking part in elections will never be much of an issue for them. There must be a greater onus on schools and colleges to provide focused activities.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Electoral Commission and the Minister have not learned. Even though the issue of attainers has been raised with him, the letter that authorities are sending out, to which he and the Electoral Commission have agreed, does not refer to 17-year-olds being electors. They have not learned the lesson, even though the issue has been pointed out to them by electoral registration officers all over the country and certainly by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I pay tribute to him and other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for working hard with the universities and young people in their constituencies to get young people on the register.
We need special provisions for this group of people. We should allow universities and colleges to block-register those who are in halls of residence, to meet the unique challenge presented by younger people, and students in particular. That could be done very quickly and in time for May. A similar case can be made for care homes and sheltered accommodation: large groups of people who are under the responsibility of an organisation, a local authority or a charity should be allowed to be block-registered.
A scheme in Northern Ireland called the schools initiative has proved to be successful in raising the registration levels of younger people. It places a duty on schools and colleges to provide the ERO with lists of those who are approaching the age of majority. The EROs then go into the schools and colleges with pre-populated registration forms and get the students to complete them. That is even easier now that online registration is allowed.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two parties that form the coalition have a vested interest in keeping down the number of students and would-be students on the electoral register, because those two parties are the ones that put the fees up to £9,000?
Sadiq Khan
Many people will start thinking that, unless the Government take action. It is in all our interests for as many people who can vote to be on the register and to vote.
One of the brighter spots of the move to IER, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), has been the use of DWP data to verify those on the old household register in order to register them automatically on the new individual register. It is far from perfect and it has struggled with many of the under-represented groups, such as students and younger people, but it has taken the pressure off many millions of people who have not had to go through the rigmarole of registering individually.
That has showed how we can use data that are already in our possession to make the job easier. Why should we restrict that to DWP data? Why can we not look at registering people automatically if local EROs are confident that they are eligible to vote? That is covered in the later sections of the motion. The Government are in possession of considerable data about members of the public, including on benefits, social security and pensions and data held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Local authorities have data on council tax, council tenants, parking permits, school rolls, meals on wheels and so on. Those agencies should all be geared up to ask members of the public whether they are registered to vote when they come into contact with them. We could perhaps set up systems to notify a local authority if somebody applies for a new driving licence or changes their address with the taxman.
We should be more ambitious. We should be making better use of data so that people are put on the register automatically. I have had informal chats with some local authorities and they believe that they could construct a more complete register if they were allowed to use the data in their possession. We would, of course, allow people to ask to be removed from the register. The idea of maximising the information that we possess to populate the register has legs, and we will explore it in detail if we win in May. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why it is not being looked at and to hear what his objections are.
In conclusion, it is unacceptable that so many people are unregistered and are being deprived of their say in the way the country is run. I am disappointed that the Government and the Electoral Commission are so complacent about the bad news on the state of the register —bad news that grows by the day. We need a clear statement of intent from Ministers and a goal for the reduction in the number of missing voters, because we cannot afford to take risks with the register. A chronically depleted register, with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country, will call into question the legitimacy of our democracy. Let us act now before it is too late.
The Minister for the Constitution (Mr Sam Gyimah)
This is an important debate. The right to vote has been hard won, and it is the duty of everyone in public life, including those in the Government, to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote. It is also vital that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible. In pursuing that, it is my view that everyone who has the right to vote shares that right equally, including students, minority ethnic groups, forces personnel and British residents overseas. The Opposition speak as though some voters should be prioritised over others, but we believe that if someone is eligible to vote, we must take the necessary action to ensure that they are on the register.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made an admirable case for political equality, and as he wrapped up his speech he spoke about the legitimacy of our democracy. Does the Minister agree how surprising it is that Labour Members are not insisting on the equalisation of constituency sizes?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I will not be tempted into that debate.
Individual electoral registration was first introduced by the last Labour Government and has cross-party support—there is nothing sinister or cynical about the transition. As with academy schools in education, Labour was right to seek to modernise our electoral system by introducing IER, but once again we are seeing the measure through while Labour Members seek to disown it. I wonder what has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches.
Luciana Berger
The Minister talks about the importance of including everyone on the register, but in Liverpool we have lost more than 20,000 people from our electoral register. He said earlier that Liverpool had received a sum of money, but obviously that has not worked so far. What else will his Department do to assist Liverpool to ensure that we get those 20,000 people back on our electoral register?
Mr Gyimah
As I said, in addition to the £161,000 of maximised registration funding, Liverpool received £288,000 to help boost its register. If that money was not enough, the city can apply to the Cabinet Office for more funding using justification-led bids. Electoral registration officers have statutory responsibility for maintaining the register, so perhaps the hon. Lady will ask her EROs what they have done with the money.
What has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches about IER? Is it because the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is trying to taunt the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in their bids to become the Labour candidate for the Mayor of London? Could it be that the Labour party, rightly scared of the next election, has retreated to the comfort zone of opposition politics and scaremongering about the Government’s policies?
Chris Ruane
If the Conservatives win, and if the Minister is still a Minister in June, he will take the most momentous decision of his life: whether to let 5 million people drop off the register before the freeze date for boundaries on 1 December. What principles will guide him in that decision? When I asked him that in Committee, he did not have any.
Mr Gyimah
I will come to the details of the electoral register—[Interruption.] May I answer the question? There is a clear process through which the decision will be made about whether to end the transition in 2015. That will be down to the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, whoever is Minister and whoever is in government.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
In a democracy everybody should have the right to register to vote, but we must also get the correct people to register so that there is no fraud. Surely the Government must ensure that the register is correct.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Can the Minister identify any case in the last 30 years of wrongful registration? Is this not a red herring?
Mr Gyimah
IER was the policy of your party to make the electoral process secure. The Electoral Commission has identified 16 local authorities at risk of electoral fraud. Just because you have not been able to point to it, it does not mean fraud is not happening. That is the point.
The same Labour party that introduced IER is now seeking to disown it. It is the same Labour party that said our long-term economic plan would lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. [Interruption.] Instead, 1,000 new jobs have been created every day of this Parliament. It said that reforming education maintenance allowance would increase the number of young people not in education, employment or training. [Interruption.] Instead, we have seen the biggest drop in the number of NEETs since records began.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to the rubbish the Minister is talking. It is quite embarrassing. We are discussing electoral registration, not the Government’s economic record, so could we get the Minister back on to the subject?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Just a second. The Minister was giving way to me, not you, Mr Twigg. I say to hon. Members that we have very little time, and shouting down the Minister does not help anybody trying to listen to the debate. Let us listen and show some courtesy to all Members.
Mr Gyimah
The Opposition said that our plan to ensure universities were properly funded would lead to fewer students going to university, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds. We now have record numbers of students, including from disadvantaged backgrounds, attending university. With this record, it is no surprise that the Opposition are seeking to create fear and uncertainty where there should be none.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister said that our motion sought to disown IER. Where in the motion do we do that?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not responsible for the motion. I have let one or two “yous” go, but now I feel I am being brought into this debate. I also say to Members that the Minister is giving examples as he sees fit. It might not suit certain Members, but it is up to the Minister to make his speech as he wishes, and he is completely in order.
Mr Gyimah
Let me give the facts on the electoral register. The Electoral Commission’s research shows that, in 2000, 3 million people were missing from the register. In 2011, that figure had risen to an estimated 7.5 million. This is against a backdrop of an increasing population. Since 2011, the drop in registration figures has stabilised. For the 13 years Labour was in power, the state of the register deteriorated, and very little was done about it.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain why when in power Labour made sure the military had individual registration but now seems less keen on the idea for other people?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend rightly points to the principle I laid out at the beginning of my speech: we have to treat all voters equally when it comes to the electoral register.
We all know that under the old system the register was inflated. Tenants and students moved on, but the register did not. People were registered at multiple addresses without their knowledge.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In Blaenau Gwent over the past year, more than 2,000 people have dropped off the register. Does the Minister accept that being on the register is important in obtaining credit and getting a mortgage? What are the Government going to do to help the 8.5 million people who have fallen off the register to get a mortgage and to borrow money?
Mr Gyimah
The number of people on the register is increasing all the time. If we look at the register for December or for any month, we see that it provides a partial snapshot of a two-year transition process. We also know that the old system was susceptible to fraud. In one case, someone managed to register their dog to vote.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that many of these problems became apparent when this was introduced in Northern Ireland? The Government have chosen to ignore all that and press on anyway.
Mr Gyimah
That is contrary to the facts. One thing the Government did was to learn the lessons from Northern Ireland. Without going into all the detail, we preserved the annual canvass, for example. Electoral registration plummeted in Northern Ireland because it did not have the annual canvass. Since IER went live, however, nine out of 10 electors have been automatically transferred to the electoral register. No one on the electoral roll at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the next general election.
Dr Offord
Much emphasis is placed on people missing from the register. The Minister said that people entitled to be on the register are on it for two years. When I asked my office to go through some of the people seeking asylum and indefinite leave to remain in this country, we found that 16 people not entitled to vote under the old system were on the register and that 10 of them continued to be so. I have duplications and people who should not be on the register. What provision will be made to remove them?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend points to why we introduced IER. He should take the matter up with his local ERO, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of his local register.
Online registration has made it simpler and easier to register to vote, and I am pleased to announce that 900,000 18 to 25-year-olds have registered to vote online. As I said, we have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland.
I can assure the House that every resource request, from electoral returning officers, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Electoral Commission has been met. I pay tribute to all the electoral administration officers and dedicated professionals in the Cabinet Office who are working to make the transition to IER a smooth one, but we are not complacent.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
For the record, the Minister said that 900,000 had registered to vote online, but I think 900,000 might have chosen to register online—unless his announcement is much more significant than we all thought, and he is actually announcing today online voting, which many of us would welcome.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction; that number registered to vote online.
Despite the 900,000 young people who have registered to vote online, we are not complacent in our efforts. In January, we announced that an extra £10 million would be invested this year to maximise voter registration—in addition to the £4.2 million announced last year. Today, I can announce that £2.5 million of this funding will be used specifically to target groups that are under-represented on the electoral roll, including students, minority ethnic communities, overseas voters and members of the armed forces, while also tackling the issue of electoral fraud.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister keeps talking about money, but the issue is not about money; it is about the system that he is implementing. Why is it that, even though he and the Electoral Commission have been told about this, the latest letter Durham and other councils have to send out to households still do not include the old wording about registering 17-year-olds?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman has asked that question three times—twice to his own Front-Bench spokesman and now to me. What we have is a system of individual voter registration. Under the old system, parents would have put the attainer’s name on the form; under the new system, people have to register themselves. That is why we are funding “Rock Enrol!” to introduce students to the registration process at school, and why we are carrying out a national awareness campaign to introduce people to that same process.
Mr Jones
Not only have I raised the point four times today, but I have raised it with the Minister outside the Chamber as well. The fact is that those who receive these letters need to know whether they will become attainers. Under the old system, it was possible to ask for anyone aged 17 who was is likely to attain the age of 18 in the next 12 months to be placed on the register. It would have been simple to make the change. The money that is now being spent on sending the letters would have ensured that 17-year-olds in those households were registered.
Mr Gyimah
The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was tested and approved by the Electoral Commission, and in terms of users. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress now.
The £2.5 million that I have announced will be delivered through a number of organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens UK, Mencap and Operation Black Vote, to ensure that as many people as possible are placed on the register. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned data-matching. There is much more that we can do in that regard. We are currently running pilots involving the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there will be a report on them in September. Once IER has bedded in, we shall consider other ways in which we can use data that is gathered when people interact with other public services to help them to register to vote.
Sadiq Khan
Earlier in his speech, the Minister made the point that everyone should be treated equally. The fact that he is allowing data-matching means that every single person must fill in a form. If he accepts the principle that everyone should be registered in the same way, why will he not extend that people to allow block registration in halls of residence?
Mr Gyimah
The registration of students, and block registration in particular, is a key issue in the motion. In my view, you either believe in individual voter registration or you do not. You cannot have it both ways. Singling out any group of voters for block registration would be a step backwards to the old, discredited system of registration.
What is most farcical about the stance adopted by the Opposition today is that they want to give 16-year-olds the vote, but do not trust them to be able to register themselves, even once they are at university. Their whole approach is based on political gimmicks. That is why the Leader of the Opposition ended up making a speech on under-registration in Sheffield, although Sheffield university, which has piloted a registration system involving the use of data when people enrol, has one of the highest student registration rates.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister also note that Sheffield Hallam university, which has not reached that stage, has one of the lowest levels of student registration?
Mr Gyimah
It should be doing that. [Interruption.] It is not a case of blaming someone else. In 2013, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities wrote to all vice-chancellors and academic registrars, encouraging them to look at multiple ways of getting students on to the register. We have set up a student forum in which best practice can be shared. If any academic registrars are not doing that, Members should by all means let me know, and we will write to them again to ensure that they are engaging in best practice.
Let me now answer the question about block registration. Data-sharing between universities and local authorities is the key, and we are working to ensure that all universities share data. That will enable electoral registration offers to have students’ enrolment details, and to chase them to register. It also means that we can preserve the central tenet of IER, which is that individuals should be responsible for their own registration.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Bizarrely, there are more properties than there are electors on the register in the Newland ward in my constituency, where the vast majority of Hull university students live. Those students live in houses in multiple occupation. That strikes me as very peculiar. Will the Minister comment?
Mr Gyimah
Another point that has not been grasped by the Opposition is that students can choose where to register to vote. They can choose to register to vote at home or at their college premises, or, indeed both. That is entirely right. What we should move away from—and what we are moving away from—is the system whereby the warden of a college chose where the student registered. In some cases, people did not even know that they were on the electoral roll in the area concerned.
It is important that we debate this issue, but we have to be clear about what is happening today. This is not a genuine concern about a policy, because we know Labour is supportive of IER. Instead, it is an opportunistic attempt by the Labour party to con students that it is fighting for their interests when its own activists’ handbook advises it to ignore under-registered groups. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Speeches have a time limit of six minutes.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I begin with a happy announcement. If colleagues wish to go outside from about 6 pm, national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, is being celebrated this evening by a projection on to the Elizabeth Tower of an exciting animation showing ballot papers going into a ballot box. I thank the Speaker for facilitating my request to involve Parliament in national voter registration day. I am sure colleagues will avail themselves of the opportunity for a wonderful “selfie” from Westminster bridge.
More seriously, the elephant in the room is not the technicalities of voting and registration, but why people are disengaged from politics. We must facilitate people’s engagement with politics. The real reason people are not engaged with registration and voting is that they are disengaged from our democracy. They suffer a daily drip feed of corrosive cynicism, often very strongly politically biased, from the media. Our parties have atrophied. We have concentrated more and more on 50 to 100 marginal seats and not looked after our parties. There is immense ignorance, which none of us does much to dispel, around the idea that Parliament and Government have the same, rather than conflicting, interests. There is a failure, even in this place, to set out what a plural, devolved democracy of independent institutions might look and feel like. Add to that the chronic sclerosis of Whitehall and an over-centralisation that kills local creativity and responsibility, and we have a recipe of poor capability on electoral registration and bureaucracy around voting that can produce a poisonous mixture for the future of our democracy.
I am delighted we are seeking to address at least some of those difficulties today. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has reported seven times on this specific issue since 2011—seven separate reports by a Select Committee of this place to flag up what might go wrong with individual electoral registration. I have gone back through the reports today looking over the same difficulties. To the Government’s credit, they have addressed some of them, in particular on finance and on certain technical matters, and I am grateful for that. Fundamentally, however, many of the difficulties the Committee has outlined over five years are coming to pass, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said from the Opposition Front Bench, with just 92 days to go before an election and 38 days to go before Dissolution. In our complacency, we have let these problems grow and we are finding immense difficulties in each of our constituencies.
On postal voting, about half a million people have been kicked off the electoral register because they failed to reregister. That is a misfortune for them. Many of us will have been on the doorstep and said, “Hello, I am your Member of Parliament. I can see that you might need a postal vote. Can we give you that postal vote? Can we get that registration for a postal vote for you?” The Member of Parliament has been there and almost given a guarantee that the constituent will have a postal vote, but some of those people will be the very people who will not now be eligible to vote—some may not be in the first flush of youth—because of all the technicalities. We need to make sure we get these messages over and get them over quickly.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that the universal postal voting regime was introduced to boost turnout. Why does he suppose that since 2001 turnout has been 59%, 61% and 65%, whereas in previous elections it was 75%, 73% and 78%?
Mr Allen
We live in a democracy and it is the sacred duty of every Member of this House of every party to ensure that as many people register to vote and as many people can vote as is humanly possible. To throw out this red herring of fraud when there has only been a handful of cases—[Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) reminds me, only one case has ended in a successful prosecution. Denying millions of people the right to vote is the biggest fraud we are perpetrating in our democracy and we should not be collaborating on that.
Dr Offord
The reason there have been so few prosecutions could be, as we found out in the case of Nigel Kennedy, that there is a limited period in which a prosecution can be brought. That period may expire before the time it takes to get the evidence, and that determines that there will not be a prosecution.
Mr Allen
One case has been proven and taken forward. I want to give a couple of other statistics, and, sadly, there are a lot more zeros in them. Some 7.5 million people were not registered to vote at the last election. That works out at about 10,000 people in each of our constituencies. In fact, in deprived areas, such as my constituency, I am damned sure that it will be more than that—so more than 10,000 of my electorate are not even registered to vote, let alone not taking up the right to vote. Of those who did register at the last election, 16.5 million people decided not to bother to vote. If we add the non-registered to the ones who did not bother to vote, it comes to more than the number of those who voted Conservative and Labour combined.
This is a scandal. I am not blaming the Government for this; I am just saying that we as a Parliament need to take this in hand. We as a Parliament need to get people to register. We need to encourage people to vote not just because the techniques are right, but because they feel engaged in their system and believe that decisions are made not just at the Whitehall level, and because they feel they own their democracy and own decision making, particularly in own locality.
The point about EVEL—English votes for English laws—has been thrown into the debate again, but that is a procedural technicality for this House, rather than a question of how we devolve power, as they do in virtually every other western democracy, to people at the grass roots, to seize the opportunity to develop their own ways in their own areas.
Mark Durkan
On the subject of English votes for English laws, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if the Government continue with the current Act—the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—the seat distribution to the boundary commissions in the next Parliament will be on the basis of reduced registration in England, so there could be fewer English seats in this House and more Scottish and Northern Ireland seats?
Mr Allen
Whenever a colleague in this House hears someone talking about EVEL and English votes they should be reminded that, unlike most democracies, we decide the size of our constituencies not on the number of people in them but on the number of people who are registered, and, as I have said, even at the last election 7.5 million were not registered. What a nonsense of a system that is!
I am going to give one last statistic, which is a slightly happier one. Some say, “People out there aren’t interested in this stuff”, but a world-record number of people replied to a Select Committee consultation on voter engagement. People out there are desperate; they are hungry for engagement. That is why there are so many organisations around. I have a list of a few of them here: Bite the Ballot, Unlock Democracy, the Hansard Society, the British Youth Council, Sky’s “Stand Up Be Counted” campaign, Catch 22, the National Union of Students, Involver, UpRising. They all wanted to grab that chance of saying to us that we have got to do better.
It is not good enough. Sixteen thousand people responded to our report, and the follow-up report, having listened to those 16,000, will be published tomorrow. There will be a debate in this House starting at 1.30 pm for those Members who are not able to speak in today’s debate.
We must do something about this. If people read the report tomorrow, they will see lots of ways forward on an all-party basis to involve our people in our own democracy.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who speaks with great expertise on this subject. He makes the case that we need to do all we can to get people to register to vote in this country, and I completely agree, but I believe we are doing that by all methods possible, as I shall come on to demonstrate. However, I completely agree with his wider point about engagement; we need to find new ways forward. I will read his report tomorrow with great interest.
Sadly, there always are and always have been a substantial number of people who do not register to vote—whatever the system, and in every democratic country—no matter what their persuasion. Different figures are bandied about because it is an imprecise science: we can count the people on the register, but we cannot count those who do not register. As of July 2014, before the shift to individual voter registration started, at least 6 million people were not on the register.
Mr Streeter
Goodbye.
The figure the hon. Gentleman gives is the snapshot of the number of unregistered people as of 1 December. I have to say that he ruins my weekends. He tables at least 400 written questions every week, and I have to spend my weekends reading through the answers. Of course, it is great fun. My wife is convinced that I am having some kind of illicit relationship with him. [Interruption.] Not a pleasant thought.
Chris Ruane
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has just said?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not think anybody needs to clarify the relationship between you and Mr Streeter.
Mr Streeter
As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a pleasant thought from my point of view.
The truth is that a vast amount of work is being done around the United Kingdom to get people to register before the general election, but it is important to remember that anyone who is already on the household register and is residing at that address has not been removed as a result of the shift to IER. The Electoral Commission is running a national campaign across the UK to encourage people to register to vote ahead of the 20 April deadline. It will reach all adults, with a focus on groups—already mentioned in this debate—that research has identified are less likely to be registered to vote, such as people who have recently moved home, those who rent their home, young people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities.
Some of this work is being undertaken with the support of organisations and private companies that represent these communities or have a special reach into them. For example—this is very good news—the Electoral Commission and Facebook have today announced that on national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, every person on Facebook in the UK who is eligible to vote will see a voter registration reminder message in their newsfeed. Some 35 million people use Facebook in the UK every month, which is more than the number who voted at the last general election. This is using innovative methods to reach people and encourage them to vote. We must keep returning to the point that people can now register to vote online. It takes 30 seconds, and the only thing they need is their name—[Interruption.] Yes, I have seen it done. [Interruption.] I was already registered; I was data-matched. People need their name, address, date of birth—most of us know those things—and national insurance number; ring your mum and find out what it is. If people have those four things, they can register; it takes 30 seconds. This is good news.
Mr Streeter
I do that every week. I don’t know what the hon. Lady is on about.
This builds on the important work the Electoral Commission is doing to get the message across that everyone should register to vote. I am also pleased that the commission is strongly supporting national voter registration day—an excellent initiative launched by Bite the Ballot last year—in a number of ways, including by re-launching the “Ballot Box Man” YouTube advert aimed at encouraging young people to register to vote. If you have not seen it, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very entertaining and makes the point extremely well. A wide range of social media activity is being undertaken, including on Twitter and Facebook. A range of resources is being sent out to electoral administrators and the commission’s partners from across the voluntary, public and private sectors to help them get people registered. The commission is also supporting the launch of Operation Black Vote’s bus tour across Great Britain—that also begins on national voter registration day—to get more BME people on the electoral register.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and we must all celebrate national voter registration day and get involved in it. It seems to me that many of the Opposition’s arguments are not against individual voter registration and that they are about encouraging people to register under the new scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr Streeter
I do agree with that. We have not focused enough on the responsibility not only of individuals to register to vote but of electoral registration officers, whose job it is to encourage people to register. They are sending out letters, and they should be going door to door. They are being given extra resources to enable that to happen. I believe that a very substantial number of people will join the register between 1 December and 20 April. We would not be having this debate in three months’ time.
Mr Streeter
I will not give way again if that is okay, as I have a lot to say in the next two minutes.
This week, on Monday 2 February, the commission’s new national advertising campaign launched a series of online display adverts to highlight the fact that anyone who is not registered will be unable to vote in the general election on 7 May. The adverts provide a direct click-through link to the gov.uk/registertovote page. On the same day, the commission also launched an online campaign across the 20 countries in which UK expatriates are most likely to live, to make expats aware that they might be able to vote and to encourage them to register to do so. The important point has been made several times by Government Members that everyone who is eligible to vote should be encouraged to register, and not simply those in certain groups.
The commission’s main national public awareness campaign for the UK parliamentary general election will begin on 16 March 2015 in Great Britain and will include television, catch-up TV and online advertising. The commission has set the ambitious target of 1 million additions to the register in Great Britain between 16 March and 20 April, with a further 10,000 in Northern Ireland.
Mr Streeter
Yes, we have, and the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the Electoral Commission hit its target in the run-up to the last general election. I am pretty confident that it will do so again.
Mr Streeter
I cannot give way again; I have only 29 seconds left.
I hope that the House will recognise that there is a great deal of activity already under way or about to happen that is likely to increase voter registration dramatically. We also have a responsibility ourselves to take our great communication skills to our constituencies and to get the message across to everyone out there: register to vote—don’t lose your voice!
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I shall start by making the bold statement that if the Conservative proposals on electoral registration had gone ahead in their original form in 2010 and 2011, we would have seen a constitutional coup that would have kept the Tory party in power in this country for a generation. There would have been a two-pronged attack that involved bringing the date for the introduction of individual electoral registration forward by a year. That simple act would have resulted in a total of 35% of the electorate dropping off the register, in addition to the 15% who were already missing from it. Those people would have been the most economically and socially marginalised in the country, and their marginalisation would have been complete with their vote gone.
The second prong of the attack was to have been the equalisation of constituencies at 75,000 electors per seat, plus or minus 5%. That change would have been carried out while 7.5 million people were missing from the electoral register—the equivalent of 100 missing parliamentary seats.
Meg Hillier
I am concerned that the number of people on the electoral register is used as a proxy for local government funding allocations. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a real concern, especially for the poorer constituencies, which are experiencing the greatest drop-off of all?
Chris Ruane
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I wish to probe more deeply into the machinations of that grand plan. It is only by looking at what has happened in the recent past that we can find out what would happen over the next few months if the Tories were to get back in.
Chris Ruane
No, I will not give way.
Individual electoral registration was introduced by the Labour Government in 2009 with cross-party support. The issue was so sensitive that we sought that cross-party support. The deadline for its introduction was after the latest date for the next general election, which is of course this year. The reason for the long run-in period was that there were already 7.5 million people missing from the register, and we hoped that we could get them back on to it during that five-year period. The Electoral Commission was going to have marking points throughout the period, so that we could implement IER and assess its impact. This cross-party support, this cherished unity, was shattered, as one of the first aims of the coalition agreement, set out on page 27, was:
“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
What was this massive electoral fraud that so concerned the Conservatives? Why was it so important that a new IER Bill took precedence over virtually all other Bills at the height of the economic crisis?
Let us look at the facts and figures concerning electoral fraud. The fraud that so exercised the Conservatives was one case in 2008 and one in 2009. In the six years from 2008 to 2013 there were three cases out of 45 million electors. That was the size of the problem.
Chris Ruane
No. I shall make progress.
That was the size of the problem—three cases of electoral fraud in six years. The Government, backed up by the Electoral Commission, claim that it is not the numbers—
Chris Ruane
We introduced it because, although the old system had served us fairly well and quite a high number of people were registered, we thought it was patriarchal and registration should be down to the individual. We did it with cross-party support, cross-party unity.
Why did the Conservatives go to such trouble to shatter the cross-party support? They knew exactly what they were doing when they rushed the Bill through with undue haste. They hoped that even more poorer voters would drop off the register before the 2015 general election and increase their chances of winning it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most appalling things that this Government did was to produce a White Paper which referred to voter registration as a lifestyle choice?
Chris Ruane
I am coming to that right now.
What the Conservatives proposed was not simply bringing forward the date by one year. They had a few more tricks up their sleeves. They wanted to replace the civic duty to register by making it a lifestyle choice. Electors could simply opt out of registering by ticking a box that would be supplied to help them on their way to political disengagement. The Electoral Commission warned that if this happened, it would be assumed that those who did not vote would not register and we would lose 35% of the electorate.
If the Tories had succeeded, nearly half the electorate would have been missing from the register. Those left off would have been the poorest. This was a blatant, deliberate political act to drive the poorest people off the register. There is a term for it used by right wingers in America—voter suppression. No vote, no voice: those people were being silenced. The Conservatives were leaving nothing to chance. They planned a few more measures to ensure that those electors were forced off the register. They proposed that there would be no annual canvass—the Minister mentioned this. We introduced an annual canvass. The Minister did not want to introduce an annual canvass, but he was forced to do so. To complete the stitch-up the Conservatives proposed to remove any sanctions for not registering to vote. All these actions together show beyond doubt that the Tories’ direction of travel was to disfranchise as many poor voters as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) who, as shadow minister at the time, summoned civic society to fight this, and we managed to get the worst aspects of the Bill removed. The Lib Dems finally realised that they were being stitched up too. I pay tribute to the work of Chris Rennard in the Lords and others in the Lib Dem party who informed their Front-Bench team of what was going on.
We were able to stop the worst aspects of the Bill, but even though the Tories were defeated by a mighty alliance of those who wanted to protect democracy, they managed to squeeze one concession from their Lib Dem partners. The Tories proposed that they be given an opportunity, should they win the election, to make a political decision to drop off the unregistered in June this year, six months before the freeze date for the next boundary review. Five million electors would not transfer from household registration to individual registration. These voters would also be removed from the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the local government elections. The Minister has already admitted that he has no guiding principles when he makes this important decision to smash British democracy—no such principles are in place. He failed to answer on this when I asked him at the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and he failed to answer today when I asked him. The press and the public are watching the Minister. Would he like to intervene on that? Where are his guiding principles?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation to intervene. Whoever is the Minister, and whoever is in government, the decision they make will be taken on the independent advice of the Electoral Commission. That is pretty clear as far as guiding principles are concerned.
Chris Ruane
The Minister wants to have a word with his boss because I do not think he is thinking like that. The Minister was unable to answer this question about guiding principles, so I will tell him what the answer on the guiding principles will be. They will be what they were at the beginning of this Parliament: party political gain for the Conservative party.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I will not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who I suspect sees a conspiracy every time he walks past a bus queue. The reality is that this serious issue deserves rather better than the cynical treatment it has had from the Opposition today.
The integrity of the register is an integral part of our democracy, and that integrity means not only that those who should be on the register are on it, but that those who should not be are not on it. The level of complacency demonstrated by the Labour party towards that aspect of the equation is nothing less than contemptuous towards our electors.
Wayne David
The Electoral Commission has been quoted on many occasions, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that even it says that it is the perception of fraud, not the actuality of it, that Members are talking about?
Robert Neill
The report last week deals comprehensively with that, and there is another report to which I will refer the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let me deal first with the important issue of why the Labour party really has adopted this attitude. I made an assumption about the backing away from Labour’s previous stance that we saw from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I am sorry he is not in his place, because I know he is a great fan of block votes and he is probably looking for a few in the London Labour party at the moment for the nomination for Mayor—I am sure we could pass that on to him. I assumed it was the normal reaction that we get from the Labour party nowadays. IER was, of course, introduced—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) must contain himself for a moment. IER was, of course, introduced in 2009. What is that magic figure of 2009? Of course, Tony Blair was still around, so it is a legacy of the previous—[Interruption.] The Labour party is anxious to forget everything that went before and the reason the previous Government come into it is this: the Labour party had a track record of being extremely flaky on adopting IER.
The Electoral Commission published a report in 2003 and the Labour Government responded to it in 2004, saying that they were sympathetic to the principle of individual registration but they were not going to implement it—that is the reality. Ever since then, Labour has had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards improving the quality of the electoral register. In the end, the experience in Northern Ireland, where IER certainly produced a reduction in the number of people on the register but also significantly reduced fraud, made it clear that Labour’s position was untenable. The people of Northern Ireland blazed the way for the rest of this country and we should salute the introduction of IER there. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for the rest of the UK as well, and it is no good the Labour party trying to row back from that now.
The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for this phased implementation of IER. Ironically, that was not originally in the Bill and it was put in only as a result of pressure from the then Opposition parties in the House of Lords. The Labour party was reluctant even to take that step.
Frank Dobson
It is often said that the country would be better governed if there was a consensus, but may I say that I have never been part of the consensus on IER? I thought it was stupid when it was suggested by the stupid Electoral Commission and it has remained stupid ever since. We have had the mad situation that in this democratically elected House we have knowingly voted to reduce the number of people entitled to vote—it has been a disgrace.
Robert Neill
I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a hard-line stance, which is consistent with his political views. There is no doubt that he demonstrated that same consistency when he voted down changes to the boundaries that would have ensured that the electorate of his constituency was broadly more equal with that of mine, but we will not trouble him with that unfortunate matter.
The fact that the issue of electoral fraud has been dismissed so often by the Opposition suggests that they think it is irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made an important point. The real difficulty that we have is proving cases, and the complacency shown by the Opposition on this matter is breathtaking. The reality is that the six-month time limit makes it particularly difficult to get the evidence required for this type of offence. I hope that, in the future, we will revisit that matter. We should extend the timeline for bringing prosecutions for election offences, and I hope that we can consider that in the new Parliament.
The very nature of the offence makes it difficult to prosecute, particularly when it involves the head of the household, as it has in the past, filling in forms on behalf of other people. It is also difficult to get people to stand up against members of their own family on whom they may be dependent. That is why there are fewer prosecutions than we would expect. That fact is borne out by the useful report, “Electoral Offences since 2010”, which has been issued by the Library of the House of Commons. Members might be interested in looking at it. It was published on 30 July 2014, and details, over a raft of pages, individual instances of allegations of electoral fraud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, it has been difficult to bring many of those cases to a successful prosecution, but the report is, none the less, really worth looking at.
In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, there have been repeated cases of fraud. Let me say here that I am not trespassing on the current court case. This has nothing to do with the election petition against the mayor. Historically, there have been repeated allegations of malpractice in Tower Hamlets, largely by abuse of the block registration of postal votes. In March 2012, Tower Hamlets removed 127 names from the electoral register. It was not possible to bring a prosecution in that case, but the names were removed because they should not have been on the register. Clearly, malpractice was going on. Some 550 people were registered in 64 properties in the borough. In some cases of registration, there were eight people to a bedroom. It was nonsense, but it is something that the Labour party regard as “fairly minor”. It says that it is a small price to pay. I say that it is not, because it demeans the electoral process. But that does not matter as far as Labour is concerned. Its ersatz view of quantity seems to trump the importance of quality in the elector register. At the end of the day, it is the quality of the electoral register that is most important. If it is not honest, people will lose faith.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that we can drive up the number of people properly on the register through the excellent initiatives of the Electoral Commission. We do not need the specious arguments of the Opposition to do that. We can have safe and secure electoral registration and sensible campaigns to increase voter registration.
Robert Neill
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to make a little progress as I have little time left.
My own local authority in Bromley has made great progress with its individual canvasses and maintaining the roll-over on to the register; it can be done. Frankly, we have had nothing but crocodile tears from the Opposition. I have not seen so many crocodile tears since General Nasser built a dam across the River Nile. They should not be detaining the House in the way that they are doing. The Opposition motion is a shambles and a disgrace.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Let me first out myself as someone who, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), was completely opposed to individual electoral registration. I accept that I have lost that argument and that we have to move on from where we are now. Where we are now was entirely predictable, but we must now get to a better level of registration.
I wish to let the House know what is happening in the London borough of Merton, which is at the halfway stage in the transfer to individual electoral registration. Merton has a very effective electoral registration organisation and high levels of registration but is still experiencing difficulties. I would like publicly to acknowledge the long-standing work of our electoral registration officer, Mike Bentley, who recently retired, and welcome Andrew Robertson, who faces his first general election in May.
As of 1 December 2014, a total of 146,567 people were registered to vote in Merton, compared with 149,615 in 2013, so there has been a drop of about 3,000 over the past year. However, that masks a much more worrying fact. Experience shows that voter turnover in Merton is usually about 23,000. In other words, about 23,000 move out of the borough and leave the register, and roughly another 23,000 move into the borough and join the register. However, in this transition year only 7,000 have joined the register and 10,000 have left. Have fewer people moved, or is the register inaccurate? I believe that about 10% of the electorate are inaccurately registered, based on past movement.
Of the 149,615 on the register at the end of 2013, only 128,000 could be verified. That left about 21,000 unmatched on any of the registers currently used. Using a variety of techniques, the electoral registration department has followed up as many of the 21,000 as it can and brought the number of unmatched voters down to about 6,500—about 5% of the electorate. As we all know, if a voter is unmatched for this year only, they would still be allowed to vote in person. The problem is that a significant number of those unmatched people were previously postal or proxy voters. Many of those people are elderly or disabled. They believe that they have a lifetime entitlement to a postal or proxy vote.
I am giving this information to the House not to help me in the election, because most of those people have historically voted Conservative. I still want them to have the same opportunity to use their postal or proxy votes to vote for somebody else, because this debate is not about party politics; it is about the essence of our democracy. If we cannot get people to register to vote, we will have an enormous and growing alienated community in our society, and that will not benefit any of us. All of us, of whatever party, whose hearts sink when we hear criticisms of politicians and politics need to do everything we can to get those people on the register, irrespective of who they are or whom they intend to vote for.
We are only halfway through the process in Merton. In 2016 we face a mayoral election in London. Our community is far more mobile and diverse than Northern Ireland could ever be. It is possible that we will lose huge numbers of people from the register. Some of the alternatives set out in the Opposition’s motion could help, but for me they do not go far enough. I might unite everyone in opposing my suggestion, but I will still continue to make it. I believe that if someone accesses a public service, they should be required to register to vote. If they want the benefits of an advanced welfare democracy, they should sign up to be on the electoral register. If they need to be on the register to get a mortgage or credit card, is it not reasonable for them to need to be on it to get a driving licence, access tax credits or join a library? All those things are about a social contract: something for something, not something for nothing. Whether people vote is up to them, but it is our job to persuade them to do so. The sheer act of citizenship needed to be on the register should be required if someone is to access the services of the state.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am somewhat disappointed by the motion, because it over-eggs the pudding to some degree. It does not recognise that this process was started by the previous Government but has been picked up and progressed by this Government. Labour Members began the whole process—I welcome that and have congratulated them on it many times—and we are now successfully delivering on it. That is a good thing.
There is still a lot of work to do before the 2015 election and before IER is fully introduced. The motion calls for more to be done to tackle under-registration, without any recognition of how much effort and money has been put into doing that. It is curmudgeonly not to recognise that that effort has been made. The conspiracy theory that this is all about removing poor people from the register is not compatible with that huge effort and with the funding that has been made available to ensure that they are given the opportunity to be put on the register.
Nick Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are missing important sources of voter data? For example, if they used information from credit reference agencies such as Experian, they could boost registration considerably. Does he accept that that would be a worthwhile thing to do?
Mr Ward
The pilots have identified the best ways of getting the most people registered, although the system can always be refined and made better. There seems to be an assumption that the previous registers were perfect, but in areas of high fraud that was simply not the case.
Eighty-seven per cent. of people have successfully been moved on to the electoral register. Yes, plenty still needs to be done, and that is why I agree with many parts of the motion. We need to tackle registration for the hard-to-reach groups and to make sure that EROs are doing the very best they can to ensure that as many people are on the register as possible. The reduction in the voting age that I hope will happen in future means that we need to do many of the things suggested in relation to schools and colleges. That work is being done through the all-party group on voter registration.
Part of the reason for implementing the new IER procedure was to increase the accuracy of the register. Those who represent an area like mine will know just how necessary that was, particularly in helping to deal with voter fraud. In many cases, not even the new system will bring about changes to the voter fraud that takes place as a result of certain behaviour and the failure of political parties to impose strong discipline on their own activists. In Bradford, 88% of people are automatically registered under the data-matching system, yet we are still likely to have problems with postal vote fraud in particular. The problem we have experienced is not that people are not legitimately registered to vote in a household, but that postal votes are collected and filled out on behalf of constituents or that unacceptable pressure is put on individuals to vote in a particular way, as court cases have identified.
As well as ensuring the accuracy of the register, we need to ensure that the police take seriously and investigate cases of fraud that are reported to them. Too often, the thought in the mind the police has been, “Well, they’re all at it,” and it has not been taken as seriously as it should be. In Bradford in the past, candidates of all parties have been required to sign a pledge stating that they will not take part in voter fraud. That is how serious the situation is in places like Bradford.
Between now and the election, work needs to go on. Bite the Ballot has been mentioned and I will be on a bus—which we are paying for, not the Government—going around the constituency tomorrow for national voter registration day. Last summer, we took the bus out and registered 250 young people in our constituency. That is where the effort should be going. That is the effective way of ensuring that we get people on a register that we can be satisfied with and that is more accurate.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me make it quite clear that the Labour Government introduced the notion of individual electoral registration and the motion before us in no way backtracks from that, no matter how much bluster we hear from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the Minister for the Constitution, who should look at the detail of how his Department is working. By falling back on the Electoral Commission, the Minister is making a big mistake.
I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The original idea behind the process was to drive down the register, and we do not need to look too far to see where the Conservative party got it from. In the United States, the Republican party is doing exactly the same thing.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) rightly emphasised what is being done to try to get people, particularly young people, on the register. I commend all those efforts, but it is not about working harder, to use the old BT phrase, but about working smarter. The Government are not doing that and I am afraid that the Electoral Commission is not doing it either.
The Minister asked why the focus was on young people, and I can give him the answer. According to the House of Commons Library, only 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds are registered to vote, whereas 94% of those aged over 65 are. I want to refer to one issue, which is the responsibility of the Minister and the Electoral Commission—he cannot get away from it—and that is the drop in the number of 18-year-olds who have been registered, particularly attainers.
In my constituency in 2012, there were 619 attainers on the register. In 2013 there were 701, in 2014 there were 632, and this year there are 114.
Chris Ruane
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was the MP who discovered the drop in the number of attainers. Is he aware that 87% of attainers were registered nationally last year whereas this year the figure has gone down to 52%?
Mr Jones
I am, and I shall explain why.
The drop in North Durham is quite clear and we must ask why it has happened. We all know that 1997 was a very strong and passionate political year for this country. We could put the fall down to a drop in the birth rate in 1997—clearly there was a lack of passion in North Durham!—but that is obviously not the case. I wrote to my local returning officer about this, and I must pay tribute to Durham county council for the work it is trying to do to get through the minefield laid by the Electoral Commission and the Government. The response I received says that under the old system, where the head of household registered, a section of the form asked for the name of anyone who was 17 and would attain the age of 18 within the next year to be added. The new letter that was sent out to verify who was in the household included a sentence asking for the name of anyone it was thought should be registered to vote, but there was no reference to 17-year-olds. The Minister likes to hide behind the Electoral Commission, but, frankly, on occasions I find the Electoral Commission completely incompetent. On this occasion, it is.
I have raised the question directly with the Minister outside the House. I accept that he has given extra money for registration to councils such as Durham, but that is no good. When I went to county hall last Friday, I saw all the boxes of new letters ready to go out. I looked at the letter, and it does not cover 17-year-olds. When I asked the returning officer why not, he said that the council had to use the letter agreed by the Minister and the Electoral Commission. This was a missed opportunity to correct a basic problem.
In my constituency and other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has shown, the problem will lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of 17-year-olds not being registered, although they will attain the age of 18 this year and would be entitled to vote. That is a scandal, but something that could have been sorted out quite easily. Frankly, it is due to a combination of the Minister and the Electoral Commission. I am not surprised by the Minister because I do not think he has a great grasp of most the subjects for which he is responsible, but one would expect a bit more from the Electoral Commission.
There is an opportunity to put this matter right. Most local authorities know their 16 and 17-year-olds, because they are registered with them for education purposes. I challenge the Minister to instruct all local authorities, with money behind this if necessary, to use such data to ensure that 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 this year are actually registered. That must be done, otherwise many 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before 7 May will assume that they will get a vote, but will not get it.
I make no criticism of the hard work that has been done by a host of organisations to try to get young people registered. I have written to my local schools and publicised the issue locally to ensure that we can get as many as possible of those 17-years-old on the register.
In a democracy, it is important to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That was why the Labour Government brought in the process, which I support. It was done on a cross-party basis, and that consensus should have been maintained. When the Conservatives came to power as part of the coalition, they shattered that consensus and departed from it for their own reasons. We have heard a lot of guff about fraud. I love the idea that the only reason we have not had many fraud cases is the time limits, but my answer would be, “Well, change the time limits.”
I refer hon. Members to the Electoral Commission’s own evidence. In 2004, we had an all-postal ballot in Durham as part of the pilot.
Mr Jones
I do not trust the Electoral Commission on occasion, but in this case I do. Its report said that there was no evidence of major fraud in the administration of postal votes. In a local council by-election in my constituency, the change resulted in a turnout of 67%. A problem of turnout was highlighted in certain communities, but that was not a reason for binning it entirely. However, the Conservative party and the Daily Mail frothed at the mouth about postal voting being open to widespread fraud, for which there was no evidence whatsoever.
I ask the Minister to address the issue of 17-year-olds, which I have previously raised with him. We have missed the opportunity of doing so in the recent letters, but something needs to be done before registration closes on 20 April.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is an agreeable chap. I can only assume that his conspiracy theory arises from his upbringing in the murky world of Labour and trade union politics in the north-east. Like his friend the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), he sees a conspiracy round every corner.
I have been in politics for 30 years, but for Labour Members it is always about politics, not about what is in the national interest or what is right. Even when they start off by doing what is right, proper and decent to address an issue, they turn around a few years later and say, “We don’t agree with it any more, because it does not suit our narrow partisan interests.” How do they have the gall?
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd trooped through the Lobby to vote against fair and equal boundaries. Along the coast from his constituency, Arfon has an electorate of 49,000, while my next-door constituency of Cambridgeshire North West has almost 100,000 electors. He considers that to be democratic, but it is not.
Chris Ruane
When making seats equal was being railroaded through, 7.5 million people were missing from the register, which would be the equivalent of 100 extra parliamentary seats.
Mr Jackson
I am not wholly convinced that the Labour party has ever taken electoral integrity as seriously as it should have done. The hon. Gentleman talks about the criminal cases over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) alluded to the fact that we simply do not know how much electoral registration stuffing there has been, because EROs and local authorities have not had the capacity to check that across the country. Under the Labour party, we saw electoral malpractice and criminal activity in Pendle, Derby, Birmingham, Bradford, Slough and Peterborough, to give just a few examples.
Let us be honest: this debate is a wasted opportunity for the Labour party. It is inviting us to conclude that an impact assessment of its Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, in which individual electoral registration was originally contained, would have shown no reduction in the number of people registering. Of course that is not the case. I was in the House at the time and we all knew that there would be a reduction after the first major change for many years.
The Labour party now comes back and says that this is an evil, wicked Tory plot to drive poor people off the register. The crocodile tears were not flowing when it blocked servicemen and women—people who were fighting and dying for our country—from coming back, casting their ballots and using the universal franchise. Labour Members were not worried then. Now they are full of crocodile tears and faux outrage over the patronising notion that their voters are not on the register.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) bemoans the situation with older people and postal votes. Does she think that people who are older are so stupid that they cannot fill out forms? Before the 2001 changes, older people and pensioners were able to fill out forms in cases of ill health, if they were working away or if they were in other circumstances. More to the point, the turnout was much higher.
Mr Jackson
I named her, but I have named a lot of people in this debate.
The Labour party’s problem is simple: it is useless Labour councils. Those useless Labour councils are being given a lot of taxpayers’ money to do the job properly. They should be canvassing, registering people, ensuring that the right people are on the register and ensuring that there is electoral integrity in the register. If Labour Members have problems in Bristol, County Durham and the London borough of Merton, all of which are controlled by the Labour party, they should take them up with local people.
Mr Jackson
I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I have little time.
If this were a plot, we would not be putting so many public resources into the process. There has been £500,000 to boost confidence in the electoral system, £2.5 million has been spent on students and overseas voters, £6.8 million has been given to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government for physical canvassing for registration, and there has been work on universities and housing associations as part of the Cabinet Office’s £9.8 million funding.
We accept that some people will be missed in the DWP data-matching. In the central ward in my constituency, about 40% of people were missed. We understand that, but it is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities to find the missing voters by physical door-to-door canvassing. In that way, we will have a full register with integrity.
For most of the time, the previous Labour Government were content to see the potential for electoral register stuffing.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I have two more brief points to make. In considering this issue, the Minister should look again at bespoke funding to investigate improprieties and criminal activities in respect of election fraud, because it is difficult for a small constabulary to cope with such matters. We must look again at the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of ID at polling stations and the ability to challenge voters in cases of impersonation. That is an important issue.
Finally, the Government have done an excellent job—largely, I admit, with cross-party support—on postal vote integrity, which is still an important issue. For example, Peterborough city council threw out one in five applicants for postal votes in Central ward in May 2014. Fraud is still a problem and we must be vigilant and protect the electoral integrity of our political system. We should ensure that the right people are on the electoral register and have the opportunity to vote. That is above party politics, and it is a shame that the Labour party cannot rise above partisan point scoring in the national interest.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but after that nonsense it is not, so I will not.
I represent more students by far than any other Member of the House—36,000 according to the latest census. They are not the only group that contributes to the enormous churn in the electoral register in my constituency, but I will concentrate my remarks on them. I am worried about their disfranchisement not simply because of the coming election, but because of the impact of their exclusion from the register on the next boundary review, which we know will be conducted on the basis of the register as it stands in December 2015.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) challenged Labour Members on the principle of the equalisation of constituencies. We would embrace that principle but it must be on a legitimate basis, and the current register already contains deeply inequitable constituencies. There are many worse examples, but if we compare my constituency, Sheffield Central, with that of the Deputy Prime Minister next door in Sheffield Hallam, we see that the number of registered voters seems broadly comparable—the difference is about 5,000 people. However, 17% of households in my constituency have nobody registered, but that figure is just 4% in Sheffield Hallam. Sheffield Central has a population of 115,000 people, and Sheffield Hallam just 89,000—a variation of 26,000, which will only be made worse by the way the Government are dealing with IER.
Students are not the only group but they are a significant one, so to avoid that situation locally I worked with both universities to integrate electoral registration into the student enrolment process. We developed a system at the university of Sheffield for the 2014 entry which, if successful, will be rolled out to Sheffield Hallam university in 2015. I am sorry that the Minister misinterpreted my earlier remarks to attack Sheffield Hallam university for its low level of registration. Changing systems are complicated and we sought to work with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage higher education institutions across the country to adopt a better system.
I am grateful for the support of the Cabinet Office for the pilot that we have been developing in Sheffield. The system requires students to make a positive decision about whether they wish to register to vote as a required step in their enrolment. Last September the scheme was successful, with around 64% of students choosing to register, as the Minister highlighted. The system then took people to the next step, which required them to fill in their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of people dropped out of the system because they did not have ready access to their NI number and did not want to halt their enrolment. The situation looked bleak with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to register.
Again, credit is due to the Cabinet Office, because new guidance issued on 10 December allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using only student enrolment data. Therefore in late December and January, our EROs added 7,000 students to the electoral register, even though they did not provide their NI numbers. That is sensible because universities have clearly collected significant and substantial information to verify student identity as part of their registration process.
The Minister said earlier that he is looking at ways of using data collected for other purposes to construct the register, so will he answer one specific question? It would be simpler to roll out this system across universities than to seek national insurance numbers in the first place, especially given that the Government are clearly happy for people not to have them. Would it not be better, therefore, to have a simple system in which we ask students, “Do you want to register to vote?” and then use the information the university has collected as sufficient verification?
Paul Blomfield
I see the Minister nodding. If he will confirm that in his winding-up speech, it would be a significant step forward in encouraging student registration across the country.
Finally, there is a wider lesson to be learned. With commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, we need to transfer those lessons to other organisations, such as schools, housing providers, residential homes, doctors’ surgeries and so on, to widen the register.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I want to pick up where he left off—on young people.
One of the worst things about the big fall in the number of people on the register is the massive reduction in the number of young people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said, if young people do not get the habit of voting when they first can, they are highly unlikely to take it up later in life. In a written parliamentary question, I asked the Minister, who is not quite in his place,
“how many people have been informed that their application for inclusion on the…register was not valid because their national insurance number was not provided”.
He replied:
“Failure to provide a National Insurance number does not result in an application being declared invalid.”
He does not know what is going on. I have a letter from an ERO in response to a young person’s application to register to vote. It read, “Thank you for your recent application to register. Unfortunately, I am unable to process your application because it was incomplete. The following information is required and was incorrect or missing: national insurance number.”
There are 440,000 young people still at school who turned 18 between 1 September and 1 May. The person that letter was sent to could not register because she did not have her national insurance number. I do not know how many hon. Members spend a lot of time with teenagers, but a letter with a young person’s national insurance number arrives before they are 16, and we are suggesting that two years later teenagers will know where that letter is and have kept it in a safe place. I cannot think of anything more naïve. How many young people will have lost it?
Helen Goodman
Yes, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the “ring mum” solution before. How outrageous. What about young people in care? What about young people estranged from their families? What a disgraceful attitude to large numbers of young people.
We rang the council to find out what to do. It suggested that the person bring their passport, which costs £72. It suggested a driving licence, which costs £34. These are all things that young people do not have.
Helen Goodman
I tabled a PQ to the man who is commenting from a sedentary position now asking how young people were supposed to know what their national insurance number was. His answer was: payslips and correspondence with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. The truth is that 18-year-olds who are still at school do not have payslips or correspondence with HMRC or DWP. The Government have not thought this through.
The other thing the council asked for was a council tax bill. No 18-year-old gets a council tax bill. This is completely incompetent. Ministers have not thought this through. I went to the website to find out what to do. Nobody can get their national insurance number on the website. That is not how it works. They can, however, ring a very nice man on: 0300 200 3500. They will get a very nice man with a lovely Lancashire accident, and he will put their national insurance number in the post.
The suggestion that we have heard from Ministers that this information is readily available is totally naïve. The DWP Ministers who are responsible for giving people their national insurance numbers and informing them cannot even be bothered to turn up and sit on the Bench for this debate. They have a central role. The truth is that it displays all the attitudes of DWP Ministers to young people: they want to take the housing benefit off 18 to 21-year-olds; now they want to take the vote from those very same young people. It is a total disgrace. [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is good to contribute. First of all, right hon. and hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, have been very kind in referring to Northern Ireland’s experience. It provided an important example for the rest of the United Kingdom. If I may, I would like to provide a little more of the Northern Ireland perspective.
On electoral registration, our aim should be to have an open, honest, transparent and, more importantly, accessible system so that those who want to vote are able to do so without difficulty. We do not need any more reason to deter or make difficult the process of voting, and there are obvious worries that the plans for individual voter registration will let many slip through the cracks. We also have to protect our democracy from fraud, and individual voter registration is one way of doing that, as many Members have suggested.
Before the Northern Ireland initiative, it was evident that, as the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland reported, there had been a significant and worrying decline in both the accuracy and completeness of Northern Ireland’s electoral register. On 1 April 2012, post-general election, the register was 78% accurate, with one in five entries relating to people who were no longer resident at the address. An estimated 400,000 people were not registered at the correct address. Understandably, we had an ambition to address that issue.
It is valuable to have discussions in the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular in the hope that through our respective Governments we can learn from each other about what makes for best practice.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best initiatives in Northern Ireland has been the voter electoral identity card? People can apply for it, and it is free. It has a photograph and other identity marks on it, and it allows people to carry that credit card into the electoral booth to prove who they are and maintain their vote without molestation.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Yes, that is another example of something that was done in Northern Ireland, and it is important to note that it provides a free opportunity to get voter identification.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one reason the registration effort in schools has been so successful is precisely that the electoral ID card is a strong incentive. It is not necessarily that pupils are overwhelmingly committed to voting for our party!
Jim Shannon
I would not necessarily go with that opinion, because when the pupils congregate for the cards and we help them to go and get them, I think we will gain from that. I am ever the optimist, as you know, Mr Speaker, and I am sometimes referred to as a “glass half full” person. I am conscious of the time, so I will continue.
It is important to address fraud. There have been examples in west Belfast in the past where up to half a dozen people were living in blocked up houses. I do not know how they got in there. If one had four legs, it was easy to get in, but not so easy for those with two legs. That is all I can say. It is acknowledged that we are likely to have a higher volume of voters in the general election—the contest to watch—so for that reason we need accessibility along with accurate data.
In 2012, Northern Ireland had an accuracy of 78% in its electoral registers. That clearly showed what we could do. The electorate of Northern Ireland grew by 9.8% between 2007 and 2012, in comparison with only 2.8% for United Kingdom and the rest of the mainland. Big steps were taken; we moved forward very quickly.
It is now a given that we must talk about technology in all strategies for engaging with and reaching the public. The online system is one thing we have introduced and it has been successful, although I think we could do more with it. Over 90% of responders gave positive feedback, so there have been issues that we have been able to deal with.
The system of voter registration in Northern Ireland for those at further education colleges has been good. There needs to be leafleting and marketing in our universities and colleges and our local businesses, and at grass-roots campaigning levels. Visuals and sign-up drives are also very important.
I urge Ministers to bear it in mind that, in the light of the upcoming elections and the fact that the nation’s eyes will be on how we run the votes, we should be ready for scrutiny and accountability.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s debate comes at an important time. There are just 92 days until the general election. As we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has done fantastic work throughout the current Parliament and before, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million eligible adults were missing from the electoral register. Our estimate, based on local authority information, is that a further 1 million people have fallen off the register since then.
Throughout the debate, the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers have shown extraordinary complacency. It has been a case of “Blame the local councils”, “blame the Electoral Commission”, “blame the universities”, or “blame the voters themselves.” Conservative Members have wanted to blame everyone except the Government, whose rushed timetable has led to the present position, as the Labour party has said consistently ever since the Government introduced legislation earlier in this Parliament. It is simply not good enough. It is scandalous that, in the 21st century, people will turn up at polling stations and be turned away. We all have a responsibility to do more to ensure that our democracy is not undermined in that way.
Let me be fair: the Government have taken some steps that we welcome, and which are welcomed in the motion. Online registration is hugely welcome, as is the opening up of new data sets for electoral registration officers and new guidance on student registration. Today the Minister announced the provision of £2.5 million, and we welcome that as well. However, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us more about how the money will be allocated, and, in particular, will tell us whether fantastic organisations such as Bite the Ballot will be eligible to bid for it. I think that such organisations know better than any of us how to reach the young people who, as has been pointed out today, are falling off the register.
Bite the Ballot has done amazing work. Anyone who has observed its work in schools—as I have, in both England and Scotland—will know that students walk into the classroom apathetic and uninterested, and walk out debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty or priorities for public spending. I greatly welcome its efforts, and specifically welcome tomorrow’s fantastic national voter registration day, of which we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). As I said, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million people were missing from the register, and we estimate that a further 1 million are missing from the new register.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), students in higher education are disproportionately affected by the change. That is why, in the motion, we suggested allowing universities and colleges to block-register students in halls of residence. I pay tribute to the remarkable work that he has done, working with his local authority and the universities in Sheffield.
Stephen Twigg
I was about to say that. If the Minister had been a little more patient, he would have heard me say that I welcome the new guidance from the Cabinet Office, which allows electoral registration officers to register certain individuals if a national insurance number is not or cannot be submitted, and has been verified by data that are within the Government’s guidelines. As my hon. Friend told us, Sheffield university has been able to add 7,000 student electors to the register as a result. However, although it is hugely welcome, the guidance came very late. It would have been so much better if the excellent practice at Sheffield university could have been shared by every university.
As the motion says, we believe that the Government should allow universities to register students en bloc, but, at the very least, will the Government write to all vice-chancellors reiterating the new guidance and, in particular, offering that excellent case study of Sheffield university, so that, even at this late stage, we can boost registration in time for the election in May?
Perhaps the most significant and disturbing development is the one that was cited by my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman): the apparent massive decline in the number of attainers—17-year-olds who will reach the age of 18 during the coming year. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) reminded the House of the figure for Liverpool. Last year, there were 2,300 attainers on Liverpool’s electoral register; this year, there are just 76. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described this as a scandal. It is indeed a scandal. The Minister said, rightly, that we should learn from Northern Ireland. One thing we can learn from Northern Ireland is this: the schools initiative in Northern Ireland sees electoral registration officers visiting schools and colleges in their area to encourage young people to register, and requires the schools and colleges to give information to the electoral registration officer so they have the data on school students that can then be used for registration purposes.
In Northern Ireland, when the previous Labour Government began the transition to IER, we saw a massive fall in the number of attainers on the first register—it was very similar to what we have seen in England, Scotland and Wales this year. It fell from 10,000 to 244, which is an even more dramatic fall than the one we have seen in Liverpool. After the schools initiative was introduced, the number of attainers registered went up dramatically to a higher level than was achieved under the household register. My understanding is that on the latest register in Northern Ireland, two thirds of attainers are now registered. That is actually higher than the proportion under the old system of household registration.
Mr Gyimah
In Northern Ireland, registration rates plummeted to about 11% when IER was introduced. In the UK, nine out of 10 have automatically been transferred to IER. The two situations are not similar. The reason we have managed to achieve that is that we have focused on the annual canvass, which Northern Ireland did not.
Stephen Twigg
We are talking about the very specific issue of attainers: those who will reach the age of 18 in the current year. The drop-off in Liverpool, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred to, also happened in Northern Ireland, and perhaps even more dramatically, according to the figures I was given. My point relates directly to the motion. If we adopt the Northern Ireland schools initiative in England, Scotland and Wales, we can reverse this. That is no reversal of IER. It is still individual registration, but it is about going into schools and colleges. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the Minister say, “Do it.” Will Ministers stand up and commit to introducing the legislation immediately? We will support it. Please, bring forward the legislation to enable England, Scotland and Wales to achieve what has been done in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Twigg
The whole point of the schools initiative is that the duty is on the schools and colleges, as well as on the electoral registration officers. That is why it has worked in Northern Ireland and that is what we would need here. I repeat what I said—perhaps the Minister’s colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons can respond to this in his closing remarks. If we share a concern across the House on this, it is not too late—it is quite late, but it is not too late—for us to pass legislation for England, Scotland and Wales that matches the schools initiative in Northern Ireland, and reverse that appalling, scandalous and dramatic fall in the number of attainers on the electoral register.
We are in a position where emergency action is urgently needed. From a position that was far, far from perfect previously, with 7.5 million not on the register, we have seen a further drop-off. We have until 20 April: two-and-a-half months. We are proposing two very straightforward changes that could make a real difference: allow live-in institutions to block-register their residents; and immediately introduce the schools initiative so that we can boost youth participation. Those two changes alone could see hundreds of thousands of people added back on to the register. Tomorrow is national voter registration day. We cannot, surely, afford to have a lost generation of young people disconnected from our democratic process. We are arguing for two very, very simple reforms. If the Government join us, we will support them in implementing those reforms. I urge them to do so today.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The debate has been important and wide ranging. We have heard many analyses of the issues we face and a number of possible solutions. The problem of under-registration did not happen overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight. Its causes are complex and are linked to increased population mobility and disengagement from traditional party politics. It is nonsense to suggest, as I am afraid many Opposition Members did, that this Government do not take the issue of under-registration seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As the Minister for the Constitution made clear, the Government are committed to enhancing both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register. That is why I cannot support the idea of block registration. The whole purpose of individual electoral registration is that it is individual; it is not block registration. It is not people being put on a register who do not know that that has happened.
The decline in the completeness of the registers between 2000 and 2010—in other words, under the last Government—has been arrested. The most recent research by the Electoral Commission shows that levels of electoral registration have stabilised since 2011. I hope we can all welcome that, but it is of course not enough.
Chris Ruane
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The figure was 7.5 million under Labour and it is 7.5 million now. Is he aware that the EC’s aim is still to have 7.5 million people on the register by 2019? Does that not show a lack of ambition by the EC?
Tom Brake
I think that Members on both sides of the House would like the Electoral Commission to achieve much more than that, and of course that is why the Government have set out £14 million of spending, which I am going to come to, to boost registration.
We have taken a number of vital and novel steps to transform electoral registration in this country. Online registration, which has been welcomed by everyone, was introduced for the first time last year and makes registering to vote easier than ever. Of course young people in particular, who spend a significant percentage of their time online and are very familiar with using systems online, will be able to use that very easily. It is easier, too, for people to encourage others to register, simply by sharing a link to the gov.uk website.
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) showed how difficult it is for young people to know their national insurance number. What action are the Government going to take to ensure that 16 to 18-year-olds know their NI number so that they can register to vote, and thereby deal with this problem?
Tom Brake
First, as the hon. Gentleman may know, EROs can advise on alternative sources of that information, and I am sure that best practice in helping young people in that respect will be disseminated. I should also say that given that the Labour party supports, as I do, the idea of young people being able to vote at 16, I am a little worried that Labour Members seem to think that young people are completely incapable of keeping any records themselves.
Last month the Government announced a further package of funding of up to £10 million to support activities to maximise registration.
Tom Brake
I will make a little more progress.
That was on top of the £4.2 million invested last year. The Labour party has rightly wanted to know some of the detail of that, and I will come on to that. Most of this money has already been distributed to EROs, to support their work. Earlier today we announced how the rest of the funding will be used to encourage traditionally under-registered groups to register. If this was part of a Government conspiracy to stop either young people or poorer people registering, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members, then I do not understand why we would have spent £14 million over the last two years on trying to boost registration.
The funding will be provided to a number of national organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens Advice, Citizens UK, Homeless Link, the National Housing Federation, Mencap, Operation Black Vote and UK Youth. Many of these organisations work directly with the groups of people the Labour party has suggested the Government are trying to deny the right to vote.
Mr Kevan Jones
I acknowledge the money being given to councils such as Durham to send out “cleansing” letters, which they are doing next week, but why was reference to 17-year-olds missed off those letters? That was not up to Durham county council; that is the letter it had to use, which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed and the EC has used.
Tom Brake
My understanding is that the Electoral Commission provides guidance that the EROs then act on, but they do have some leeway in how they interpret it. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue four times today and clearly wants a response, I will ensure that he gets a written reply.
I have listed the organisations that are going to work very actively on promoting voter registration among the people they work with. They have direct experience of working with unregistered groups and insight into what works. The £2.5 million campaign is funded from the £10 million announced in January to increase voter registration rates. From this we will also be funding student bodies, including the National Union of Students. As I said earlier, if the Government intended to stop students registering, as some of the more overheated Opposition Members have suggested, we would hardly be funding the NUS.
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the Minister congratulate Sean Goulding, John Treacy, Nathan Coe and Mitchell Murdoch—from Carshalton Boys Sports college, in his constituency—who, unfunded, are running their campaign for first-time voters, which can be found on Twitter at #ftvote?
Tom Brake
I am of course very happy to support that initiative, as I am indeed doing.
As a number of Members have highlighted, national voter registration day, organised by Bite the Ballot, which I have worked with, takes place tomorrow. Events will be held up and down the country and I urge everyone here in the Chamber to do what they can to support this and similar initiatives. Of course, we all have at our fingertips the ability—through the many tweets Members send out, through Facebook postings, through the e-mails we send out—to encourage young people to register to vote, and we should all be participating in that.
Tomorrow, the Electoral Commission’s overseas voter registration day marks the launch of its activities over the coming months to encourage British citizens overseas to register and to vote. The Ministry of Defence will also be launching its annual information campaign for the armed forces tomorrow—the start of a range of activity to encourage service personnel and their families to ensure they are registered to vote ahead of the general election.
Helen Goodman
As well as having a publicity campaign with the telephone number for national insurance numbers, why does the Minister not change the letter so that when people get it, they know that they will need it when they register to vote? No mention is made of that at the moment.
Tom Brake
I am very happy to take that point on board and see whether it can be acted on.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will be publishing its report on voter engagement, and it will no doubt include a range of thoughtful recommendations for the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that the use of photo ID might be appropriate, but the PCRC has recommended that the Government do not adopt the Electoral Commission’s suggestion that people take photo ID to the polling station.
There will be things the next Government can do further to modernise electoral registration in this country.
In the time left I will try to respond to some of the specific points that were made. This is all about ensuring that the electoral register is accurate. That is what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) wants, and that is what we are trying to do.
On attainers in Liverpool, I have concerns that the best practice that exists in some local authorities is clearly not being picked up by others. My own local authority has successfully exchanged census information from schools with the ERO to ensure that a very significant percentage of young people at school are now on the register. The small number who are not are being individually chased by local authorities to ensure that that happens. So it can be done, and in fact an EROs conference is taking place today at which I am sure some of these issues will be debated.
Yes, we should give special focus to young people, but it is worth pointing out that we will not support the proposed legal requirement for EROs to go into schools. Of course, there are local authorities such as mine where the issue is not registering young people to vote but ensuring that older people in care homes are registered. Forcing EROs to go into schools, where there is not a problem, would tie down resources, which could result in there being insufficient resources to enable them to focus on the areas that they need to focus on. Clearly they have the ability to go into schools now; there is no need for the law to be changed to enable them to do it. We would of course encourage all schools to be participating in this regard. As I have said, there are things that the next Government—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the Serjeant at Arms confirmed to me that the former Member for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhne, had applied for and been granted a parliamentary pass. Given the low esteem with which many Members of this House are held by our constituents in regard to poor behaviour, is there any method that we can use to rescind that application to ensure that someone who is a convicted criminal cannot freely walk around the Palace of Westminster?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. That said I will, if I may, make two points. First, these are matters dealt with by an established process under the auspices of the Serjeant at Arms, and although I do not cavil at the hon. Gentleman having an opinion on the matter, we do not discuss security related matters on the Floor of the Chamber. Secondly, I put it on the record that, although the hon. Gentleman has a view that he has expressed with great alacrity, there is also the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which is on the statute book. I note what he says and I understand his concern and no one will deny him the right to his point of view, but we will leave it there for tonight.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I inquire whether there is any way within the rules of order that I can draw attention to a possible misprint on the Order Paper to the House of Commons relating to the cross-party early-day motion 757 on defence spending, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), along with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and about a dozen others including me? It reads as follows:
“That this House believes that the UK faces a growing and ever more complex range of current and future threats…and supports the UK devoting at least 20% of its gross domestic product to defence.”
When I signed the early-day motion, I was under the impression that I was supporting 2%. It is beyond even my wildest dreams to have 20%, but a figure in between would not be unacceptable.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He inquired whether there was a mechanism within the rules of order. As he well knows, there is, and he has just used it. It was 31 years three months ago that I first met the hon. Gentleman. All I will say about him tonight is that once a propagandist who seizes his moment, always a propagandist who seizes his moment.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a serious point underlying this matter, which is that the 2% figure is indeed what the UK Government have encouraged every other NATO country to contribute of GDP to defence. This 2% figure is essential both to UK national security and to our international reputation.
Mr Speaker
If Sir Gerald Howarth really must make a point of order, I suppose that we must hear him.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it that there needs to be an investigation? Clearly, the Table Office is under the impression that those right hon. and hon. Members have suggested 20%. I have to say that I could not possibly cavil at that. It seems to be the very minimum that we should be spending on defence in view of what has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Chairman of the esteemed Defence Committee. Will you, Mr Speaker, confirm with the Table Office that it has accurately recorded that which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled?
Mr Speaker
I have always known that the hon. Gentleman is no great advocate of increased public expenditure, but defence tends to be an exception. He has made his own point in his own way.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You talk about the main act, but is this not an appropriate overture for the main act? After all the Scottish people are determined to stay in the Union precisely because they want to maintain Trident.
Mr Speaker
That may be so. We will leave it there. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scottish Representation in the Union
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
I asked for this debate on the constitution this evening because in the run-up to the election, when other issues—the national health service, the economy, national security and defence—will clearly be pre-eminent considerations, it is doubtful whether there is any other way over the next two months that this House can give detailed consideration to a set of constitutional challenges that, if not thought through or if mishandled, will in time threaten the very existence of the United Kingdom.
I am not here as an advocate of the status quo. I start by recognising that this House of Commons is England’s Parliament as well as the United Kingdom’s and that we should agree a Commons Committee reform that allows for detailed debate on English-only measures by only English Members. With reform of the Lords, reform of regional and local government, reform of the voting system and reform of the Commons itself also part of the queue of complex, interrelated and interconnected constitutional issues that are in need of democratic resolution, I believe that some kind of convention of the people or, if that is rejected, a Speaker’s Conference, which you might chair, Mr Speaker, is now the best way of ascertaining whether the United Kingdom can finally move from what is a 19th-century constitution to a modern, 21st-century one.
If the Union is to survive, it will have to be built on the interdependence of our four nations, and it will have to guarantee equality of status within the United Kingdom. My argument tonight is that with the announcement of English votes for English laws, which means nothing other than restricting the right of Scottish Members to vote in this House, the Government are deliberately driving a wedge between Scotland and England and, in so doing, they have asked the wrong question, and they are now getting the wrong answer.
However, at the very time that we should be attempting to unify and reconcile the four nations of the United Kingdom, building on the fact that the Scottish National party wants to be part of the UK currency, and on the fact that the nationalists’ economic case for independence has fallen as a result of the halving of oil prices, the Government have summarily rejected one of the central recommendations of the Smith commission, which they set up, which was:
“MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.”
The Conservative party has got this wrong, because it presumes, as Members now on the Government Benches have always said, that the fundamental anomaly in the British constitution is that Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws, whereas English MPs cannot vote on Scottish-only laws. In retaliation for what they see as Scots pursuing a Scottish interest, they wish to pursue and enshrine an English interest above a common UK interest that could bind us together.
But what is called the West Lothian question is, in truth, only a symptom of the problems we have to deal with. The central anomaly, and the real asymmetry from which all else follows, is the basic, and indeed unchangeable, imbalance in the size of the four nations. England represents 84% of the UK population, Scotland represents 8%, Wales represents 5% and Northern Ireland represents 3%. England sends 533 Members to this House, compared with 59 from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland—117 in total against 533. It is obvious that when we start from such a profound imbalance and asymmetry—such a huge inequality in population and voting shares—fairness of outcome cannot easily be secured by a blanket uniformity that treats the minorities exactly the same as the majority. It follows that the rules needed to respect and reassure the minorities, who might always be outvoted, have to be different from those needed to uphold the majority.
The challenge is not unique to Britain. The United States, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and many other countries have had to find ways of managing the gross inequalities in the size of their constituent parts without undermining their unity. As the price of keeping the United States together, California accepts that it has just two Members of the US Senate to represent its 38 million citizens, while Wyoming has the same number to represent just 500,000 citizens—one Senator for 250,000 people in one part of the country, and one Senator for 19 million in another.
Similarly, the price New South Wales pays for Australian unity is having one Senator for every 580,000 people, in contrast to Tasmania’s one Senator for every 40,000. Fair treatment for minorities and national unity are achieved in the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates not by the crude and blanket uniformity that is characterised by English votes for English laws, but by special arrangements that recognise that minority rights have to be respected and upheld so that the provinces, states or nations can be held together in one Union.
With the Leader of the House’s announcement that he would exclude Scottish representatives from voting on what he now calls consent motions, including annual consent motions on tax issues arising from the Budget, he is breaking with the old-established practice of other countries, breaking with our own constitutional history, and breaking with all sensible advice in creating what the Government now boast is the English veto, making ours the first and only Parliament in the world where two classes of representatives will exist and where some representatives are clearly more equal than others.
By the Government’s own insistence on devolving all income tax to the Scottish Parliament and then using that as a pretext for banning Scottish MPs from voting on income tax here, there will be a constant national refrain that there are now first-class and second-class MPs: the English who rule and the Scots there on sufferance. I have to ask—
Mr Brown
I will give way after this. I have to ask Government Members this: can you imagine Scotland, or possibly Wales and Northern Ireland, being enthusiastic about sending MPs to this place indefinitely if they have to withdraw when the real vote on the Budget—the consent vote, or the veto motion—is being taken on this central economic legislation once a year: income tax rates in the Budget voted on by a consent motion that excludes Scottish and, in time, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs who also want devolution of taxation? Can we sustain truly positive support for one United Kingdom Parliament for long when it becomes clear that the Government of the day owe their existence to an English majority and ride roughshod over other representation? If anybody is in any doubt about the threat to the unity of the UK posed by English votes for English laws, they should take note of how Scottish National party Members, who want to break the Union, have become its biggest supporters.
It was said of the Hapsburg monarchs that they would never learn from their mistakes. Surely the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should heed the lessons of history. For decades William Gladstone, when Prime Minister, tried to find a way of balancing what he called the rights of “outsiders”—in this case, the Irish after home rule—and “insiders” without breaking the Union, but then concluded in his final term that it
“passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”.
He was not alone, for in 1965, when Harold Wilson’s proposal for steel nationalisation was defeated by Ulster Unionist votes, he asked his Attorney-General to devise a formula for two tiers of MPs, and he could not do so. At that time, the Conservative party insisted: “Every Member of this House is equal with every other Member of this House and all of us will speak on all subjects.”
Mr Brown
I will finish the history and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
When, in 1972, the Kilbrandon royal commission again considered English votes for English laws, it concluded:
“in our view, therefore, all Members of Parliament, whether or not they come from regions with their own legislative assemblies, must have the same rights of participation in the business of the House of Commons”.
Then again, in 1977, when James Callaghan had to revisit the issue during the first Scotland Bill, the advice he received agreed with Gladstone that
“no form of ‘in and out’ voting has been identified that would be sufficiently consistent with the basic features of our constitution to be workable”.
It seems that a problem that could not be solved in two centuries the Prime Minister now claims he has mastered and resolved in just a few weeks. I have to say this: if after 50 years in politics and four periods as Prime Minister, Gladstone could not find an answer to this question, and if every subsequent Prime Minister since has found it unworkable and unanswerable within the Union, might it not be somewhat immodest for the Prime Minister, who set up his review in October and published the results in December, to say that he has found the answer in just eight weeks? Might not he have been modest enough at least to listen to and get some perspective from his old constitutional history tutor at university, Professor Bogdanor, who has argued—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Brown
Professor Bogdanor has argued that while
“English votes for English laws seems at first sight a logical response to the English Question…it is in fact incoherent…a bifurcated government is a logical absurdity. A government must be collectively responsible to parliament for all the policies that come before it, not just a selection of them.”
The reality is that EVEL, English votes for English laws, and this hunt for perfect symmetry in an asymmetrical world risk jeopardising the Union in the long term. Let me quote Mr Michael Portillo—this is probably what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants to say. Mr Portillo said only a few days ago:
“I think it is creating daily a greater division between the two nations, which will lead to a sort of logic that the two nations should separate...The English mentality I think is now increasingly that the two nations are going in different directions: that if you’re a Scottish Member of Parliament you are a second-class citizen to an English Member of Parliament and you will be allowed to vote on certain matters.”
If the Union fell now, it would not be because of what happened during the referendum, the result of which was conclusively against leaving the United Kingdom, but because of what happened since—[Interruption.] The Union will not fall because most Scots demanded independence from the United Kingdom—they did not—but because leaders failed to convince them that they were fully committed to its unity—[Interruption.] It will not fall because a majority of people today want to leave the United Kingdom but because people feel that there is a Scottish interest and an English interest and that the Government have not defended the UK interest.
Sensible Conservatives recognise that. Commenting the morning after the referendum speech by the Prime Minister, Lord Strathclyde, author of the Conservatives’ own proposals on devolution, which rejected this approach, said:
“If we are serious Unionist politicians we need to use the language of healing and strengthening...We started off perhaps with…a step in the wrong direction”.
The Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Liberal party Member who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was blunter. He said of the Prime Minister’s speech that morning:
“He went from being a Prime Minister who had absolutely done the right thing in the national interest to making a very partisan judgement on behalf of the Conservative party”.
The implication was that the Prime Minister was putting the integrity of the United Kingdom second not to the express demands of the people of England but to the very vocal demands of the UK Independence party.
Mr MacNeil
Mr Speaker, will you give me some guidance on the difference between a debate and a lecture? Should a Member who has promised to give way not give way?
Mr Speaker
Let me make two points. It is very simple. First, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is perfectly in order. Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is bearing more than a striking resemblance to an over-ebullient puppy dog. That is not something we want to see in this Chamber. He should take an example in statemanship from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and calm himself.
Mr MacNeil
Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way? He has to sit down to give way.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned the Kilbrandon commission, and Labour said to that commission that it preferred a Tory Government to independence. Is that still his view?
Mr Brown
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. His colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was wrong to shout earlier that the majority of Scottish people wanted independence. The majority of Scottish people were clear that they did not want independence, and the sooner the SNP realises that it does not have a majority for that position the better.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking several points. The first is the question of unfairness to the English voters. That is the key issue. Secondly, he asserts that there will be two classes of Members under our proposals. It is not about two classes of Members but two different functions. It was his Government and his party leader in 1996-97 who created the devolution arrangements without making proper recompense for the unfairness to the British voter. That is where the problem lies.
Mr Brown
I have already proposed an English committee system that the hon. Gentleman should accept. He is forgetting the lessons of every other country in the world that is trying to hold together minorities in different parts of the country. They have to find a way of respecting the rights of minorities while upholding the majority. Nothing in yesterday’s EVEL proposals answered those problems. It is difficult to define what an English-only Bill is. If we take one possible definition of “separate and distinct effect”, constitutional lawyers say that that would encompass just half a dozen Bills in 10 years. That makes us ask why it has been proposed.
English MPs vote normally as a bloc in the same way as UK MPs, which suggests that this move has been proposed for other reasons. Whatever the practical considerations, the real damage of English votes for English laws is not its mechanical application. The real damage, before a veto is imposed, is the creation of a perception that the United Kingdom is now only about separate interests and not a common interest.
Mr Brown
I am going to finish.
There is a myth that the Union can survive this new polarisation of Scotland and England. The myth is that it is held together by bonds that are of such long standing that they can overcome what may be seen as a local difficulty. I say to the House, however, that what may have been true in the aftermath of the second world war and its shared sacrifice has given way to a new world where none of our ancient institutions is strong enough or popular enough on its own to hold us together.
The Union cannot survive on mutual respect alone—it is in short supply at the moment—or just on the basis of mutual toleration, a minimalist policy of holding each other at a distance for fear that we will fight. The Union will hold together only if there are things that the people of our four nations believe they have in common; if we emphasise that there are common needs, mutual interests and similar values that make us want to co-operate; and, in short, if there is a belief that we do best by sharing. In the modern world, where countries survive or falter on the basis of a daily referendum of opinion, such sharing has to preserve our historical willingness to share risks and transfer resources between each other to tackle issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality.
The 18th-century Prime Minister Lord North is today remembered for only one thing, which is that he lost America. Will this current Prime Minister—this is the statesman’s question—now act to ensure that he will not be remembered in history as the Lord North of the 21st century? On 19 September 2014, for purely short-term gain—putting party before country, without considering the long-term interests of our united country, and ignoring the need to reconcile people and bring them together—he may have lit a fuse that eventually blows the Union apart.
I have made proposals for reform. I do not want us to pre-empt a constitutional review. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the position I am representing. The issue tonight is whether he can persuade his colleagues in the coalition Government and Government Members before it is too late.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this evening’s debate? It is very good to see the House so well attended and particularly animated, which is not always the case in our Adjournment debates.
At the start of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said one thing with which nobody could take exception, which was that this is a time for us, through the work of the House, to bring unity to our four nations. For those of us who represent Scottish constituents at Westminster, that was very much the view expressed by the people of Scotland in a quite remarkable democratic exercise on 18 September. We would do well at all times to remember that.
The right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by bringing this issue to the House tonight. The issue is entirely legitimate, and nothing will work less to the advantage of the Union than seeking in any way to deny that legitimacy or simply seeking to avoid it. It is absolutely right that all the political parties should look to address the issue, as indeed they are doing.
As we look across the political landscape and address the various options available, it is possible to conclude only one thing—that there is no easy answer and absolutely no quick fix. If we try to achieve an easy answer or a quick fix, we run a very real risk of replacing the obvious and patent anomalies of the current constitutional settlement with new ones, which would place more pressure on the hinges of our United Kingdom at a time when those who would break it up remain vigilant for a chance to do so.
Mr Carmichael
If I may make a little progress, I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House laid out the proposals of the Conservative party. It is a matter of record that my party disagrees with that approach. Nor is it much of a secret that there is a range of views within the Conservative party, from those who believe that this issue is best left alone to those who want a more radical solution. There is not much consensus in that party, let alone between the parties in this House. However, there is a broad consensus here about keeping together our family of nations. That requires that this issue be considered carefully with an eye to a lasting settlement, not a short-sighted or short-term partisan advantage.
Sir William Cash
Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposals that were agreed to tentatively by the Conservative party yesterday will not necessarily be the solution, because the real problem is that the new Parnell from Scotland, in the form of Mr Alex Salmond, will come down and use any opportunity relentlessly and ruthlessly to create as much chaos as possible, and thereby disrupt the United Kingdom?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Alex Salmond was here for many years and often sought to do exactly that. However, in terms of achievement, there was not a great deal to show for his time here. I therefore caution my hon. Friend about pre-judging the outcome of the election on 7 May and what the consequences of that outcome might be.
My party has always been clear that any parliamentary vote involving English or English and Welsh MPs should be held only on the basis of a proportionate vote share from the previous election. Devolution to the constituent nations of our United Kingdom has always taken place on that basis, and for good reason. It would be wholly unjust effectively to devolve power to England or England and Wales in a way that distorted democratic opinion and passed unfair advantage to any party.
The logical and lasting solution to this conundrum, in the view of my party, is the creation of a federal United Kingdom, in which England as a whole or in its constituent parts devolves powers from Westminster and, by extension, answers the West Lothian question. I accept, however, that we may be some way from that solution.
The options can and should be considered by a constitutional convention, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath indicated. The convention should be empowered to look at all the anomalies and difficulties that we face. In that way, we can forge a consensus and build lasting solutions that strengthen the bonds of our United Kingdom, rather than threaten to break them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is important in this debate that we learn more about the Liberal plans for the proportional representation of MPs. It seems, with respect, that they could end in a really bonkers situation. What would happen if the Green party got 5% of the votes but only one MP? Would the Green party lady walk through the Lobby representing 20 other colleagues? What would happen if the Labour party got 38% of the popular vote but 43% of MPs? How would it be worked out in practice?
Mr Carmichael
Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.
It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.
Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has got part of his history wrong, because since the vow there is now the vow plus that has been advocated by the Labour party. We are in a constant state of flux and constitutional change in Scotland. Where do the Government see it ending? We have the vow plus from Labour, but what is the view of the UK Government?
Mr Carmichael
I thought I was making a mistake in giving way, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question confirms that. His party did a brave thing in taking part in the Smith commission—for the first time ever, it was an historic moment to get all five parties from the Scottish Parliament around one table. He was part of that consensus; perhaps he did not like it and was one of those who put pressure on John Swinney and others to run away from the settlement that they had just signed up to.
Rather than coming up with such points, the hon. Gentleman would do better first to calm down and relax a little, and he could then tell the House what he and his party will do with the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission. One thing he does not want to accept is that as a result of the Smith commission, Scotland will have the third most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. A tremendous amount of good can be done with the powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament, and that is where the debate ought to be, rather than the constant whinge about vows or vows plus.
Mr Carmichael
I am sorry but I am running out of time.
The Government are doing everything we can to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, as recommended by Lord Smith, and hon. Members will know that on Monday I took an order through the House to deal with that very point.
A great deal more could—indeed will—be said on this subject between now and 7 May. That is absolutely right, because to build a consensus we must make this Parliament fit for the whole United Kingdom, and such debates will be necessary. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for bringing the matter to the House this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dairy Industry
(9 years, 10 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It will not have escaped your notice that quite a lot of people want to take part in this debate. I am therefore immediately imposing a five-minute time limit on speeches, apart from the opening speech and the wind-ups. If Members stick to that sensibly, we may be able to get everybody in.
To facilitate matters, I will—perhaps exceptionally—read out the list of Members in the order in which I intend to call them, which is the order in which they submitted their name to the Speaker’s Office. There is no question of preference or seniority; it is simply how the names went in. On the Opposition Benches, we have Mr Shannon, Ms Ritchie, Dr Whiteford and Mr Owen; on the Government Benches we have, in this order, Glyn Davies, Nick Herbert, Miss McIntosh, Mr Ollerenshaw, Mrs Newton, Mr Kawczynski, Mr Julian Smith, Mr Reid, Mrs Murray, Mr Farron and Sir William Cash. I need to add Mr Parish to that list; he was chairing a meeting earlier.
That is the batting order. I am telling Members that because it may be that some will choose to intervene rather than make a speech. Those whose names I have not read out are not on the list at all. I hope that is clear.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the dairy industry under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
This is a time of deep uncertainty for many farmers, as they have seen huge volatility in the price that they receive for milk over the past three years. The dairy industry is vital for the United Kingdom, but I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I address the challenges facing the industry through the prism of my rural constituency, Ribble Valley. The industry is simply the backbone of the constituency. Some of the farmers to whom I spoke can trace their farms back several hundred years. Generations have worked the land and shaped its appearance and character.
From a food security point of view, the industry is simply essential. Its liquid market is strong; of course, we also have some of the most recognised cheeses in the world, particularly the tasty, crumbly, creamy and mature Lancashire cheeses that are made by some of the most famous family names and sold throughout the world. Milk is also processed into other commodities, including yoghurts, butter and powdered milk.
The by-product of the industry is amazing: rolling countryside that attracts a large number of tourists, providing income for bed and breakfasts, amazing hotels and companies that source food and beers, as well as providing a large number of local jobs. Then there are the gastro pubs. There are far too many to mention, but we have the Campaign for Real Ale pub of the year, the Swan with Two Necks in Pendleton, and, just 2 miles away from there, the food pub of the year, the Freemasons at Wiswell. Originally I had planned to mention all the pubs, delicatessens, restaurants and amazing quality shops in my constituency, but my speech became a travelogue for Ribble Valley; that is what the dairy industry has done for my area. The Ribble Valley food trail is now firmly a part of why visitors come to the area, and those visitors keep small villages such as Rimington, Clitheroe, Longridge, Lostock Hall, Chipping, Waddington and Mitton alive.
The recent investment in local businesses runs to millions of pounds. The restaurants and hotels in the James’s Places group are found throughout the valley, representing big investments in the area. The Aspinall Arms in Mitton has just seen massive investment, as have the White Bull in Gisburn, which has reopened after being closed for over a year, and the Derby Arms in Longridge. My point is that without the backbone of the dairy industry the whole fabric of the area simply would not exist.
Anyone can see the pride and worth of the industry as they travel through the area, but it is especially clear at the agricultural shows, such as the Chipping show, the Hodder Valley show and the Longridge show. I am proud to say that the Royal Lancashire show will be part of the local calendar once again this year, on 7, 8 and 9 August. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has just pushed a note to me saying, “Don’t forget to mention the Shireburn Arms”—that is just down from Stonyhurst college, where he went to school.
My village of Pendleton is relatively small. It has three dairy farms of different sizes. John Cowperthwaite is the seventh generation of his family to operate from his farm. He has a contract with Sainsbury’s and says that the contract has been honoured and that he is happy with the way he is being treated. That means that there will be a business for his son Richard, who is 22 years of age, to take over. Richard works with his dad at the moment.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend is getting to an important question about contracts for our farmers. Sainsbury’s has been very good, as has Tesco, but the real issue is the pressure on the price per litre. Will he go on to talk about the big supermarkets’ contracts?
Mr Evans
Yes. It will not have gone unnoticed by my hon. Friend and others that Sainsbury’s took out a large advert in a number of newspapers indicating those supermarkets that are being fair and those that are not. I will refer to that later.
Edward Cowperthwaite’s farm is a bit further into the village. He milks a smaller herd than John Cowperthwaite. He came off his tractor to speak to me yesterday. He is not on a contract and has seen two successive cuts to his milk price, in January and February this year. He works seven days a week and cannot afford to employ anyone. He has some sheep to keep his income up, and his wife works as a teacher, so thankfully he can make a go of it, but he has five youngsters and is not sure that any of them will want to enter farming while it is in this particular predicament.
At the top of the village is William Slinger’s farm, which he can trace back to 1603. He has a larger herd of cows, plus sheep, and is the founding director of Bowland Fresh, which about 30 local farms feed into. Both Booths and Asda take his milk, and he works hard to ensure the scheme works for the participating farmers. I want to thank Booths in particular, as the founding buyer for Bowland Fresh, for the considerate way that it has treated local suppliers. Edwin Booth lives locally and knows that the value of milk is not simply the plastic bottle people take away from his stores. I also thank Asda for its support for Bowland Fresh.
Whether the cause is Russian sanctions, the reduced Chinese market or simply an over-supply in the market after a very good year last year, the fact is that the price for milk on some farms is now way below the cost of production. A local dairy farmer from Samlesbury, Graham Young, who is also a member of the National Farmers Union north-west dairy board, told me that many farmers joined the European milk co-operative, Arla, and are getting under 25p a litre; some farmers are in the First Milk co-operative and are getting around 20p a litre. Although the longer term is looking good, those prices are not sustainable in the short term, and farmers have to survive the short term first.
The current situation has energised a number of MPs who, like me, think something must be done. Those include my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is here today. She is Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which produced an excellent report last month making a number of important recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who is also here, had an Adjournment debate in November on this issue; sadly, the plight of the industry has worsened since then. A number of Members have put down or signed early-day motions and raised issues relating to dairying on the Floor of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Non-payment caused a huge crisis. Will my hon. Friend give some thought to the idea that the Government could help by engaging more, through public procurement of services? People who are in the Army, the education sector and other sectors could get milk supplied in a way that would help our farmers, and would ensure that the Government were taking an active part on this issue.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about all the activity taking place in this Parliament, but we also had many Westminster Hall debates in the previous Parliament about the crisis in the dairy industry. Does he agree that the time for talk is now over, and that we really are looking to the Government for concrete steps this time round to sort out this perennial problem?
Mr Evans
I do agree that the time for action is now. If we do not act now, it will be too late. The number of farms has dropped from 35,000 to fewer than 10,000, so this is clearly a crisis. I should congratulate my hon. Friend on being the founding member of the all-party group on dairy, which has focused on the industry’s plight.
To go back to a previous intervention, we know something is out of kilter when milk is sold at 89p for 4 pints. When I was in Ribble Valley last week, I saw 8 pints on offer for £2 in my local Co-op. Perrier sells for £1.04 a bottle—water is valued more than milk. That cannot be right.
I commend the Minister on his hard work and resolute efforts to look at fresh ways of supporting the industry. He meets industry representatives constantly; indeed, he met Thomas Binns, one of my dairy farmers in Cumbria, just yesterday. I have looked long and hard at a number of suggestions made by some of my farmers. I have also read around the issue in the Farmers Guardian, and I have read reports about the industry’s plight. I have produced a charter for the British dairy industry, which I hope the Government will get behind. It is a 12-point plan, although it may well be a 13-point plan after the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I have provided the Minister with a copy. The charter simply says:
“1. The Groceries Code Adjudicator to be given more powers to protect dairy farmers.
2. A strengthened Groceries Supply Code of Practice.
3. Supermarkets and wholesalers who pay less than the cost of production for milk should be named and shamed. They have Fairtrade coffee, chocolate and bananas, this should extend to Fairtrade UK milk and dairy processed products.
4. Farmers need to be given more assistance in accessing a variety of export markets.
5. Banks should provide support to dairy farmers during this challenging time for the industry.
6. HM Revenue & Customs should move to look at profits over a five year period to provide a more level rate of taxation.
7. The EU intervention price of 15 pence per litre needs to be urgently reviewed as it is no longer an accurate figure and is far too low.
8. Better and clearer origin of production labelling. British means produced and processed in the UK.
9. More stability on investment allowances for farmers.
10. Ensure that dairy farming is supported and championed by the Government. Dairy farms are the backbone of rural Britain and it must be sufficiently attractive for new generations of young farmers to enter the industry.
11. Look to encourage producer organisations within the industry to give better protection on product price.
12. Look to cushion the worst impacts of the volatility within the industry.”
Let me also add point 13, on the public procurement of UK milk.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fantastic speech, which is very timely. May I add my concerns about over-production? With quota coming off this year, we hear that Ireland is likely dramatically to increase its production of liquid milk. That will flood across into the United Kingdom, and the consequences could be very serious. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the future of milk production?
Mr Evans
That has certainly been heralded in a number of agricultural publications. Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands could all increase their production, and the price would drop even further. The threat is that we start importing more product into the UK, which will further and severely disadvantage British dairy farming. I hope the Minister will address that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
At Prime Minister’s questions the other day, did the Prime Minister not say in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that the Government were seriously looking at, and he was committed to, the introduction of fines and the spreading of tax payments over this year? If that is good enough for the Prime Minister, I hope it will be good enough for the Minister when he responds.
Mr Evans
I will finish now to give lots of other Members an opportunity to contribute. However, we will all listen carefully, as will the industry, to what the Minister has to say. We know he supports the British dairy industry, and we know the Prime Minister supports it, having a number of dairy farmers in his constituency. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I would like to thank Kathleen Calvert, a stalwart defender of the industry’s interests, whom I spoke to this morning, for her suggestions on helping the industry, some of which I have incorporated into my speech.
I want to finish with the last paragraph of a letter to Emma Penny, the editor of the Farmers Guardian, which is published not far from my constituency, in Fulwood, on the outskirts of rural Lancashire:
“If nothing is done we will not recognise the industry in 10 years’ time. It will consist of 50 mega dairies on the outskirts of large cities and even more milk, cheese, butter and powder will be imported. Wake up Britain.”
Minister, it is time we all woke up and smelled the coffee, but what is the use of smelling the coffee unless it has British milk in it? We also want some toast with British butter on it and a slab of Lancashire cheese, followed by British yoghurt and the full English breakfast, including a healthy portion of black pudding—all supplied by British farmers. We must not take the industry for granted. We must not lose it. We have to act now to ensure its future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Sixteen Members now wish to participate in the debate. Members can do the maths: speeches are down to four minutes. I have also decided that I will not add injury time for interventions. Members who courteously give way to others may need to bear that in mind when considering whether to take interventions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for giving us all the opportunity to participate.
I am here because the dairy industry is an important issue in my constituency. I have spoken about it before, but there are new issues to raise. In Northern Ireland, we have 3,425 dairy farms, boasting almost 280,000 dairy cows, with a market value of £627.5 million—the value of the dairy industry to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector is therefore enormous. The industry also employs 2,318 people.
As we have heard, the price of milk has continued to drop. In the past month, however, it appears that the market has bottomed. The milk price indicator hit a low of 19.24p per litre in mid-December, but it has now risen to 20.09p per litre. There is an indication that it may be 20p to 22p per litre before the early summer. Let me put that into perspective. If someone gets 21p per litre for their milk, and the cost of production is 28p, they lose 7p per litre. A base price of 20p per litre means that a 100-head dairy herd would lose £5,000 a month. Over a year, that would amount to £60,000. For those in the dairy industry, that is a serious issue. One of my constituents started dairy farming just before Christmas, and he is getting an extra 2p per litre, but even that is not enough.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that many supermarkets in Northern Ireland and across the UK use milk as a loss leader to get footfall is a key issue, which the adjudicator must address?
Jim Shannon
That is clearly an issue, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to address it.
Northern Ireland exports 85% of its milk products. There are a large number of dairy farmers in my constituency, and Pritchitts is one of the major milk powder producers. It is therefore immensely important for me to ensure that things change.
There is hope on the horizon with the pending abolition of the milk quota, which maintains high production levels even if demand remains static. I also welcome the resurgence of the Chinese market. I believe demand there is coming back, and we are pleased to see that. That might just be the thing that makes the difference.
A further concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, is retailer price cuts. Asda is selling two litres of milk for 79p. That means that only 23p profit has been made—23p that has to be split between the farmer and the supermarket giant. It does not take Einstein to work out who is really making the money. I will give hon. Members a clue: it is not the dairy farmer. Farming unions are trying to encourage Dairy UK and the Dairy Council to support the promotion of local dairy products, and we agree; every hon. Member can talk about how the milk is sweeter, the cheese better-tasting and the yogurt particularly tasty in their area. My hon. Friend knows about yogurt—he is an expert.
The issue is clear for us. Farming unions have continued to fight for the EU intervention milk price to be reviewed. That has received support from the Minister at the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and has been backed by the Scottish and Welsh Farming Ministers. The Minister has claimed that there is no value for money in such interventions, so it would be unlikely that the UK would fight for the review. He needs to rethink his position, given the regional support and clear need for a review. I would certainly like a consultation, at least.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I apologise, Sir Roger, for arriving a minute or two late at the debate, and I am grateful to be called. It takes longer to walk to work with a broken toe.
I want to make two points, on public procurement and labelling. The dairy industry has had a huge impact on my constituency, as it has on many others. The Severn valley is a fertile part of Britain, and a huge number of dairy farms earn a living there. It has been a huge part of my life. I have said before, in the main Chamber, that I am probably the only Member of Parliament who has actually milked cows by hand. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I had not realised. I will have to start an all-party group for those who have milked cows by hand.
The issue we face is global instability through the flooding of the market across the world. It is important that DEFRA should do everything possible to help in the current situation, in the hope that it will not last too long. That means talking to banks and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to see us through. I was pleased with what the Prime Minister said in response to my question in the Chamber on 21 January, which has already been mentioned and is at column 216 of the Official Report. I asked about expanding the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether there should be a power to fine, and the answer was a strong message that the Government take the issue seriously. Progress is being made, and that is what we all want.
The only answer to the present situation is to expand the market. We operate in a global context, and there is probably over-production across the world. When quotas are lifted, that is likely to get worse. We must aggressively expand the market for British milk and dairy produce. First, we need a full-blooded DEFRA campaign to export and market to China, which is a huge growing market, and elsewhere. I know that action is being taken on that, but it must be redoubled and must continue.
Public procurement is a sensitive matter, because we are members of the European Union and must stick to competition rules, but the Government need to be as inventive as possible. Every public body in Britain that wants Britain and its dairy farming to succeed should do all they can to make sure they use British produce. That is a key issue that the Government can influence, although obviously they must be careful.
Labelling is also incredibly important. The British people generally want to support British farming. They want to buy British produce from supermarkets or other retailers, particularly now that they can see that dairy farming is having a difficult time. However, we must be certain that produce marked as British genuinely is British. That does not mean packed in Britain—produce brought here and sold and advertised as British when it is not. We need accurate labelling so that the people of Britain can join together to help the continued success of the dairy industry, which has underpinned rural life in Montgomeryshire and elsewhere for generations.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate on the dairy industry.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and we have just completed a detailed report on dairy prices, volatility in the market, and the need for the European Union to review the intervention price. I urge the Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and the Minister to make sure that the price is reviewed, and that there is considerable uplift. From my Northern Ireland perspective, the volatility has had a great impact on the local dairy industry. The majority—about 85%—of our milk products are exported. With the milk quota ending in April, the issue of price volatility will be more marked and definite, so it needs to be addressed.
My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the dairy intervention price, which the Select Committee report dealt with clearly, along with the fact that the Groceries Code Adjudicator lacks teeth. On 29 January a motion was tabled on enabling fines to be levied on the big supermarkets. I hope that penalties will be brought in, but smaller retailers also have an effect on the consumer and, more importantly, the farming and dairy industries, and that needs to be investigated.
We want an uplift for the dairy industry, and we feel that there is a need to take a long-term view of the industry and its current crisis. Countless farmers are being forced to leave it and abandon their livelihoods, because they are not receiving sufficient support in the crisis. There will come a time when the markets improve and we will need their high-quality produce. There may be a shortage of farmers remaining to produce it.
The dairy industry is vital to farmers’ livelihoods and to the economy. Intervention is not just an option; it is an immediate necessity. We need action at Government and EU level to protect farmers properly in the long term, in the face of market volatility, which will bring further challenges. I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report to the Minister, and I look forward to his response. I hope that he, in conjunction with the EU Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner, will be able to provide some relief for the dairy industry.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I join other hon. Members in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for initiating the debate and raising an issue of great concern to those of us with rural constituencies. In the past two decades or more, the number of dairy farmers in West Sussex has reduced significantly. The national trend is for further reductions, with the threat that dairy production in the county will become a very rare thing. That would be a great shame.
I want to raise three ways of addressing the unsustainable situation in which producers are paid a price below the cost of production—albeit that we accept that prices are volatile. The situation was not the same last year, and there are world market problems that cannot be addressed easily. The first issue, which was discussed by my hon. Friend and has been raised by the EFRA Committee, is the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I announced the Conservative party’s policy to introduce what we then called a supermarket ombudsman at the Oxford farming conference some five years ago.
I believed then, as I do now, that in spite of having faith in free markets, when markets operate in an unfair way, damage can be caused not just to producers but ultimately to consumers. That can justify measures to correct market failure. There is a danger that that is happening here and ultimately the consumers will lose if we undermine our production base too much. There is a case, as the EFRA Committee recommended, for strengthening the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator across the supply chain and ensuring that the adjudicator can levy substantial fines and mount proactive investigations. I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that the Government will look at that and I hope that the Minister will say more about that when he responds.
The other policy that I promoted in opposition that we need to continue to press hard is country of origin labelling for our produce. That would help hugely in what is needed: a national campaign to market and promote British produce as the means by which consumers can support British production. We have not yet succeeded in extending that principle, partly because of the problems with getting EU agreement and also because of problems with our authorities who claim that such measures increase the burden of regulation. We need to resist such arguments.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that we should look carefully at public procurement and the way in which the public sector can do more to promote British produce. The long-term outlook for dairy farming may be rosy, given the potential for global markets to improve and for the international consumption of dairy products to increase, but we need to do more to help producers in the short term to recognise that dairy farmers are part of the backbone of the rural economy. It is not in the national interest to continue to see their loss.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate and I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its report, which provides a helpful backdrop to the proceedings. There seems to be much consensus from industry, stakeholders and others that the present low prices and market volatility are largely attributable to increased global production, lower demand than anticipated in China and the impact of Russian sanctions on EU imports.
There is also fairly widespread agreement that, in the longer term, the demand for dairy products worldwide is likely to rise and our producers could access growing international markets. In the meantime, however, as we have already heard, the situation is a lot less rosy. Farm-gate prices are below the cost of production, which is creating a critical situation for many dairy farmers, some of whom have been struggling to stay afloat for some years.
I have a sense of déjà vu, because back in 2012 we debated the crisis in the dairy industry here in Westminster Hall. At that time, I welcomed the introduction of what was then the new voluntary code of conduct, but I pointed out that farm-gate prices were still too low to be viable, and that, until the prices paid to producers exceeded the cost of production, we would not have a sustainable dairy industry. That essential issue, which is not fully addressed by either the voluntary code or the Groceries Code Adjudicator, still underpins the problems facing the dairy sector.
Most of Scotland’s milk production—92% of it—is for domestic UK markets, and primary producers, who have high input costs, are caught in and continually squeezed by over-concentrated supply chains. Dairy farmers point out that that those who supply Asda, Morrisons, Lidl, Aldi, Iceland and Waitrose receive substantially less than the cost of production for their milk. Asda’s suppliers say that they receive 56p for four pints against a production cost of 68p. Dairy producers cannot be expected to subsidise retailers in that way. In the long term, it is not in the interests of our food security or consumers to push dairy farmers out of business.
There has been some discussion about whether the voluntary code is operating as it should, whether the EU intervention price is too low and whether the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be extended. The voluntary code has been a positive move—as far as it goes—but it is not designed to tackle underlying structural problems. The dairy industry in north-east Scotland—what is left of it—illustrates well the limitations of the voluntary code in practice in that there is only one processor. That is the case in many parts of rural Scotland. The voluntary code can help in terms of conditions of contracts if stakeholders choose to adhere to it, but, if circumstances change, it is very weak in that there is often no other show in town. That lack of competition means that, in negotiations between producers and processors, one player holds all the cards. That highlights the underlying problems of a concentrated supply chain.
When legislation for the Groceries Code Adjudicator was going through Parliament back in 2012, I argued strongly that the restrictions on who could make representations to the adjudicator would place serious limitations on its effectiveness. I would definitely like to see the adjudicator being able to investigate complaints from parties other than direct suppliers. The situation we are discussing is a good example of where that would be beneficial. However, that would still address only the symptoms.
Dr Whiteford
I will not allow an intervention. I apologise. The Government’s failure to empower the adjudicator to impose penalties on those in violation of the code is a real dereliction that I hope they will put right with all due haste. I do not want the adjudicator to be another useless quango. Given the time constraints, I will not say anything about the intervention price except that I hope that the Minister will raise that at EU level so that it is on the policy makers’ agenda.
To allow our dairy sector to sink and diminish without trace is short-sighted. We all recognise that there is a future for the sector in growing export markets. If we are smart, we could develop those markets for high quality, value added products. We have a strong traditional industry with a reputation for quality, excellent animal welfare and food standards and distinctive, unique regional products. Notwithstanding the current market issues, there are substantial and growing opportunities for our dairy industry and a clear role for Governments throughout the UK in supporting their development. However, while we are still selling milk below the cost of production, we will not have a sustainable industry.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing such a timely debate. I will share some of the evidence that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs heard in addition to our conclusions. One of the most striking things I have found in representing the deeply rural constituency of Thirsk, Malton and Filey and its dwindling number of milk producers is that, in the time that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has been in place, there has not been a single investigation. I welcome the laying of the statutory instrument, but that situation must be rectified by allowing her the power not just to levy fines, but to take an investigation off her own bat. If she is not allowed to do own-initiative investigations, we will not see any progress.
It is not often that, the week after the Committee reports to the House, the Prime Minister takes up two or three of our core recommendations, but that is what happened in this case, which was very welcome indeed. I hope that the Minister will leap into action to ensure that the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit and the code will apply to this supply chain. There is a commonly-held belief, which has been explored on many occasions in this Chamber, that the code does not apply in this case. That leaves the small farmer exposed.
I express my hesitation about seeing further concentration in the market. We also need to look at why co-operatives work so successfully in countries such as my second homeland of Denmark but not so well here. They can negotiate collectively on price, contract terms and conditions and that must be considered.
I applaud the moves towards country of origin labelling and I press, as the whole Committee does, for an urgent review of the intervention price. It is welcome that the Government have set up, for the first time, an agriculture counsellor to be based in Beijing. The drive by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for exports is welcome, but we must also support those producers, such as Shepherds Purse, just two fields along from where I live in North Yorkshire, who are creating cheeses that compete with many of the popular brands that we currently import.
There is a vibrant future for the dairy industry, but, should prices go up again, potential producers and farmers must look to the fact that the market is very small. We must look at the difference between the small, individual farmer and the might, weight and strength of the processor as well as that of the supermarket. I leave everyone with the thought that until that chain and that relationship is addressed, I do not see there being any change to either the dairy price or the dairy industry going forward. However, I believe that the groceries code and the adjudicator’s role are key to strengthening and restoring the balance for the dairy farmer and ensuring a sustainable future, so that the cost of a pint of milk reflects the cost of production.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is doing an excellent job as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I appreciate the considered and thoughtful evidence-based report that her Committee has done.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate. Since I have been in the House, I have been working with him on rural issues. When he was the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, he came to the Anglesey show to see the best county in the United Kingdom in the glorious sunshine at its best, with the dairy industry central to that. He and I have been singing from the same hymn sheet for some time, and he helped me with a private Member’s Bill for a supermarket ombudsman at the latter end of the last Parliament—he was one of its sponsors. It was good that, at that time, the DEFRA teams in each of the major parties were on board, but it was difficult getting to the Business, Innovation and Skills Front-Bench teams. That has been part of the problem, and we should concentrate on that. This is specifically an agricultural issue as well, and we should try to look at it in that way to get a better deal for farmers.
The dairy industry is important and we should not see it in isolation. If we combine food, farming and tourism, we are talking about a huge sector of the British economy. At the centre of that are the dairy farmers and the farming community, so we should not look at this problem in isolation, but it is a special issue.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is just leaving the Chamber. I started my working life on a farm. When machinery broke down I milked cows by hand, so I have some grass-roots experience—and some other experiences from the end of a cow—to bring to this debate. The serious point, however, is that I understand how special dairy farming is, because dairy production cannot be turned on and off at a tap when there are volatile prices and exterior factors across the world. Unlike sheep farmers and others that can diversify into other areas, dairy farmers cannot do that so easily, and I want to highlight that point.
I agree with the 12 or 13-point plan suggested by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. We need a specific plan. In Wales, the issue is devolved and a dairy plan is coming into being, which concentrates on many of the issues that have been mentioned today. It is not an isolated issue for each Assembly and Parliament to deal with. It is a UK and global problem, and we need a UK response. That is why DEFRA needs to co-ordinate a plan of that nature to get the fairness that we all want for dairy producers.
For my final minute, I want to turn to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I am hearing good noises about it in this morning’s debate, but in this Parliament the House was given an opportunity to water down the supermarket ombudsman’s powers, and unfortunately they were watered down. When that went through the House, we warned that if there were a toothless referee, it would not be able to make an impact. A referee must be able to come down on both sides in the game—not that I am saying it is a game—so we need to strengthen it. We need to name and shame. We have been calling for that, but it has been resisted.
I have been hearing that there is internal strife between the two parties of the coalition Government, but let us put that aside. Let us ensure that we get—[Interruption.] It is not “nonsense”. The ability to fine early on is needed. We need an ombudsman that has teeth. We need the referee to be able to put forward strong recommendations and have a proper inquiry. As the EFRA Committee said, this is a UK problem. British goods and produce are the best in the world; let us make sure we provide fairness for those best producers.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Ollerenshaw, to whom I will give the four minutes, because he has had no warning of the fact that there will be less time, I tell hon. Members that I will be taking the time limit down to two and a half minutes. I appreciate that that is tight, but I suspect that much of what needs to be said has already been said. If Members can concentrate on making just the points they really need to make, we will still get everybody in, but it will be tight.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger—I accept your strictures and will try to get in under four minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate; obviously, Lancashire leads the way, as per usual, on this issue. In Lancashire, according to figures from the National Farmers Union, we lost 28 dairy farmers last year. That still leaves over 500 firms—mainly family firms—such as the prize-winning Whitlow dairy herd in Preesall. As my hon. Friend pointed out, many of those families’ tenancy or ownership of small-scale farms goes back hundreds of years and they often have 50 to 500 cows.
I shall try not to repeat what others have said, but the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke about scale, and in these debates, we need to point out that this is not some minor rural issue. It is a major British industry. We are the third biggest producer of milk in Europe, and the 10th biggest in the world, with nearly £4.5 billion of product. That is what we need to mention to break down some of the barriers that people who are perhaps not from rural areas have in understanding what we are trying to do.
The recent price volatility is complex. There is almost another cold war, with Russia cutting back on dairy imports. Since 2010, Members have seen this extremely volatile market going up and down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) pointed out in a very important Select Committee report.
On the slashing of milk prices in supermarkets, rather than focusing on the retail price, perhaps we need to focus on what the supermarkets are paying the milk producers. That is where the issue lies, not in whether supermarkets run a loss leader at the front end. We should not tar all supermarkets with the same brush. I add my praise for Booths supermarkets in the north-west, and Edwin Booth, for maintaining the highest prices paid to producers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said.
However, there are no quick fixes. We have gone through the general agreement that the EU intervention price is set too low to be helpful, and that needs to be reviewed. We all agree on the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Some farmers still do not see what that means and how it will have an impact on their lives; we need to do something about that, and I am grateful for the Select Committee’s support on that issue.
The labelling pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is absolutely key. We need to get the labels right, so that people are able to buy what is made and produced in Britain—which actually tastes like cheese, unlike some of the competitors one finds abroad. I want to mention Garstang blue, made near to me at the Dewlay cheese production, just below my constituency.
We need producer organisations, such as Bowland Fresh, which has been mentioned. I understand that Yew Tree Dairy in Skelmersdale has now introduced a milk drying plant, which might help prevent volatility over time. The NFU’s suggestion for a futures market in dairy—again, to smooth out the price—has not been mentioned so far today, and it seems to be a practical way forward. All these bits and pieces have been suggested, but what we want to see from the Minister is those bits and pieces starting to come together in a policy to save a vital part of British agriculture.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Members now have two and a half minutes, without hesitation or deviation. I call Sarah Newton.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I will try my best, Sir Roger.
Tamara Hooper is a constituent of mine who farms some land that I am very fond of. It is next to the farm that my godfather farmed, and her tale is of the situation faced by many farmers in my constituency, who have tried over generations to keep their way of life and first-class dairy farms going. Their huge skill in raising stock and looking after them and the land is passed down over generations; it is not something that people learn overnight.
Tamara Hooper is currently being paid 24.81p a litre by Arla. That is simply unsustainable. The 48 companies that rely on her farm will go out of business unless we do something about it. In my lifetime, I have seen the number of dairy farms in my constituency drop like a stone to the handful that remain. Some enterprising Cornish farmers have been able to develop cheeses, ice creams, milks and butters. There are many household names that people now find in supermarkets, which is great. I hope that many more of them will be supported to do that, but right now, Tamara and her family face going out of business. It takes time for people to set up new relationships and sell their milk directly. It takes time for people to train themselves as a cheesemaker, and they have simply run out of time.
I support all the work that has been done by the Select Committee and in the charter proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), which points to a series of practical things that the Government can do to intervene in a broken market. We have to intervene so that when the upturn that we all expect and anticipate comes, we will still have farms and farmers able to meet that opportunity. Just as we have a strategy for national energy security, we need a proper strategy for farming and food security, because that is just as important. I urge the Minister to take on board the ideas that we have come up with this morning and take urgent action to fix the broken market.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
During the previous Parliament, in 2006, I set up the all-party group for dairy farmers. In Shropshire at that time, nearly a decade ago, we already recognised the crisis that our dairy farmers faced. Some 160 Members of Parliament joined the all-party group and we had an excellent secretariat, the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. The Prime Minister joined the all-party group when he was Leader of the Opposition; it was the only one that he joined during that Parliament. After a year of deliberations, taking evidence, going to Brussels and meeting various organisations, we came up with two recommendations: a limited cull of badgers to deal with the crisis of bovine TB, and a Bill introducing a groceries adjudicator to regulate the supermarkets and their conduct towards processors and dairy farmers. We took those recommendations to David Miliband, who basically laughed us out of his office—
Daniel Kawczynski
We have the minutes of the meeting. Mr Miliband said that both those issues were completely unrealistic and told us that he would not do anything about them.
I look to the Minister to take action on those two vital issues before our dairy industry collapses. What does he understand to be the impact of the volatility in the dairy industry on the cattle industry? Some of my cattle farmers are starting to talk about how it is affecting them.
I would also like to ask about EU subsidies. Apparently, subsidies are available to ensure that children under five have milk, and we are not claiming all the subsidies to which we are entitled. I hope to hear what he is doing to travel around the world and ensure that everything possible is done to open up new export markets for our dairy industry, particularly in Russia, where the ban on British beef has been lifted, which is worth £150 million a year to our cattle industry. I hope that when sanctions are lifted, we will do everything possible to increase exports to Russia.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The issue that we are discussing is a major one for Britain, but it is particularly acute for North Yorkshire. Since 2002, the region has lost 489 farmers, which is the second worst performance and loss in the country. Even farmers who are doing their best to invest in and build their businesses—such as Paul and Janet Bolland near Skipton, who recently invested £700,000 in their parlours and their farm—are struggling to pay interest on those investments. I do not find compelling the argument that we should look to Europe for reductionist intervention. My fear is that other countries that have higher production costs may soak up some of the subsidy.
I agree with many of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and I pay tribute to her for all her work as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee over the past few years. I add my support for the idea of greater teeth for the Groceries Code Adjudicator and for looking again at the voluntary contract. UK Trade & Investment needs to be a bit more robust and communicative about all the good work it is doing. I have not heard directly from it about whom I should introduce my farmers to, and how to communicate to them. It needs to get out there more and tell us what it is doing.
There are some short-term measures that I would like to see from the Treasury. HMRC could really help farmers with their monthly payments, perhaps by allowing some pooling of profits over several years rather than working on an annual basis. Above all, I think that the Minister, who has responsibility for farming, has done excellent work on the matter. I fear and suspect that were we talking about another industry such as the car industry, there would be a cross-Government task force, a committee and a cheerleader. We want that sort of focus for the dairy industry. We want somebody to take responsibility so that we know to whom we can go, across the whole gamut of Government intervention and help, to help this industry, which is in such need at the moment.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on initiating this important debate. The fall in the milk price is causing serious problems for British dairy farmers. In my constituency, dairy farmers are mainly concentrated in Kintyre and the Isle of Bute. There are many dairy farms in Kintyre and the industry is a vital part of the local economy, which would struggle without it. As well as direct employment in the farms themselves, the dairy industry supports many other local businesses, including the Campbeltown creamery, which makes the famous Mull of Kintyre cheddar. I urge First Milk to invest in the creamery to secure its future and that of the local dairy industry. Grants from the Scottish Government have been offered, provided that First Milk makes its own investment.
Although there is widespread agreement that dairy demand will outstrip supply in the long term, which will create real opportunities for the UK dairy supply chain in the future, farmers have to survive the current crisis. EU intervention should be considered until the situation with the Russian import ban and other market forces has been resolved. Price intervention is set too low to have any effect before the situation becomes even more serious.
Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Government’s decision to grant the Groceries Code Adjudicator the power to fine supermarkets that have breached the groceries code, and I hope that that will act as a deterrent to supermarkets. However, many dairy farmers do not fall within the scope of the groceries code because they do not sell directly to supermarkets, so the code must be extended to include complaints from indirect suppliers such as dairy farmers. The code is not due to be reviewed until next year, I believe, but I urge the Government to bring the review date forward.
The adjudicator should be able to be proactive, and should be seen as a genuine threat to those who breach good practice. In times of price falls, it is the primary producer—the dairy farmer—whose business is impacted by the low prices. Those further up the supply chain pass price cuts down the chain, but the long-suffering dairy farmer has nobody else to pass a price cut to, and they have to take the hit.
HMRC must also be more helpful by allowing dairy farmers to spread profits over several years. I urge the Government to take the steps that I have outlined to help the dairy industry survive the current crisis and secure a good long-term future.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). My constituency has a large number of dairy farmers, some of whom have positive stories to tell. Others, however, have to contend with the ongoing problem of bovine TB, and the volatility of milk prices may be the final nail in the coffin for them.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate some dairy farmers who have diversified and become processors. The gold award-winning champion Philip Stansfield formed the Cornish Cheese Company, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited last year. The story of the young guy who produces Cornish gouda using his father’s cows is an example of a fantastic way of utilising the family milk to help with running costs. Bill Clarke and his wife, from Greymare farm near Lostwithiel, sold their cows in 2001 to concentrate on their processing business. They work only with Cornish farmers, of whom they have 23, all from within a 25-mile radius of their farm. They started from small beginnings, bottling milk from their own herd once the children were in bed. Their sons have now joined the business, which employs more than 100 people.
The story is not the same for all dairy farmers in south-east Cornwall, but it could be. I have recently been visited by a dairy farmer who is really concerned about his future. Having invested in new equipment, he fears that he will be unable to sustain his farm with such very low prices. He is fearful for his future.
I support the conclusions and recommendations of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the recommendations that have been made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. I want to see a vibrant and thriving dairy industry in south-east Cornwall, with both processors and producers.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As a word of early warning, Mr Farron is next. Mr Williams, you rose earlier and, because Sir William Cash has left, I can possibly squeeze you in at the end. I put you on notice.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). Dairy farming is integral and vital to the economy, culture and landscape of Cumbria. Across the UK, over the past four Parliaments, we have seen a more than 50% drop in the number of dairy farm holdings and a more than 10% reduction in milk-producing capacity because of the lopsided, counter-productive, unfair and unfree market.
It is an outrage and a great shame that it has taken this crisis to prove right those of us who wanted the Groceries Code Adjudicator to have more powers and more teeth. We should have got it right at the beginning, but the power to fine is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) rightly said, we should ensure that the adjudicator can look beyond the direct relationship with supermarkets to the indirect relationships, because that is where farmers are being done over most regularly and most heinously. We must look at the processor monopoly within the market, too, and consider putting the code of practice on a statutory footing.
I challenge the notion abroad that, somehow, the supermarkets are using milk as a loss-leader, which is not the case. Nearly 50% of the average price of a litre of milk in the supermarket goes into the supermarket’s pocket. There is room within the supermarkets’ profit margins to deal with this situation, and we must not let them hide behind the idea that this is all about world commodity markets when it is not. Poverty and hardship is now rife among dairy farmers. The inability of dairy farmers to reinvest in their future and their stock is now commonplace, and we see the loss of family farms on at least a daily basis.
John Maynard Keynes once said:
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
That is absolutely the case within the farming and dairy sectors, and we must recognise that we have to save the supermarkets from themselves before they completely lose the producers on whom they rely. It is an outrage and an irony that we can go down a supermarket aisle to buy Fairtrade coffee and tea from Nicaragua and Colombia, but down the next aisle, getting the milk to put in that tea and coffee, we find milk ripped from the hands of a Cumbrian dairy farmer for less than it cost them to produce. We are passionate about fair trade for farmers from Colombia, but equally passionate about fair trade for farmers from Cumbria.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this excellent debate. I want to make the case that, across the west of the country, on the grasslands throughout the country and on my own grasslands in the Blackdown hills and Exmoor, dairy farming is important not only to dairy farmers but to the whole farming industry; some 60% or 70% of our beef cattle come from the dairy sector. From the time that a cow goes to the bull, or is inseminated, it is three years before that heifer comes into milk production. We cannot turn milk production on and off overnight, which is why it is a special case. We have too much supply and not enough demand, but we have to do something about it. The Prime Minister and other Ministers are taking this seriously, and one of the keys is public procurement and ensuring that, by not always having to buy the cheapest milk, we can get our own production into our schools and prisons, or wherever it might be; let us ensure that our own milk and cheese is in there.
On retailers and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I am delighted that a statutory instrument is being used to introduce substantial fines for supermarkets. Not all supermarkets are bad, and many have done a good job, but many are driving down milk prices, not for liquid milk but in the processed cheese market for their own-label cheese, which needs to be investigated thoroughly. The European Commission has a role to play in intervention. The Commission must up the intervention price, buy milk powder and cheese and put them into storage, thereby taking them out of the market. Once the market recovers, and it will, the Commission can let that cheese and milk powder back out into the market, which will not cost a great deal of public money. We have to take action. Standing around and wringing our hands is no good. I understand from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that there will be a milk summit, which is absolutely right. We must sit down with everyone and thrash this out, because we cannot destroy our dairy herds and then expect to pick them up overnight—that just will not happen. I am delighted that this debate has taken place, but let us see some real action.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I apologise to the House for arriving late. Other duties held me back. I am impressed with the understanding of the dairy industry that I have heard in this debate, which is partly due to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. I am pleased that a number of those recommendations have been enacted so soon.
I will concentrate my few remarks on the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I am pleased that she will shortly have the power to impose fines, because only fines really count to commercial organisations. Yes, naming and shaming is important, but fines are important, too. Reference has been made to extending the adjudicator’s powers to ensure that she can examine the whole length of the food chain. Very few farmers in my constituency trade directly with supermarkets, and most people who produce milk do not sell directly to a supermarket.
I am also concerned that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be able proactively to examine situations where she, or possibly he in the future, believes there to be a failure of the marketplace. At the moment, she can act only on a complaint. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), producers sometimes have only one customer. Such producers are therefore very cautious about making a complaint that may result in him or her being put on a blacklist and being unable to sell their product.
Thank you for this opportunity, Sir Roger. I look forward to hearing the closing remarks.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
This is an important and interesting debate. The dairy farming industry is integral to Staffordshire and my constituents, as it has been for generations, and it is incredibly important for the local economy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on his charter for the dairy industry, and I am extremely glad that he has listed public procurement, as so many others have today, as part and parcel of giving a fair deal to the dairy farming industry. I also congratulate the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the Committee’s fifth report, which it published the other day. We are seriously getting into it and, additionally, the Prime Minister has given his backing.
We will hear from the Minister in a moment, but when we consider the questions of intervention price, labelling and public procurement, there is a European dimension. Not unnaturally, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am concerned that we should not be held back simply because the rules and regulations that have been devised and that generate an enormous number of problems for our dairy farming industry, and indeed for other businesses, are allowed to prevail against our national interest. I will leave that thought with the House.
I tabled early-day motion 675 on the non-payment of dairy farmers, and there are a number of signatories. I would be extremely grateful if people signed that early-day motion, which points out, as others have said today, that
“the number of dairy farmers had dipped below 10,000 for the first time, a 50 per cent fall since 2001”.
That is a serious figure that demonstrates everything that has been said in this room by these extremely eloquent speakers on behalf of dairy farmers. The case has been made, and we now look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
This has already been an excellent debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), a good Swansea boy, and all Members who have spoken for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others reminded us of the importance of the dairy industry not simply to the economy, growth and exports but to the social fabric of our rural communities, their interplay with our towns, and our health and well-being.
About 14 billion litres of milk are produced in the UK each year, and about half of that is used for liquid milk. The UK is the third largest milk producer in the European Union, after Germany and France, and the 10th largest in the world. Given the industry’s value of £4.27 billion at 2013 market prices, its importance is clear.
However, despite the long-term optimism expressed by some Members, Ministers and EU Agricultural Commissioner Phil Hogan, the dairy sector has suffered from low prices and volatility for years. The November 2014 farm-gate price of 28.91p per litre was down 16% from the previous year. The 2012 milk crisis led to blockades of depots and processors, and thousands of angry farmers descended on Westminster to confront Ministers. In fact, the former Minister who was confronted by those angry dairy farmers, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), is now the chairman of First Milk, which is owned and run by dairy farmers who have been forced to delay payments. He told the press recently that
“hundreds of UK dairy farmers are unlikely to find a home for their milk this spring.”
In addition to that delay, First Milk’s producers have seen the price they are paid plummet from 32.5p per litre last spring to 21.2p per litre for those supplying the Co-op on liquid contracts and 21.57p per litre for those in the manufacturing pool.
The average farm-gate price of about 28p per litre disguises huge variations. A third of liquid milk is sold to retailers, which base the price they pay on what it costs the farmers to produce it, plus an agreed margin. Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer currently pay 34p per litre, Waitrose pays 33p per litre, Tesco pays 32p per litre and the Co-op pays almost 31p per litre.
Some major retailers, though not all, argue that their massive discounting of liquid milk at four pints for less than 90p in their endless price wars is not done at the cost of farmers. They argue that the only casualty in the price wars is their own profit margins, but frankly, even supermarkets that pay decent farm-gate prices to the producers and have the most direct relationships cannot absolve themselves of responsibility. The fact that they engage in price wars in which liquid milk is a prime weapon embeds the idea that milk is a commodity to be undervalued and sold for less than the price of water or carbonated and unhealthy fizzy drinks. Ultimately, the only casualty in the price war is the dairy farmer. We need to see not only British milk but British dairy products on supermarket shelves.
Some retailers and their production chains do not contract directly with producers, so they may not have regard to the voluntary dairy code, which I will return to in a moment. They do not absorb the costs of the price wars themselves, and instead put pressure on their supply chain, which causes farmers to reduce costs further below the cost of production.
Two thirds of liquid milk produced is sold to processors, which is where the cuts are being made. Arla, which supplies Asda, pays farmers 25p per litre. Müller-Wiseman pays the same. Dairy Crest is set to cut its price to less than 25p per litre, and we await a decision on the sale of Dairy Crest’s liquid milk division to Müller in the latest act of business consolidation to drive out costs. First Milk, as I said, pays less than 22p per litre. Iceland supermarket is supplied by Arla and Müller-Wiseman, but it has asked them to base their future prices on the cost of production—that is at least a step forward. Morrisons has announced that it intends to establish its own producer group, but in the meantime it gets its milk from Arla and Dairy Crest.
There is also huge variation in production costs. The figure most commonly cited is the National Farmers Union average of 28p per litre. However, the most recent figures from the industry body, DairyCo, show that there is a 14p per litre difference in the cost of production between the top quarter and the bottom quarter of farms.
We need a prompt review of how the whole dairy industry is overseen through the dairy code and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The genesis of the dairy code, which was established on a voluntary basis in November 2012, was a dairy crisis that culminated in blockades, protests and a Minister leaving his post benighted but not delighted at his treatment. However, the independent review by Alex Fergusson MSP in 2014 proposed an extension to retailers and measures to increase the uptake into the 15% that are not currently signed up to the code.
When the public and the political awareness of the pressure on dairy farmers is so great and when the public relations disaster for processors and retailers is so potent, why is the take-up not higher? Why is it not universal? Will the Minister commit to name and shame everybody who has not signed up to the dairy code in public, on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website and in Parliament? Will he also commit to name and shame and publish a regularly updated list on the DEFRA website and in Parliament of all the processors and retailers that participate in supply chains that pay farmers less than the average cost of production?
The Government, in evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 2013, repeated their previously stated position. They said that they would seriously consider legislating for compulsory contracts if the code fails to deliver the desired outcomes. Does the Minister now feel that that is needed, or has he considered it and ruled it out?
I and some Members here today know that the Government had to be dragged into agreeing to financial penalty powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I sat on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they did. They conceded only under pressure from Members on both sides of the Committee. They argued against giving it those powers, which perhaps explains why it has taken so long to introduce the regulations. I and others have repeatedly raised that delay in Parliament.
I ask the Minister to clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he was pressed on extending the role and remit of the GCA to the dairy industry at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 January. He said:
“I also think it is time to look at whether there are ways in which its remit can be extended to make sure it looks at more of this vital industry.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 217.]
We all welcome the sinner who repents, but that issue was discussed ad nauseam in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee two years ago, and the Government rejected it. We had the opportunity to extend the powers along the whole supply chain, including processors and intermediaries, but that was dismissed as disproportionate. We also had the opportunity to enable the GCA to investigate abuses, but that was dismissed as allowing “fishing expeditions”.
I seek clarity, so let me ask the Minister directly. When the Prime Minister referred to extending the remit of the GCA to look at more of the industry, did he mean that it should include intermediaries? Did he mean that the GCA should have the power to instigate proactive investigations into abuses, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee asked for?
The current pressures on the dairy industry go beyond the UK. They reflect reduced demand in China due to the economic slow-down and the closure of the Russian market. The recent increase in production in the EU due to confidence in higher milk prices in 2013, good grazing and good weather, and increased yields in the UK conspired to lead to an over-supply. Arla suggests that global production is increasing by 5% per year, while demand is growing by only 2%. There is no single answer, but there are several areas in which we need to take action in the face of continuing long-term global price volatility and predicted continuing falls in farm-gate prices in the near future.
Will the Minister update us on the progress on country-of-origin labelling, on the establishment of producer organisations in the dairy sector, on the futures market for dairy and on what the uptake and interest in it has been? How much of the countryside productivity scheme money—the £141 million—has gone directly to dairy farmers, and what measures has it funded? What progress has been made with banks and lenders to deal with the immediate cash-flow problems? What discussions has the Minister had about the resilience of the dairy sector in the face of increased volatility that could follow the ending of milk quotas on 1 April this year? Most of all, we would like to know what the Prime Minister meant on 21 January. Was he serious, was he committed or was he deluded? Was he misinformed? Did he misspeak? Was he off piste and off message? Was it a soundbite in the run-up to the election to make the farming community think he is listening? The Minister has the chance to clarify whether the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about, or whether he was just spinning out of control.
It is over to the Minister to sort out the confusion from No. 10. Here we are again, three months to the day after the previous dairy debate, and three years after the previous dairy crisis. Our dairy farmers need and deserve some straight answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate. Given the sheer number of Members who have wanted to speak today, it is clear that he has touched a nerve and alighted on a serious problem, which is the current state of affairs in the dairy industry. I am well aware that many dairy farmers are suffering at the moment. Yesterday, I was in Cumbria and I met a group of dairy farmers there. Earlier this year, the issue dominated discussions at our regular farm resilience group, as it did at our meeting of the dairy supply chain forum last November, and we have another meeting next week with the Secretary of State to look further at the issues facing dairy farmers and to consider how we can help them.
It is fair to say that the dairy industry has had a rollercoaster ride in the last couple of years. In 2012, we were exactly where we are now, with prices on the floor; in fact, in many ways the situation then was worse, because feed prices were very high and dairy farmers were losing a lot of money. Then, last year—2013-14—we saw a very good year for dairy farmers. Prices were much higher, at around 30p to 35p per litre. feed costs came down, and the farm business survey showed that they had a good year last year. Since then, there has been a big increase in production in New Zealand, with production there up around 18% over the last year. Demand in China dropped off quite suddenly, as the Chinese had built up stockpiles of skimmed milk powder and came back out of the market. Production in Europe is up by 8% to 10%, and the Russian trade ban has aggravated things. As a result of all that, on the international auctions we have seen a very sharp decline in prices, which brings us to our current low level.
As a number of hon. Members have already alluded to, it is worth noting that there are differences between different farm businesses; different farmers face a wide range of costs. Yesterday, I visited a farmer who has Jersey cattle on an extensive grass-based system, and his costs of production were only around 22p per litre. It is not always about “inefficient” and “efficient” producers. Sometimes, efficient producers choose to run quite intensive systems, which means they have higher labour, feed and capital costs, and have to make more investment. Quite often, those producers find that they have higher production costs—for some of them, it costs 28p to 30p per litre—and if they are receiving low prices they are losing money.
The other element to bear in mind is that there is a big spread in the prices that farmers receive. At the top end, there are those farmers who are responsible for around 30% of UK liquid milk production and they are on cost-of-production contracts to the major supermarkets. Many of them are still receiving around 30p per litre for their milk. At the other end, there are those farmers who supply processors and consequently they are much more exposed to the international commodity markets, such as those supplying First Milk, which takes most of the milk production in Scotland, the north, the borders and Wales. At the moment, First Milk is able to pay farmers only around 20p per litre, so there is a big spread, both in terms of production costs and the prices farmers are paid.
I will point out, first of all, the things that we are doing in the short term. Immediately, we have to address farmers’ cash-flow challenges. Regarding those farmers who have not yet received their single farm payment—most farmers have received it, but some have not—we have told the Rural Payments Agency to absolutely prioritise dairy farmers, and particularly those supplying First Milk.
I had a meeting with the banks two weeks ago to encourage them to show forbearance to their business customers who are dairy farmers suffering difficulty at the moment, and I will continue to monitor the process as far as the banks are concerned.
We have urged Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be sympathetic in its dealings with dairy farmers. Those dairy farmers who had a good year last year potentially face quite a large tax bill, which is due to be paid in June this year, and we need to show some forbearance to those farmers who will have just weathered a very difficult winter.
Finally DairyCo, which is part of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, has set up a special unit to give financial advice to farmers to help them through these difficult times. Also, we will shortly open a new round of rural development programme schemes, which will have dedicated measures to try to help farmers to improve their productivity and reduce their costs.
In the medium term, there are other issues that we are looking to explore. First, there is exports, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I completely agree that if we want to have a resilient industry for the long term, we have got to open new export markets. We have seen good progress in this area. In the past year, there has been 47% growth in exports to non-EU markets of our dairy products. In fact, our total dairy exports are now at their highest level ever, at £1.3 billion. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State was in China where she had discussions with the Chinese about how we can open up these opportunities, and we will shortly receive a delegation from Brazil to consider the opportunities for dairy exports to that country.
Another key area that I have been working on with the National Farmers Union in particular is around market measures to deal with volatility. In the US, when quotas were removed, quite a sophisticated futures market was developed to help to manage volatility. Typically, US dairy farmers fix around 40% of their production at a fixed price, hedged in the futures market, and leave only 60% of their production to the vagaries of the market. That takes some of the extreme peaks and troughs in the market out of their income profile. We can learn lessons from that system and we are working on this issue with the NFU. There are embryonic markets in skimmed milk powder and butter, for instance, which are run by the London international financial futures and options exchange, and Eurex, and we would like to see whether we can develop that futures model further.
We are keen to promote country-of-origin labelling. The UK was at the forefront of arguing for improved country-of-origin labelling on beef, lamb, pigs and poultry, and we should do the same on dairy products, so that we do not have Irish milk being imported to the UK and processed into cheese, before it is fobbed off as a product of the UK.
Procurement was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Last year, we launched the Bonfield report, which was a new approach to procurement. It sets out a balanced scorecard. The uptake from schools and hospitals has been good in that respect, and we are keen to encourage further uptake.
George Eustice
I cannot give way, as I want to cover as many points as possible. I agree with the point made about procurement, and we are making progress in that area.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I can confirm that a week ago the order that establishes the ability to levy fines was laid. It is subject to an affirmative resolution process, so it will now go through Committees in both Houses, but that will happen during this Parliament.
A number of hon. Members talked about the extension of the groceries code. We are considering that. Last year, I considered whether we should place the dairy supply chain code on a statutory basis, but because there is existing EU legislation in this area—a Common Market organisation regulation that establishes the grounds of such codes—we would end up with a weaker code if we put it on a statutory footing, because we would not be able to stipulate that farmers could walk away at three months’ notice. Therefore, while we had a contingency plan to put the dairy supply chain code on a statutory footing if it collapsed, we would have ended up, as I say, with a code that was weaker, so there are limitations to doing that.
When it comes to the powers of the GCA, we have to realise that they are not reliant on complaints. They already have full powers to investigate
“if there are reasonable grounds to suspect”
that the code has been broken. So, those measures are already in place. In fact, when I met Christine Tacon recently to discuss this matter, she said that one of the biggest things she is trying to encourage is better training of processors and those dealing with supermarkets to ensure that they use the code effectively and say to supermarkets, “You’ll understand that I can’t accept what you are asking me to accept, because it would be in breach of the code,” and to do so in a way that ensures everybody abides by the code. That is how we can help those further down the supply chain, because one of the issues is that it might sometimes be easier for processors to take the hit from the supermarket and pass it on to farmers. We need to ensure that they hold their retail customers to the code.
A number of hon. Members mentioned intervention prices. I have to say that Commissioner Hogan thought that that would be the wrong way to go when it was discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council last week. One of the difficulties we would have is that other farmers in the UK would have to pick up the cost of such action through crisis measures, and we would tend to find that other European countries would benefit most, because although we have low prices here, other European countries have even lower prices. Also, the history of such schemes tends to be that the UK pays while others benefit, so we have to be concerned about that. However, we have the milk market observatory at EU level, and other crisis measures, particularly to mitigate the effects of the Russian ban, have been considered.
Hon. Members mentioned the EU school milk scheme. I will say, briefly, that we access that scheme, although it is not a very generous scheme; we have to top it up a lot, but we do use it. When it comes to the number of dairy farmers, there has been consolidation over many years, but production in the UK is now at a 10-year high. So, although we have fewer dairy farmers, total dairy production in the UK is still higher than it has been for a decade.
I will finish on a brighter note, by saying that the long-term prospects for this industry are good. We are seeing a 2.5% rise in demand per year, and the UK is well placed to take new opportunities in markets. We should also note that most analysts are now predicting a recovery of milk prices—farm-gate milk prices—later this year. The last three Fonterra global dairy trade auctions have shown a recovery in skimmed milk powder prices on the global market; in fact, they are up 15% since the beginning of the year. As I said, it will take time for that to feed through to farm-gate prices, but most analysts now expect that we will see a recovery in farm-gate milk prices from the summer onwards and that could be quite a strong recovery, if the early indications on the international auction in recent days are anything to go by.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their forbearance this morning. It has been difficult, but the House has conducted itself impeccably.
National Grid (Montgomeryshire)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your fair chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am sure today will be exactly the same. I normally try to be a fairly relaxed and laid-back speaker in the House of Commons, and I like to be consensual in my general approach and debating style. I think that that is probably the most effective way for someone to get what they want, but since 2005 there has been one issue on which I have had great difficulty remaining calm whenever I have addressed it. It involves the industrialisation and destruction of the wondrous part of Wales where I have always lived and which is the subject of today’s debate. I want to speak about the mid-Wales connection project and the behaviour of National Grid in forcing it on the people I represent.
I have divided my speech into four sections. First, I will outline the general background to provide context. It will be necessary to make passing reference to a conjoined public inquiry into five wind farms that will have an impact on my constituency. A planning inspector’s report is being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. To reassure the Minister, I respect her position and totally accept that she will not be able to make any comment on planning issues that could eventually land on her desk for decision. Today’s debate is about the mid-Wales connection project. It is a linked proposal being taken forward by National Grid, and I need to refer to the wind farms public inquiry only to create context.
Secondly, I will describe how National Grid has behaved in Montgomeryshire and north Shropshire, which has shocked me. I believe fellow MPs, the Minister and the public will also be shocked to learn about the tactics that this massive leviathan of an industrial complex and its agents have used to force their will on the local population. Thirdly, I will refer to what I consider to be the outrageous way in which National Grid has sought to influence the planning system using its power and money, which all seems to be entirely within the law. One issue I will raise, and to which I hope the Minister will respond, is whether that unparalleled power to influence planning applications, before and as they are being decided, should be reconsidered.
Fourthly, I will comment on the impact that the behaviour of National Grid, widely perceived by the public to be close to Government and thought by many to be a part of Government, has on the public’s faith and confidence in the democratic process. To finish, I will press the Minister to call on National Grid to suspend the mid-Wales connection project, at least until there are approved wind farms to be connected by it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour for the persistent and dogged way in which he has championed this issue to protect his beautiful constituency and his constituents’ views. National Grid could not find, if it tried, a location to generate electricity that was further from its existing network. As a result of the construction, huge swathes of Shropshire will be carpeted over with pylons to connect the electricity to the grid, and that is completely unacceptable.
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his support.
First, to give the context, the rumpus began in 2005 when the Welsh Government announced in their infamous technical advice note 8 that Montgomeryshire—it spilled over into Radnorshire and Ceredigion—was to be transformed into a wind farm landscape. Although I had always been sceptical about the balance of benefit associated with onshore wind, I had not been a vociferous opponent until then. I had not thought the odd wind farm development would lead to the complete desecration of the mid-Wales landscape. It was the astonishing scale of development that flowed from the Welsh Government announcement that shocked me, and the subtle dishonesty with which it was presented. In 2005, Montgomeryshire was already blessed with more turbines than anywhere else in Wales, and the capacity to transfer new generated power to the grid was almost exhausted. To fulfil the Welsh Government’s new policy, a new dedicated 400 kV cable would have to be built, connecting the onshore wind farms to the national grid around 40 miles away.
In 2005, I was an Opposition spokesman on this policy area in the National Assembly for Wales, and I soon understood the scale of what was being proposed. Inevitably, whatever the announced target was, the capacity of the dedicated line would be filled. The cost of it—it was probably approaching £1 billion—was such that it could not possibly be allowed to become a stranded asset. Already there are about 20 applications at varying stages of readiness for new wind farms in and around my constituency. In summary, that means 500 new turbines on top of what we have now, a 19 acre substation and a 50 km, 400 kV power line on steel towers connecting to the existing grid in north Shropshire via the beautiful Vyrnwy valley. It is desecration of landscape on a mind-blowing scale. Not surprisingly, that has outraged much of the local population.
I used the word “dishonesty” to describe the position of the Welsh Government in 2005, and I did not use it casually. When I led a group of concerned Montgomeryshire residents to Cardiff Bay to express our views on the steps of the Senedd, the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, and the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, John Griffiths, stated publicly in response that the national grid line would not be needed to fulfil their policies. That was untrue, and the First Minister has subsequently changed his position, very quietly. Mind you, there were getting on for 2,000 of us who travelled on a seven-hour round trip on 38 buses to make our point. I have lived in Montgomeryshire all my life, and I have never known the people of mid-Wales to be so angry.
My second point is on the behaviour of National Grid. The position is that it has been contracted by wind farm development companies to build a 400 kV line. Over the past three or four years, National Grid has sought to force the line on a reluctant population and has totally failed to engage with the people of Montgomeryshire. Yes, it has produced glossy leaflets and yes, it has arranged hundreds of local meetings, but it has never listened to anyone. It never had any intention of listening. National Grid is programmed not to listen but to cajole, to persuade and then to enforce its proposals by whatever means possible.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about National Grid and its status. I am a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, and we have raised that very issue. National Grid has a monopoly, and legislation has given it extra powers to be the systems operator. It decides which generation goes ahead, as well as having the grid connections. Does he agree—I hope that the Minister will take this on board, and I hope to make an intervention during her response—that we need to have proper consultation? The regulator, Ofgem, needs the responsibility and the remit to be the champion for communities, to ensure that this—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. That was far too long for an intervention.
Glyn Davies
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for raising that point, which I intend to raise, because it is hugely important.
Over the past year or so, I have had countless frightened constituents ring me, terrified by the bailiffs employed to enforce the National Grid’s will by the agents, Bruton Knowles, who are based in Birmingham. One constituent rang me recently to say that bailiffs had entered his property without permission, using profane language and frightening his wife and children, who fled to a back room. The police were involved. Another constituent, who lives in an isolated property, rang me to say that eight men from National Grid suddenly appeared on her drive. She sent her children upstairs, locked all the doors and rang her husband, who was at work, and my office. She was terrified. An 85-year-old constituent was advised by her friends to co-operate, because of concerns about her personal welfare.
At one meeting I attended, National Grid had brought along a Gene Hunt lookalike as an enforcer to stand in the background. Police officers were also there, as they have been throughout the supposed consultation exercise. I received an e-mail two days ago from the son of an 83-year-old constituent. He had had to come home to protect his frightened father, who had encountered two strange men emerging from behind his garage, uninvited and unknown. I could go on, but I have made the point.
I am also told that National Grid has failed to share information with the local highways department. There has been non-stop lack of openness and transparency. It is all laughably described as consultation, but it is nothing more than outright bullying, using size and money to crush a local population.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I have listened to many passionate speeches by my hon. Friend. From what he is saying, is it any wonder that members of the public have lost confidence in institutions such as National Grid? They have even lost confidence in MPs and Assembly Members because of this kind of story.
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the fourth point that I will be making in my speech, but for now I come to my third point.
The whole basis of National Grid’s approach has been to create an assumption that its proposals and all the consequent wind farms are inevitable. The spin has been, “You can’t stop us, so you might as well help us and make the best of it. There is no point in protesting, it’s inevitable.” Up to November more than £15 million had been spent on the project. It is a blatant attempt to influence the planning process.
I was chairman of a planning authority for seven years. I knew that I could never be influenced or seen to be influenced before a decision was taken. I was also part of the planning appeals process in the National Assembly for Wales when I was an AM. Again, I knew the importance of avoiding any perception of influence when dealing with planning applications. That is why I fully respect the Minister’s position today. Yet here we have National Grid spending £15 million to portray another 500 turbines in mid-Wales—probably 20 or so per wind farm application—as an inevitability, before any applications are decided. That is blatant pressure on the planning system.
Recently, the chief executive of Ofgem, Dermot Nolan, giving evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, questioned the position of National Grid and spoke of the need for a more independent body to develop the network. At present, National Grid has a huge financial interest in expanding the network—it expands its influence—and all the costs involved are transferred to the consumer by one means or another.
The whole mid-Wales connection project is financial madness. I have never known anything so financially crazy. There has been no value for money assessment whatever, although from the perspective of National Grid, that does not matter, because the consumer will pay. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that unusually dominant position of National Grid. It seems to me, as it does to Dermot Nolan, that there is a conflict of interest and a strong case for separating the roles of transmission operator and network expansion. I must add that I am shocked that Sir Peter Gershon, the chairman of National Grid and a man of great standing, would put his reputation on the line defending what must be becoming a huge financial and totally illogical embarrassment.
My final point this morning is specific to mid-Wales and north Shropshire, but more generally relates to the confidence that the population of Britain have in the democratic process. We have seen reduced engagement with the democratic process, in particular by young people, but National Grid has been granted the power to act beyond any democratic control, spitting in the face of public opinion. Any localism agenda has been thrown out of the window and, in my view, National Grid is acting contrary to any sort of human decency.
I hope that the Minister will consider asking National Grid to scrap such a crazy project or, at the very least, to suspend it until planning permission is in place for wind farms that might need a connection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate. The need for and impact of electricity network infrastructure is an important and sensitive issue. I will, if I may, deal with that issue in principle, then come on to his specific questions, to which I will seek answers from my Department, if I cannot give them in the Chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the need to upgrade the electricity network, and to clarify the approach to deciding where and how new infrastructure is delivered, and how that relates to my hon. Friend’s concerns about the impacts that onshore wind developments and associated networks can have on local communities. The Government are clear that onshore wind farms and the associated network connections must be appropriately sited, and that local communities should be properly engaged. The coalition Government are committed to meeting the UK’s climate change targets, maintaining energy security—with the appropriate siting, as I said—and delivering economic growth. Achieving those objectives represents a significant challenge.
The UK is increasingly dependent on fossil fuel imports, leaving us more exposed to risks from rising global demand, limitations on production, supply constraints and price volatility. At the same time, we expect to lose around a quarter of our electricity generation capacity by 2020, as old or more polluting generation plant closes. That is why we need a mix of energy for the future, comprising nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture, and a major roll-out of renewables. As well as onshore wind, we want to see expansions in offshore wind, solar power and sustainable bioenergy. The Government have set the framework for delivering the appropriate energy mix through, for example, electricity market reform.
Turning to onshore wind, which is the driver for National Grid activities in Montgomeryshire, we set out in the renewables roadmap and in the electricity market reform delivery plan our ambition for 11 to 13 GW of onshore wind by 2020. That must be appropriately sited. We are clear that local communities must be properly engaged and see real benefits from hosting wind farms. A declaration on community benefits from onshore wind has been signed by developers in Wales to ensure a consistent and transparent approach to the way in which they engage with communities. Wales is already seeing community benefit funds of £5,000 per megawatt per year. The Welsh Government have developed a community benefit register to ensure greater transparency and probity. It means that everyone will be able to see and track the impact of benefits to communities and to the wider economy.
In order to accommodate the new generation, we require such sources as onshore wind, but also others such as nuclear and offshore wind, and the existing electricity network will need to be expanded.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
In Cumbria, on a number of occasions I have dealt with National Grid staff on new nuclear build. I have always found them to be extremely professional. When I have wanted them to do special consultations with farmers, for example, they have always done so.
Amber Rudd
It is reassuring to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience in Cumbria, although that has clearly not been the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. I will suggest some possible remedies as I make progress.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), because of my constituents. Eight thousand people replied to a consultation, decrying what National Grid proposed, but it has been utterly high-handed in dismissing such concerns, and completely ignored the possibility of the power connections and the line being put underground or undersea. Technology develops, but National Grid has ignored it completely, much to the distress of my constituents. There are probably many similarities with the situation described by the hon. Gentleman.
Amber Rudd
I am not familiar with the particular example given by the hon. Lady, but I hope that the Planning Inspectorate would review the consultation process as part of its consideration. That is part of the inspectorate’s legal obligation.
I was discussing the need to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate renewables, which in part explains why National Grid is going ahead in Montgomeryshire and why the hon. Lady had her experience. Developers of new generation, however, need the reassurance that the network will be delivered in line with their project time scales, so that they are able to generate electricity once those projects are completed. We should recognise that such generation projects are substantial long-term investments, and timely network delivery is crucial to their viability.
Before I address National Grid’s activity in Montgomeryshire, it might be helpful to explain the wider approach to deciding on new network infrastructure. Under the current regulatory framework, it is for network companies, such as National Grid, to submit proposals for new network infrastructure to the industry regulator, Ofgem, and the relevant planning authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made some interesting points about Ofgem’s potential concerns, and referred specifically to conversations with its chief executive. I assure him that I will follow up on this debate by writing to Mr Nolan to establish whether the formal position has moved, and will come back to my hon. Friend on that. Under the current set-up, proposals are based on a well-justified need case—say, the connection of new generation, or the maintenance of a safe and secure network—but it is important to us that Ofgem feels confident of the proposals.
The network companies also propose routes and types of infrastructure. In doing so they are required to make a balanced assessment of the benefits of reducing any adverse environmental and other impacts of new infrastructure against the costs and technical challenges of doing so, following extensive consultation with stakeholders. The requirements are set out in their licence obligations under the Electricity Act 1989: they must develop economic and efficient networks, and have regard to the preservation of amenity and the mitigation of the effects that their activities could have on the natural beauty of the countryside. The 1989 Act also stipulates that network companies must provide connection offers when requested to do so by developers.
Albert Owen
I agree with the wider strategy that the Minister has outlined, but on the specific issue of defined and suggested routes in the consultation, communities are frustrated by the fact that the suggested route always goes ahead with only fine amendments. Will she encourage National Grid and Ofgem to have some sort of community involvement or appeals mechanism? When the preferred route goes ahead, communities fear that their words and deeds are not taken on board.
Amber Rudd
I appreciate the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. His point is valid, and if the experience of hon. Members present is that the current consultation process is not sufficient, I will follow up on it. Some progress has been made: Ofgem has recently published information for stakeholders on how their views should be taken into account. That information clarifies that network companies are required to consider wider impacts and alternative solutions to overhead lines, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt).
Daniel Kawczynski
On the point that I made earlier about how far the site in Montgomeryshire is from the national grid, are the Government doing any work to look at the grid and evaluate how projects can be initiated closer to it, rather than so far away? Some sort of strategic work must be under way on that.
Amber Rudd
As I said earlier, National Grid is looking at the process as part of the preparation for potential new generation through wind farms. It has reviewed where the grid will be required, and then has to take its proposals to the Planning Inspectorate. The whole process is overseen by Ofgem. Obviously, my hon. Friend will be aware that although my Government have a policy role in encouraging the development of renewable energy and ensuring that it can be accessed, we do not interfere with planning, which is a very sensitive issue.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The important point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) was about the attitude of National Grid, which I experienced when a pipeline was being laid to take liquefied natural gas from Milford Haven to Gloucestershire. National Grid took no notice whatever of representations about the integrity of rivers and spawning areas—it was incredible. I think it is that attitude that gets people’s anger up.
Amber Rudd
Where there are particular examples, I urge hon. Members to write to me, and I will write to Ofgem. It sounds to me like there might be particular examples; that does not necessarily mean that the whole system is flawed, but it might mean that particular examples of insensitivity require some sort of redress. I will happily look into that for the hon. Gentleman.
Tessa Munt
I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. Will she write to me on two specific points? First, there is the business of a “willingness to pay” study, which I believe has been carried out in Essex or Suffolk but not in other areas. That study has proven that, given the chance, people want new pylons and other infrastructure to be put underground. That should be done for existing pylons as well.
Secondly, the Government’s legislation says that there should be a social and environmental impact assessment. At no point have I or other Members been given any clarity on exactly what that entails. If the Minister could write to me to explain how that is implemented, that would be most kind.
Amber Rudd
I would be delighted to write to the hon. Lady and will take up the two points that she has raised. She is of course correct that it is possible to bury the cables; the cost is approximately 10 times as much, but that is obviously part of the consideration.
The regulatory approach to which I was referring and that is overseen by Ofgem is reinforced by the Government’s national energy policy statements. They set out the framework for factors to be considered when consenting to an infrastructure project of national significance. They make clear that for electricity networks, cost should not be the only factor in determining the type of network technology used, and that there should be proper consideration given to other feasible means of connection, including undersea cables.
Within the framework, National Grid, the transmission network owner in England and Wales, published a new approach to building new transmission infrastructure. Using that approach, National Grid puts greater emphasis on mitigating the environmental and visual impact of its new electricity lines, while balancing other considerations, such as the need to manage the effect on costs, which are of course ultimately funded through consumer energy bills. I hope that that balanced approach provides reassurance to hon. Members who are concerned about network infrastructure that alternatives are being considered.
Since the costs and technical difficulties vary so much from project to project, it is important that each one is assessed case by case. The Government consider the costs and benefits of undergrounding electricity lines to be important issues, which is why the Department of Energy and Climate Change supported an independent study—I think that it is the one to which the hon. Member for Wells referred—to give clarity on the practicality, whole-life costs and impacts of undergrounding and subsea cabling as alternatives to overhead lines. The report was published in January 2012, and its findings are generally consistent with the comparative costs that National Grid has quoted.
The potential need for and development of transmission network infrastructure in Montgomeryshire is the reason behind National Grid’s activities in the area. The application for the proposed new electricity network infrastructure to connect the proposed wind farms in mid-Wales has yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. After examination, any application would be decided by the appropriate planning authorities and Ministers, so it is not appropriate for me to give a view on the particulars of the project—as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has observed—or indeed on the proposed wind farms in mid-Wales, which have been subject to a public inquiry. However, I recognise that many people feel very strongly about overhead lines and other network infrastructure, and the possible effect on the landscape. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend spoke passionately about the beauty of the landscape and the wonders of mid-Wales. He has been a champion of maintaining the landscape as it is, and we will take that on board.
Effective consultation with local communities and other interested parties is a vital part of the planning and regulatory approval process. When making proposals for new infrastructure, National Grid must demonstrate that alternatives were considered and why the preferred option is justified. It must also demonstrate that stakeholders have been engaged. At the root of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire is his concern that, although safeguards exist and there are many levels of requirements for consultations, those consultations are either not taking place or not taking place satisfactorily. By law, the redress for that is through the Planning Inspectorate, which will look at the consultation process as part of the planning application. If it is not good enough, the planning application could be refused, because the request for planning permission requires a good consultation. My hon. Friend has made his points very clearly today, but I urge him to make them to the Planning Inspectorate as well at the appropriate time.
My hon. Friend spoke passionately about his constituency and mid-Wales in general. We have heard specific concerns about National Grid, but we believe that, overall, it is regulated carefully and diligently. Nevertheless, if hon. Members have specific concerns about incidents, they should write to me and I will certainly look into them. I urge all Members to continue to protect their constituencies as they have done, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire on leading this debate and being so assiduous in protecting his constituency.
UK Poverty
(9 years, 10 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
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It has been almost five years since the coalition Government took office, so we are far beyond the time when it was even remotely credible to claim that everything that has happened in this country is the fault of the previous Government. The truth is that the choices that we make as a country have an effect. With a few months to go until the general election, this is a good time to assess the Government’s impact on the most vulnerable people in this country and to look again at the Prime Minister’s claim, five years ago, that he would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest. What a joke that statement now seems.
The rise in food banks has been the most visible sign of the devastation caused to towns such as mine, Wigan. In the past three months, my local charity, the Brick, has handed out more than 1,000 food parcels to families who cannot afford to eat. The first thing I want to say is this: be in no doubt that the situation has become much worse under this Government. Ministers have constantly said that food banks are the fault of the previous Government, but let me give them the facts. There were 3,000 food bank users in 2005, and 40,000 by 2010. By 2012, that had exploded to 128,000 people queuing for food parcels in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Under the Labour Government, food banks fed tens of thousands of people a year; they now feed a quarter of a million people in this country, and the numbers are rising.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She may not be aware that we had never had a food bank in Oldham until 2012. In that year, 849 food parcels were delivered; last year, 5,000 people ended up receiving support, including 1,500 children. The numbers are going up inexorably. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the suffering that those people are experiencing?
Lisa Nandy
That experience is mirrored in my constituency. The Brick gave out 6,097 food parcels in Wigan last year. I spent a day helping its volunteers to do that. Many of the food parcels were cold boxes—I had never heard of a cold box before I spent the afternoon at my local food bank—for people who cannot afford the gas or electricity required to heat up some soup or a tin of beans. Our credit union, Unify, the charity Compassion in Action and Citizens Advice have given out loans, furniture and fuel payment vouchers in increasing numbers in the past four years. Yet people were told by the Conservative hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that unfortunately their food bank use has become a habit. How utterly offensive.
The real causes are obvious. In my constituency, one can track almost exactly when the cracks in the community started to show. In October 2012, the Government introduced a new sanctions regime that affected nearly 6,000 families in my borough alone. It had an immediate impact. In early 2013, the manager of the Brick, Trish Green, said:
“We have been operating since 2008 but recently we have seen more families, more young people and people who have lost their jobs using the service…It also affects every part of the borough and we distribute food parcels throughout different communities, not simply the more deprived areas.”
That is mirrored across the region: as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), between 2012 and 2014, the number of people accessing food banks in the north-west exploded, growing by 238%. That was not, as the Conservative Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), said, because
“more people know about them”.
The vast majority of food bank referrals were because of benefit sanctions, although delays, debt, low-paid work, loss of job and family crisis were all common reasons.
Most of my constituents who have used a food bank were referred to it after being refused help by the jobcentre. A quarter of them had been told that they had not participated in an employment programme, and a fifth had been told that they had failed to attend an adviser interview. Let me give the Minister an example. Just yesterday, a man got in touch with me who had taken on temporary work over Christmas. He had notified the jobcentre of the start and finish dates of that temporary work, but was told that he had missed an appointment with the jobcentre to give the information that he had already provided. He was sanctioned. The jobcentre was closed on the day when he was supposed to have attended an appointment, so he was paid just 1p for the whole of January. He found out yesterday that he has been given £26 for the whole of February. Will the Minister tell me how someone in this country is meant to live on a penny a month?
Quite separately, two other people got in touch with my office, one a woman, the other a young man. Both had been sanctioned in the past few months for attending the funeral of a family member. In both cases, the individuals had notified the jobcentre of the reason why they could not turn up to sign on. I was thinking about what on earth people are supposed to do in that situation. It reminded me of a line from Kafka, which states that,
“it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary.”
When death is not a good enough reason to change the rules, what sort of society have we become?
We find increasingly that people are sanctioned for being just a few minutes late for appointments to sign on. My local councillor, Jeanette Prescott, said that,
“several times this year I have had to refer a gentleman with learning difficulties to Denise (the local Reverend) for food due to him having sanctions on him for turning up late (once by 4 minutes). The gentleman can’t tell the time and is a recluse. He has been found sitting in his flat in the dark with no electric or gas. He won’t ask for help. Only for the old neighbours watch out for him and contact myself heaven knows what would of happened to him. I was informed he has to get a letter off the doctor for an electric card…The lad turned up at my door the other night. He hadn’t eaten for 5 days. He looked like he was dying.”
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that people who work very hard, and who might be earning very small amounts from working 50 hours a week, have to turn up to work on time. If they are late for their employment, they might be sanctioned by their employer. It is important that those who are seeking employment learn the discipline of timekeeping, which is an important part of securing and keeping a job.
Lisa Nandy
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that taking that sort of patronising tone towards people is exactly why people throughout the country are so angry with the Government. While he was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made the point that two Conservative Members turned up minutes late for this debate, but they will still be allowed to participate if they wish to do so. I will come on to the example of a working couple who got in touch with me recently and who have had real problems with the system. Nevertheless, I am happy to give way again if the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) wants to come back on this point: what would he expect someone with learning difficulties, who cannot tell the time, to do in that situation? He has no one to turn to for help and was sanctioned for being four minutes late.
Mr Spencer
I think that that emphasises the importance of the education system in solving the challenges that we face as we move forward. We must try to ensure that the employees of the future are in the best place to be able to take on a career and move forward with a job.
Lisa Nandy
The man I am talking about is the fourth case of someone with learning disabilities being sanctioned that I have come across in my constituency office this month. The Minister’s Department holds the responsibility for people with disabilities. I hope that she has listened to the comments made by her colleague and will take the opportunity to condemn them. I also hope that she will ensure that in future no one will be sanctioned for having learning difficulties that prevent them from being able to tell the time.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take the opportunity to mention the fact that the universal credit regulations include the potential for introducing in-work conditionality for people who are in work but on low pay. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) should be careful in what he says. Also, people are sanctioned who have done nothing wrong. We repeatedly hear examples of people who did not know that they had appointments because they were made without their knowledge. Of course, they did not turn up to those appointments, so they were sanctioned.
Lisa Nandy
Absolutely. I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
I want the Minister to understand the complete nonsense of the system. Another of my local councillors, Lol Hunt, got in touch with me last week to help a 53-year-old woman. That woman was awarded maximum points for ESA last year; she got no points at all this year. Absolutely nothing in her health or circumstances has changed. Councillor Hunt said that,
“she has very little food in her cupboards and is cancelling her direct debits this week for rent, gas, electric, phone etc. as she simply cannot pay.”
That is just the tip of the iceberg as to the stupidity of the sanctions regime.
The single biggest reason that my constituents were given for being sanctioned last year was that they were supposedly not seeking work. For example, in one family, a couple with two-year-old twins, one of the partners worked as a home care worker on a zero-hours contract—I am sure all Members are familiar with the situation of the many people who work in the home care industry on low pay and with insecure conditions. The hours that she was given were so few that the pay did not even cover the bus fare to work.
The wider family tried to help out, but the stepfather is out of work and the grandmother on a small pension. They were even refused a doorstep loan. The twins were living on a tin of beans and a few potatoes a day, while the adults went for days on only tea and the occasional biscuit. Relatives of mine remember such conditions in our family a few generations back, but that was before the war. One of my constituents—one of the parents—told me that,
“asking for food was so humiliating but the alternative was to go hungry. We were so grateful for the help of the Brick and they made us feel like it is not something to be ashamed of.”
Contrast the actions of that local Christian charity with the words of Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform, who said that,
“food from a food bank…is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1072.]
How utterly insulting to a family such as the one I am describing. They had built up £1,000 in rent arrears, because they were not earning enough even to cover the bus fare to work. At a loss as to how to help them, the only advice that a local charity could give them was that the partner should leave her job, because it was pushing them further into debt. Reluctantly, they went to claim jobseeker’s allowance, but were told that she had left the job voluntarily and were sanctioned for three months. The mother said:
“We were receiving 15 minutes of work a day that is around £1.10 a day. If this…wasn’t a good reason for leaving a job, I truly do not understand what is.”
That is not an accident of the system; that is the system.
The level of confusion in the Government is astonishing. The Department for Work and Pensions website states:
“We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to look for and move into paid work. If a claimant turns down a particular vacancy (including zero-hours contract jobs) a sanction may be applied, but we will look into the circumstances of the case and consider whether they had a good reason.”
Only a couple of weeks ago, however, I had a letter from the Minister stating:
“It may be helpful to explain that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants are not required to apply for a zero hours contract job and cannot be sanctioned for refusing to accept employment under a zero hours contract or for leaving such employment voluntarily.”
She even went to the trouble of underlining some of the words in that sentence. When she responds to the debate, will she tell me how that fits with what happened to my constituents only recently? Will she tell us what the policy is? Perhaps she would like to explain it to people who are trying to navigate the system and work within it, but who find that there is no safety net.
Mr Spencer
Surely the hon. Lady has to accept that in a complicated welfare system, with officers working in jobcentres, on occasion a mistake will be made. That may happen at times. The question is, how do you put that problem right? If the rules are being set by the Government, but sadly on occasion being misinterpreted or misunderstood, we have to find a system that puts that right. Accidents will happen, but it is a question of how we put them right quickly.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be listening: the rules are the problem and make no sense. I have just quoted two examples, one from the Minister and one from the Minister’s departmental website, that contradict one another. Neither makes any sense in the context of what happened to my constituents. I have written back to the Minister to ask what on earth is going on, though I have not had a reply yet. I hope that I will get a reply, and that all the people stuck in the same situation as the one my constituents just went through will get any reply at all.
In “The Trial” by Kafka, the hero of the novel, K, said:
“But I’m not guilty…there’s been a mistake. How is it even possible for someone to be guilty?”
The priest replied:
“That is true…but that is how the guilty speak.”
That is exactly what is happening to people in the system. There is nowhere to turn; there is no way to fight their way out of the system. That is not an accident of the system; that is the system, and it is time that the Government did something about it.
The saga for the family in my constituency continued—that was not the end of it. After the sanctions were lifted, they were told that they had to sign on every day at an unpredictable time, and that for a family with two-year-old twins. One of the parents said that once her partner
“had to take our two sick, contagious children who were suffering (from hand, foot and mouth disease) with her to a job centre appointment as the adviser said you must come in, bring them on the bus with you. Even when we replied but they have a temperature of over 40 degrees his response was if you don’t come in we will have to issue a further suspension. We live in fear that our money will be stopped and this hell will never end.”
That is indeed a hell.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I have great sympathy for some of the individual cases that the hon. Lady has talked about, but I want to introduce a note of perspective based on my own constituency experience. The last time I checked with my jobcentre, just before Christmas, fewer than 5% of all the people seen there had been sanctioned over the previous 12 months. We are talking about a minority, and she is talking about a very tiny minority of an already small minority. I also want to put in a word for the sanctions regime, because from the experience of what I have seen, the threat of sanctions has been of assistance in galvanising people to maintain their appointments and genuinely to seek work.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to bring statistics to the debate, but they do not reflect the reality. Glasgow university has found that across the country, one in five have been sanctioned, and 6,000 families in my borough alone. In the past few weeks, research from Oxford university shows that the majority of people who have been kicked off benefits due to sanctions have not gone into work. So it is simply not true to say that we are talking only about a minority.
Furthermore, although I know that the hon. Lady fights for people and against injustice—I have seen her do so on behalf of her constituents—if such things happen to families, they must be stopped. We should not tolerate what happens to families who are trying to find work and do their best. They might have to drag ill two-year-old twins across town because of the inflexibility and inhumanity that we have somehow managed to build into the system. It is a hell of low-paid jobs, zero-hours contracts and rising living costs. Frankly, the system lacks any compassion or understanding.
Can the Minister comprehend the social isolation being caused? A 39-year-old mum got in touch with me. She is struggling to walk because of spina bifida, which has deteriorated in recent years, and she has three kids. She applied for a personal independence payment, but was told—this is common—that it could take a year. She said:
“We don’t leave the house and I need help.”
A local reverend contacted me about a parishioner who had been sanctioned. She told me:
“He was living on one bowl of porridge a day and glasses of water to stave off the hunger. He sold his TV and most of his valuables. He’s a very gentle man who cannot understand how this has happened to him.”
I was contacted by a woman who took a cleaning job for 25 hours a week in Warrington, involving two buses, a train journey and a four-mile bike ride simply to get to work. It was a minimum-wage job and the travel alone came to £45 a week. When money was missing from the first pay packet—a common experience for many families who work in that industry—she was hit with rent arrears and threatened with eviction. She said:
“We only have £3 a week after our bills are paid meaning we can’t afford any shopping or gas once again.”
People are trying, but their Government quite simply are not on their side. When they ask for help, they are sanctioned. Nothing is done to stamp out the scourge of exploitative zero-hours contracts. There is no action on low pay; the Minister’s own Department accounts for more than half of the directly employed or contracted Government workers who earn less than £7.65 an hour. What could be more symbolic than the fact that her own Department has one of the worst records in Whitehall on paying the living wage? This crisis is of the Government’s own making.
We know what the real problem is: the lack of good, sustainable jobs that command decent pay. But because the Government have absolutely no answers to that problem they hit people hardest. Instead of tackling underemployment, they hit the underemployed. Instead of tackling low pay, they hit the low paid. They pick off those people who are least able to complain and while doing so they haemorrhage money on contracts to the private sector that do little to get people into work but create the living hell that my constituents have written to me about.
We are storing up so many problems for the future. The situation is pushing more and more people in my community into debt, and one of the biggest causes of that debt is the bedroom tax, which affects 4,500 households in my constituency alone. Rent arrears have gone through the roof and the vast majority are caused by one factor only-that callous, ineffective policy. Those families have never been in debt before in their lives. And it is not simply the same households—more and more people are being affected as their circumstances change, including 817 new families in my borough last year. There is quite simply nowhere for them to move to. In towns such as Wigan we built family-sized properties on purpose, because that was what people wanted and needed. We move people into those properties and then hit them with the bedroom tax and tell them to move, but there is nowhere for them to move to.
Many of those families have survived the past few years by claiming discretionary housing payments—in my constituency, the number is over 3,000. But that is senseless. We are burning money—we spent £412,000 on that in the last year alone. So what do the Government do? Instead of reversing a cruel and vicious policy that is ripping people out of their communities and pushing them into debt, they announced on Friday that they are slashing the money for discretionary housing payments by a quarter. Not that long ago, additional money for discretionary housing payments was being announced—with loud fanfare—and was aimed at disabled people and foster carers. I am really interested to hear from the Minister what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the cut on the 14,000 children who are waiting for a foster home or on people with disabilities.
The bedroom tax is senseless. It does not work. The DWP’s own analysis has shown that between May and December 2013 just 22,000 of the 500,000 households affected by the bedroom tax had downsized. It has done nothing to reduce private sector rents, either. The DWP’s figures show that rents have gone down by 76p a week, but the rent shortfall is over £6. The problem does not hit landlords; 89% of the cuts to housing benefit have hit tenants, and just 11% have hit landlords.
What is worse, on top of all that, is that many families—12,000 in Wigan—now have to pay council tax who did not have to do so before. As a result, arrears have gone up in my borough by 91%. To give hon. Members an illustration of the human cost of that, only last week my office staff were on the phone trying to stop bailiffs entering the home of an elderly couple who had got into difficulties with their rent and were desperately frightened.
The impact of all this can be seen right across my high street. Where there used to be shops, charity shops, small cafés and small businesses we now have loan sharks—people who lend at extortionate rates to those too desperate to go anywhere else. Loan sharks used to be seen as a blight on our society, but now it seems the Government are their best agent, stimulating demand and creating business for them. The signs are visible.
I will tell the Minister about the reality. It is not, as Baroness Jenkin said, that poor people do not know how to cook, but that poor people cannot afford the gas or electricity to do so. Many of my poorest constituents are on pre-payment meters. They get charged more and are cut off even if they have young kids. Once they get their benefits back they have to repay the debt before they can get the meter back on. My local reverend said:
“One family we found had no gas or electricity over the Christmas period. I put £20 on their gas card and they got only £8 of gas because it took the rest in fines and arrears.”
Margot James
I want to put on the record the context of the quote that the hon. Lady attributed to Baroness Jenkin. She said it as a comment on society as a whole, because she felt that cooking skills had been lost from one generation to the next—that was the context in which she made that remark. The hon. Lady may know that Baroness Jenkin does a huge amount of work on poverty reduction.
Lisa Nandy
At the very least, Baroness Jenkin took an interest in the issue, which is more than I can say for the Prime Minister or most of his Front-Bench colleagues. But I would say that that remark came in the context of a stream of remarks made by different Government members and Back Benchers from the hon. Lady’s own party that are hugely offensive to people who are stuck in the position I have described and are trying their best, only to find that the Government are not doing the same.
The head teacher of a school in the same area as the family whose £20 gas card was immediately eaten up by debt got in touch with me to say that the school is now having to use the pupil premium to employ learning mentors not to support children in the classroom but to go to family homes to try to sort out problems with vermin, lack of electricity and all the other things those families are not able to deal with themselves, or to find the families food or refer them to food banks. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said in 2013 that those families were
“not best able to manage their finances.” —[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]
That beggars belief. He was the Government Minister responsible for child welfare at the time; the fact that he even thinks that those families have finances to manage absolutely beggars belief.
The reality is that children and young people have been among the hardest hit. Barnardo’s got in touch with me when it saw I had secured this debate to tell me that increasingly it sees numbers of families in its projects who are reliant on food banks because their income is not keeping pace with the cost of living. What a waste that is. I know Barnardo’s really well. I used to work for the Children’s Society and worked closely with Barnardo’s on some of its projects for young people across the country. Barnardo’s unlocks the talent of children and young people, and helps them to develop, thrive and use their energies, passion and commitment in their local communities. Instead, in 2015, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is diverting its resources to simply feeding and clothing our children.
Barnardo’s told me that the sanctions regime had had a particular impact on young people, especially care leavers, young homeless teenagers and teenage parents—arguably, those young people to whom, as a society, we owe the biggest responsibility. That is especially the case for young people leaving care: we are their corporate parent and hold responsibility for them. Homeless Link told me that 58% of young people seeking help because of sanctions have a mental health problem or other problem. Nationally, 42% of all sanctions relating to JSA affect 18 to 24-year-olds, including over 1,000 young people in my town.
That generation’s wages have fallen by 10% since this Government came to power. Those young people have lost the education maintenance allowance and the future jobs fund. They have seen tuition fees hiked to £9,000 a year and a record 1 million are out of work, yet their Prime Minister has the nerve to tell them that they should be “earning or learning” or they will lose their benefits. How can they? That is my question.
Barnardo’s told me about a young mum who was sanctioned for six weeks because she was attending a school appointment about her child’s behaviour. After she turned to a loan shark, her children, who were desperate to help, went shoplifting to feed the family. Do Ministers have any idea of the desperation that their policies are causing? A local police officer said to me that
“we used to find kids nicking stuff to sell but nowadays it’s more likely to be bread.”
Police forces in Lancaster, Cleveland, Northumbria and my own area of Greater Manchester have said that food and grocery thefts are on the rise. The local chamber of commerce said
“this crisis has been…caused by excessive debt.”
To echo the words of UNICEF:
“It is no accident…It’s possible to make better choices than we’ve made.”
Under the previous Government the number of children in poverty fell by 1.1 million—I know that because I was working with children and young people in the voluntary sector at the time. It also fell, as Ministers are fond of telling us, by 300,000 in the first year of this Government, but please let us not pretend that we do not understand that those figures lag two years behind Government actions.
There is no longer any twisting the facts. Child poverty is widely predicted to rise by 2020 on relative and absolute measures—it does not matter that the Government have made all of us poorer, because poverty is still on the rise. The latest estimates show an increase of half a million children living in relative poverty under this Government and 800,000 more in absolute poverty. None of the figures takes into account rising housing costs. It is not just the lack of material means, but the gnawing anxiety that goes with waking up every day, not having enough food to eat and not knowing what will happen and what the future holds. If Government policy does not change course, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that child poverty will have doubled between 2010 and 2020. The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013 alone could push 200,000 more children into poverty.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I very much appreciate the list of anecdotes that the hon. Lady has given about people who have fallen on really hard times. There is a need for Government to act in certain ways, but surely she must understand that some responsibility lies at the door of the previous Government who caused the 7% drop in GDP and the massive deficit that the Government are trying to correct. Unfortunately, because of their mistakes, tough decisions have to be taken, but I am yet to hear anything from her about how more money can be made available from some sort of magic money tree somewhere that would allow her to reverse the decisions that the Government have taken.
Lisa Nandy
That would carry more weight if the Government had managed to do anything like balance the books in the past few years, but the economic stupidity of this sort of policy is clear. In constituencies such as mine, when money is taken out of the pockets of the poorest, they will not spend in local shops and businesses. We have seen exactly what happens in that case: shops and businesses lose trade, then staff, and the vicious cycle continues. It sounds like the hon. Gentleman has just offered the best possible defence of trying to balance the books off the backs of the poorest.
There is an alternative. Germany, Poland, Canada and Australia have all seen child poverty fall in the past four years. The UK is one of only four countries where there has been an unprecedented increase in material deprivation among children. The truth is that those are political choices. I will also say to the hon. Gentleman that we were all present for the 2012 Budget, which had devastating effects in communities such as mine. That Budget, which slashed tax credits and benefits in real terms for people who were in or out of work—some of the poorest people in the country—also handed a tax cut worth nearly £2,000 a week to people who earn more than £1 million a year. Those are political choices and to pretend otherwise is to deny the facts.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. I guess there will always be a difference in politics between the two sides in this debate—I think that 1% of people paying 30% of income tax is actually quite a good deal for 99% of people, but let us put that to one side. What alternative is she offering? How will she pay for any of the reverses in policy that she is asking for? There has been no suggestion at all. Every time that the Opposition find an imaginary pot of money, whether it be from stopping tax avoidance in some scheme or whatever, they spend it 12 or 13 times. Give us one single way in which the Opposition will find money to spend on these schemes, please.
Lisa Nandy
I will give the hon. Gentleman not one, but several. First, put money back into the pockets of the poorest, because they will spend that money and the economy will grow. That means stamping out things such as zero-hours contracts that exploit people in the ways that I described. Secondly, raise the minimum wage, which will give people greater security in their homes—jobs that pay the rent and cover travel costs.
Lisa Nandy
That is not money out. I will explain this to the hon. Gentleman, because he obviously needs to understand but does not at present. In this country we are unique in having major structural problems in our economy, which means that poverty is higher than in most other countries even before tax and spending decisions are taken into account.
First, it is the Government’s failure not to tackle root causes such as low pay and zero-hours contracts that causes the level of poverty to be so high in the first place. Secondly, because we then need to spend so much money in income transfers to compensate for that, unfair decisions are made that benefit richer people at the expense of poorer people, which compounds the problem. That is why we have had the explosion of food banks in recent years and why, 30 years after the miners’ strike where the community in my constituency had to come together to feed and clothe our children, because of this Government we are having to do that once more.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: people are not just being caused distress, anguish and despair, but having their health and safety put at risk. On Monday, a paediatrician, Dr Colin Michie, spoke out about the increase in malnutrition-related hospital admissions in children aged under 16. Hospital admissions for malnutrition doubled between 2008 and 2012 and last year 6,520 people—a seven-year high—were admitted to hospital because of that. The Faculty of Public Health’s John Middleton said that food-related ill health was getting worse
“through extreme poverty and the use of food banks”.
People cannot afford good quality food, so malnutrition, rickets and other manifestations of extreme poor diet are becoming apparent. It is almost inconceivable that in this country in 2015 we are seeing the return of Victorian diseases. Hospital admissions for scurvy have doubled under this Government since 2010.
Mr Spencer
I wonder whether the hon. Lady could help us by giving a definition of the types of food that she means. Products such as potatoes and fresh carrots are actually the cheapest sources of food available.
Lisa Nandy
I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman went down to a local food bank in his constituency and explained to his constituents that they should be buying carrots and potatoes, they would thank him for that in May. That is the sort of attitude to people whose poverty has been caused by the Government that does his party so much harm, and deservedly so.
I will say this to the hon. Gentleman: food prices have increased by 12% in the past few years, but wages have fallen by 7.6%. Those are the facts and that is why families do not have enough to feed and clothe their children. The British Red Cross is more used to working in countries torn apart by war, famine and disaster, yet, because of the Government’s actions, a couple of years ago it had to launch an emergency appeal to feed and clothe our children.
It was Nelson Mandela who said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”,
yet here we are, forcing parents to drag ill two-year-olds across town on buses. Children have to grow up in cold, damp conditions without gas, electricity and enough to eat. Children are admitted to hospital because of hunger. Schools, vicars and charities are stepping in to help and finding themselves overwhelmed. If that is the measure of our soul as a country, what sort of society have we become under the Government?
The truth is that it could be so different. I tried to explain that to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) a moment ago, but I will try again—perhaps he will understand. We have got one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe—second only to Ireland—because of factors such as low pay and that is before anything is done through the state to try to tackle that. Once decisions on tax and welfare such as those that the Government have made are taken into account, child poverty goes through the roof.
The IFS shows that tax and benefit changes made by the coalition have hit the poor and families with young children hardest and reduced household incomes by £1,127 a year. Professor John Hills from the London School of Economics said it was true that the very rich, with incomes of more than £100,000, had lost out more than the average, but, when viewed as a proportion of their income, it was the poorest—those who could least afford it—who had lost the most.
It is the abject failure to tackle the root causes of these problems—low pay, under-employment and insecure work—as well as tax and benefit decisions that hit the poor hardest that is pushing more and more children into poverty. I say this to the Minister: even those flagship measures that are held up—usually by the Liberal Democrats, who are not here today—as ways of tackling poverty, such as raising the personal tax allowance, do little for the lowest paid. Many of those people do not pay tax anyway, so those measures do not help them at all. Others keep just 15p in every extra pound, because in-work benefits such as housing benefit get withdrawn.
The director of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has said:
“All the EU countries with much lower child poverty rates than us use income transfers for poverty prevention. If they can do so much better for their children, then so can we.”
The legacy this Government are set to leave is one of rising child poverty and Budgets that have made the poor much poorer and many wealthy people wealthier still. As a country, we used to know about these things. The previous Government got more lone parents back into work. Like many other countries, we used the tax and benefit system to give families a basic income. Under this Government, however, real spending per child on early education, child care and Sure Start fell by a quarter in just three years. If the Government do not want to use the tax and benefit system to tackle child poverty, they could tackle the root causes. They could learn from Denmark or Slovenia—countries where child poverty is already relatively low, so the state has to do less heavy lifting through the tax and welfare system.
It is typical of this Government that, instead of seeking to deal with the causes, they attack the symptoms: they attack the people, not the problems. Instead of tackling child poverty, they get tough on children in poverty—and not just children, but those who try to help them. The Work and Pensions Secretary accused the Trussell Trust of publicity-seeking and scaremongering for daring to tell the public how many people it was having to feed in 21st-century Britain. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 gags charities and campaigners and prevents them from speaking out, but it does nothing to tackle the problems in the lobbying industry and in politics. Special advisers threaten charities. The Justice Secretary takes to the Daily Mail—that bastion of social justice—to attack charities as left-wing single-issue groups, and he restricts their right to challenge the Government’s appalling actions.
That sums up exactly what this Government is all about: if you have a problem with unemployment, attack the unemployed; if you do not know what to do about immigration, attack immigrants. Bobby Kennedy once said:
“there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men…This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.”
That will be the Government’s legacy: an attempt to loosen the bonds that bind us, through indifference, inaction and slow decay.
Five years ago, Conservative Members talked about broken Britain. I used to think that was an analysis; now, five years on, I have come to realise that it was actually a manifesto. This is the broken Britain they talked about, and they created it. I say this to the Minister: in the end, this will not work. It started as an attack on just the poor, but it is pulling in more and more people, and it is tearing apart communities.
The situation was summed up for me by a woman of 60. She has never been in debt in her life, but she got into arrears after her daughter moved out and she was hit by the bedroom tax. She simply cannot afford the extra rent, so she is trying to move, but she has nowhere to move to, because there are no one-bedroom properties spare in my borough. My local reverend, Denise Hayes, told me, “She has all her friends and community here. She is someone we need on the estate. She is a good example for others.”
People can be in work or out of work—half the children living in poverty today are from working households. This is not about just the poor any more—it is about children, cancer patients and pensioners. Let me tell the Minister this though: the Government should be worried. New bonds of solidarity are forming, just as they did in the 1980s, when these things happened before. Those bonds are forming in communities such as mine, as more and more people are affected and more and more refuse to give in. They can see that what is happening is an attack not just on the poor, but on our basic decency as a society. Like me, they know that Britain can do so much better.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers no later than 3.40 pm. That gives us 25 minutes. If Members can keep their remarks to about six minutes, I will be able to call everyone.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for calling the debate and for the passion with which she delivered her speech. Interestingly, in the 45 minutes she took to do so, she did not give us a single indication of what a future Labour Government might do to address some of the concerns she raised. She did not even look at how she might solve the challenges we face.
It seems fairly straightforward to me that the best way to solve an individual’s financial difficulties is to get them into work—to give them a job and let them earn their own money, so that they can provide for their family. That gives them not only the cash to improve their lives, but the self-esteem and quality of life they deserve. We should do that as a Government. If we do, we get a double whammy. If we take an individual out of the welfare system and they succeed in the workplace, more of the pie is left for those who are genuinely in difficulty and who need the support of the welfare state.
Let us look at what the Government have done over the past four and a half years. Some 1.7 million more people are in work. We have tried to get people out of the welfare system and into the workplace, so that they can improve their own lives.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is all well and good saying another 1.7 million people are in work, but what type of employment is it? Some of the statistics that have been published show that up to 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts, which, in effect, provide less than benefits.
Mr Spencer
Zero-hours contracts are not something that happened under this Government; they existed before we came to power. The Labour Government did nothing about them when they were in power.
I have met individuals in my constituency who have been offered a zero-hours contract. They took it up, went to work and became very successful. They were then offered a full-time career; they progressed through the management structure; and they are now earning a substantial salary. Zero-hours contracts can therefore sometimes be a gateway to a career.
The Government have to find a way to create such gateways, so that individuals can aspire to make their way through the system. One way of doing that is to create apprenticeships, and 2 million have been created under this Government. That is a way to give the next generation the skills they require to take up a career in the future.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I missed all the heat about part-time working. Does my hon. Friend recognise the official statistics showing that 74% of the new jobs created under this Government have been full time? The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown that job satisfaction among those who are on zero-hours contracts is the same as for any other employee.
Mr Spencer
Absolutely. Those statistics stand on their own.
The second way to help people, once they have succeeded in getting a job, is to cut taxes for those at the bottom of the pay structure, so that they pay no tax at all. The Government have been very successful in lifting those people completely out of the tax system.
The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned the friction between wages and inflation. Following the enormous crash under the previous Government, it is fair to say there were some severe challenges in terms of how inflation was moving forward and the ability of the economy to recover. We are now in a position where, of course, inflation is below the rate of increase in wages, so we have turned that corner and we are going in the right direction.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Why did the Conservative party support the Labour Government spending plans up to 2007, and never, as I recall, suggest that changes should be made to avoid a recession?
Mr Spencer
Of course, the Labour party now supports our funding pledges, so there is friction between what is being said about reversing some of our changes and other statements about supporting our spending regime. It will be interesting to hear the Labour Front-Bench justification of that.
In another life, I was a farmer, involved in food production and supply. Interestingly, the OECD says that 9.8% of people had difficulty affording food in 2006-07, but the figure had fallen to 8.1% in 2011-12. That shows we are going in the right direction. There will always be individuals who get themselves into difficult circumstances and where the system has frankly gone wrong. The hon. Member for Wigan raised several such cases and I have encountered some in my constituency office, when clearly the system has broken down and some incorrect decisions have been made. It is my job as a Member of Parliament to try to help people through the system and solve their ills, and we have succeeded on a number of occasions in helping individuals in difficult circumstances to work their way through the system to the right point.
Mr Spencer
I will not give way any more, because other people want to speak.
I want the Government to continue to reduce the deficit, and to make sure that the economy continues to grow and that we generate more jobs and help people out of poverty through employment. I want them to continue to cut taxes at the lowest end, so that we can raise more people out of tax altogether. I want them to create more jobs and back businesses—particularly small businesses that create real-life careers for people. I want a continuation of the welfare cap, so that we can control immigration and make sure people in work are better off and so that people who decide to go into work and get a career and who can move forward aspire to overcome their difficulties. I want better schools, to make sure that the next generation have the education that will deliver them a future, make them ready for the workplace and enable them to take careers and move forward. The only way to solve the problem is to give people the aspiration and ability, so that they can aspire out of their difficulties.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. We have only 16 minutes left before the Front-Bench speeches. Four hon. Members want to speak, which means four minutes apiece. Perhaps I could have co-operation on that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I shall try to adhere to that limit, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate and making a powerful case about the impact of Government policies on her constituents. I am a wee bit disappointed that Members are so thin on the ground for this debate. Many folk living on very low incomes feel abandoned by politicians in the present context. Today’s turnout will not dispel those impressions.
Poverty, deprivation and exclusion take many forms, but living on a low income for any length of time has long-term consequences for individuals and society. The Government’s austerity measures have made things worse for folk who are already struggling. The cumulative impact of austerity in the six years to 2016 is estimated at about £6 billion in Scotland alone—three quarters of which has come from the pockets of women. That has had a disproportionate impact on families with children and people with disabilities and health problems.
Indeed, one of the Government’s flagship austerity measures, the bedroom tax, has fallen disproportionately on low-income disabled people. In Scotland 80% of the households affected were the home of a disabled person. I believe that the proportion is slightly lower in the rest of the UK, but it is still about two thirds of the people affected. In Scotland we mitigated the bedroom tax, but we could do so only by diverting resources from other policy areas—and it remains on the statute book. The people affected by the bedroom tax are, in many cases, the same people whose support will be reduced with the introduction of personal independence payments, and who face enormous barriers in getting access to the labour market. The cumulative effects are important, and are a key reason for the symptoms that we see in communities.
The key point that I want to make today is about child poverty. There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that children who grow up in poverty experience poorer long-term outcomes than their wealthier counterparts, not just in educational attainment and career prospects, but because they are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives, and significantly lower life expectancy. After housing costs, just over one in five adults in the UK are living in poverty, but the proportion of children living in relative poverty is 27%. That is a scandal of missed opportunities, thwarted potential and long-term problems being stored up.
Child poverty was coming down in Scotland at twice the UK rate, but according to the Child Poverty Action Group it is now projected to rise to 100,000 children by 2020, almost entirely because of the effect on families of the Government’s austerity measures. Huge cuts to tax credits and the freeze in child benefit have eroded family incomes, with parents in low-paid work among those worst hit by the Government’s austerity programme. It is critical that we understand that the vast majority of children growing up in poverty have at least one parent in work. In-work poverty is the scourge of low-paid families. The reality is that a family in which both parents work full time in minimum-wage jobs, paying an average private sector rent, will be below the poverty line. For people in low-paid jobs, work is simply not a route out of poverty any more, and a full-time salary can fall far short of a decent income.
I see that in my constituency. Even though unemployment is only about 1%, there are large numbers of people in low-paid work, and consequently there are pockets of deprivation. In the past year or two, a number of food banks have sprung up, run by church volunteers who have recognised the increasing need in the community—need that is clearly linked to benefit changes and rising living costs, and which affects people who are in work as well as those who are not. In 2012 in Scotland only 14,000 people depended on food banks, and the vast majority of those had chronic alcohol and substance abuse problems. Now the figure is more than 70,000 people —a 400% increase. I pay tribute to the people in the churches who pick up the slack in the social safety net, but we should not be in this position in the 21st century. That is why tackling low pay needs to be a priority.
In Scotland, the areas of the public sector that are devolved responsibilities now all pay the living wage, but there are still thousands of people in other economic sectors earning wages that do not cover the basics. Many employers have become living wage employers, but there is still some way to go. We should not forget that many of the low-paid sectors are still those where jobs are predominantly done by women, such as cleaning, catering and food production. The concentration of women in part-time, low-paid and often insecure work compounds other social and economic inequalities.
Improved child care is also necessary to tackle child poverty and strengthen our economy. I have no doubt that the higher levels of women participating in the labour market in Scotland and the falls in child poverty were linked to the greater entitlement to child care introduced over recent years. I hear from parents in all income groups that the problem of getting affordable child care is the major barrier to the labour market; and for women it is also a barrier within the labour market to the jobs that they are qualified for. There is an economic problem of women taking jobs around which they can juggle their family life. That holds back the economy, and it holds back people in the work force. Sanctions have been mentioned in the debate, and evidence has emerged that they hit single parents in particular. The challenge is the same as it is for people in the workplace—it is extremely difficult to juggle child care with any other commitments if there is no one who can watch the kids while someone is tending to other responsibilities.
In a country as wealthy as ours, allowing children to grow up in poverty is an abdication of our responsibilities as citizens. The inequalities that we have allowed to become acceptable have a long-term impact that leaves us all impoverished. I think that voters understand that asking those on the lowest incomes to carry the can for past economic failures is a cowardly, wrong choice. The Government badly need to change their priorities.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Hon. Members are now down to three minutes each.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Across the House, it is accepted that employment is a good thing and that it helps people to improve their standard of living, but the problem is that it is not sufficient; it is a first step. The last few years, above all, have shown us that for very many people, it is only a preliminary step that still leaves many living in poverty. That is why we are seeing so many people who are in work having to claim housing benefit to meet their housing costs, which pushes up the overall housing benefit bill, and why so many people are still dependent on some form of help when they go into employment. The route out of the low-paid, low-hours economy is not as easy as is sometimes suggested. That is one aspect of where we are at the moment—yes, work is good, but it has not proved to be sufficient to get people out of poverty.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned issues relating to single parents. It is important to say that some measures that were helping single parents have been removed. The number of single parent specialist advisers in jobcentres, who knew the particular difficulties faced by women in that position—mainly women, but it could be men—has been reduced. There are very few such advisers. Others have reported that the flexibilities that used to exist for jobseeking and job finding have been removed or reduced, or people claim not to know about them. One of my constituents was asked, “Why can’t your mother come and help?” Her mother lives 300 miles away. She could not simply come and help while my constituent made herself available for what the jobcentre wanted, which was an evening job. The lone parent flexibilities mean that that should not happen, so again, that change appears to have happened in practice, and it is making it difficult for that particular group.
Yes, there are choices—there are always financial choices to be made. Constantly talking about raising the tax threshold is all very well, but three quarters of the gain from doing so went to earners in the top half of the income range. A lot of money has been paid out in that direction, and apparently the Conservative part of the Government—I am not sure about the other part—wants to increase that further, without telling us at all how it will be funded. The problem is that it may be funded by things we do not know about, such as a VAT increase. I notice that the Prime Minister, pressed on the matter week after week, does not say “No”—he talks about “no plans”. A VAT increase would affect those whose earnings are already under the tax threshold and who would gain nothing from any further increases in it.
Such people have lost tax credits and income in all sorts of ways. Some might seem small-scale, but family household income has gone down. There are people who have to leave work due to illness. Take a family, for example—a couple, perhaps, whose children have grown up. They may have two incomes, or one and a half incomes. If one person loses their job through ill health, their income is in that position slashed as they go on to benefit under rules introduced by this Government. After a year, some of those people are losing even their employment and support allowance, because they have a partner who is in work, although that partner may only be working part time. That loss of income, meaning that a one-and-a-half-income family becomes a family getting barely half a wage, is catastrophic for their well-being.
Many of those people had been moving towards what they hoped would be a slightly more comfortable retirement. A lot of them are older, because that is when ill health strikes—in people’s late 40s and 50s. Such people are now having, in effect, to eat up the savings that they had hoped to keep until their retirement. In my view, there are a whole lot of different ways in which people are being directly affected by this Government’s policies.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can, Mr Crausby, and try to stick to your time limit. First, I welcome the debate, even though the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a number of political points—
Mr Raab
Not at the moment—I said on a point of substance.
The key point is the systemic challenges that our economy faces. The fact is that our economy sank to 13th place from fourth place on the global competitiveness rankings, and has now climbed steadily but surely back up to 10th. That is the reason why we have job creation at a record high. If we really care about not just the economy but the most socially disfranchised, we have to care about the unemployed—the most vulnerable in our society.
Mr Raab
I am not going to; I will make some progress. The hon. Lady spoke for a considerable amount of time and we are very pressed for time. Unemployment has fallen from 8% to 5.8%. Youth unemployment is down. Overall, there are 1.7 million more people in work. If we care about the most vulnerable in our society, that is the critical section of society.
Lisa Nandy
I was simply about to say to the hon. Gentleman that had he been here for my speech and not been 45 minutes late, he would have heard that many of the families whose stories I recounted for those who were present are actually in work, or were in work when those problems arose. A story that he missed was about one of my constituents who was sanctioned for three months for being four minutes late for an appointment. The hon. Gentleman was 45 minutes late for the debate, and he does not seem to have suffered any adverse repercussions at all.
Mr Raab
I was following the debate, but unfortunately I was in a Committee, and I did give advance warning to Mr Crausby.
The key point that the hon. Lady needs to address is that all the policies that the Labour party is coming up with will stifle job creation. I gently point out to her that in her constituency, according to the House of Commons Library, unemployment doubled between 2005 and 2010, but has fallen by 63% between 2010 and the present day. Frankly, those facts tell us everything we need to know. When it comes to income tax—[Interruption.] She might want to listen as well as speak, because this is a debate, and I have listened very carefully to what she was saying—[Interruption.]
Mr Raab
If someone is earning between £10,000 and £15,000 under this Government, they are paying 54% less tax than they were under the last Government. If someone is a millionaire—we get lots of jibes on the Government side of the House about that—they are paying 14% more. When do we ever hear that referred to?
A lot of people have talked about poverty. If we look at the inequality Gini coefficient, we see that on elderly poverty, fuel poverty, the number of people not in education, employment or training, and child poverty—on every single statistical benchmark—the level of poverty or inequality is lower now than what the last Government left behind. Where is a little bit of honesty about that?
When it comes to affordable homes, the average annual rate of the creation of affordable homes is 50% higher under this Government than the last Government. The hon. Lady might have mentioned that in her speech. What about inflation, which eats away at incomes?
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Raab did give notice that he would be late. If I am going to call Mr Lavery as well, Members are going to have to give Mr Raab the opportunity to speak.
Mr Raab
Thank you, Mr Crausby, I appreciate that.
Inflation is the other key indicator. It was at 3.4% in May 2010, but it is now down to 0.5%. That is not unalloyed good news—it is tough for savers—but it is incredibly relevant to dealing with cost of living issues, which I believe the hon. Member for Wigan cares strongly about. There is still much to do, but if we care about things such as energy prices, we should not be backing reckless interventions in the energy market that will just create spikes in retail prices. We should be investing in nuclear and shale—but was it five or six nuclear plants that were closed down under the last Government? Labour is going slow on fracking as well. Again, if we are serious about long-term issues relating to poverty in this country, those are the things we should be dealing with. If we care about food prices, we should welcome the competitive supermarket price wars that we have been seeing recently. We should be concerned about the £400 that the common agricultural policy adds to the average annual family food bill, but when do we ever hear from Labour MPs about that? We should be looking for freer trade and reform of the EU.
In conclusion, I welcome the debate, but it is important to shed some light, not merely some heat, on this contentious issue, which afflicts the most vulnerable in our society. The hon. Lady can shake her head all she likes, but the fact is that on almost every official indicator and almost every policy lever, this Government have done better than the previous Government. Not only is the economy doing better, but life is fairer for most people in terms of the things that Government can reasonably control. Those are the facts, like them or not.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I did say that I would call the Front Benchers at 3.40 pm. It has now turned 3.40 pm, but I am going to give Ian Lavery one minute. If he goes past it, I will interrupt him.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thank you for your extreme flexibility, Mr Crausby.
We live in a different world here in Westminster. People in the rest of the country live in a broken society. Children are suffering because of poverty. Disabled people are suffering because of poverty and the introduction of the bedroom tax. Mentally ill people are suffering greatly because of the situation in this country. Single parents are being singled out because of the situation that the Government have imposed on them. Old people are suffering because of poverty; many of them are huddling together because they cannot even afford to put money in the electricity meter or food on the table.
We live in a broken society. Poverty is preventable. Poverty is a political choice. It brings shame on the Government and on politicians to allow poverty to continue as we are experiencing it here in food bank Britain. People in work cannot afford to put food on the table—
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
What a delight it is to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Crausby.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has secured an important debate. She made a passionate speech, in which she described eloquently the impact of poverty on her constituents. Because she has given us so many concrete stories about real people, I will give an overview and talk about the national picture. However, I remind the Minister that this is the second time in the space of a month that she has been asked about sanctions. We asked her to do a number of things about sanctions during a debate in the north-east, and to check what was going on. When she winds up the debate, I would like to know whether she has done those things.
During the previous Parliament, I was privileged to be the Minister who took the Child Poverty Act 2010 through Parliament. Because of the complexity of measuring child poverty, we had four measures: relative poverty, absolute poverty, persistent poverty, and combined low income and material deprivation. The Bill was passed with all-party agreement, and everybody agreed that we wanted to make progress on all those fronts. What has been the record? The record of the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 was a reduction of 1.8 million in the number of children in absolute poverty. The record under this Government, according to the DWP’s own statistics, which the Minister published last summer—I hope that she is listening to this—is that the number of children living in absolute poverty has gone up by half a million.
The next measure is relative poverty. Between 1997 and 2010, the number of children living in relative poverty fell by 1.3 million. The number fell by 200,000 between 2009 and 2013, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts an increase of 400,000 by the time of the election in May. Government Members have to ask themselves why absolute poverty has increased and relative poverty has reduced. What is going on here? The explanation is this. The median income in this country has dropped by 8% under this Government, whereas the income of those in the poorest decile has dropped by 5%, so everybody is poorer; it is just that those at the bottom are not quite as much poorer as are those in the middle. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) can shake his head, but those are the figures that the Government published only in July, and the Government should think about that.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. A Parliamentary Private Secretary should be seen and not heard, Mr Elphicke.
Helen Goodman
The response that we have had from Ministers and Tory Members today is precisely what the Archbishop of Canterbury describes in the book “On Rock or Sand?” as “wilful blindness”. If we are wilfully blind to the real problems in this country, we will not be able to deal with them. That is the major problem. The Government are responsible for a large number of the measures that have pushed the poorest further down.
What are we going to do instead? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out that in-work poverty is now exploding as well. That point is also made in an excellent book by Julia Unwin, which I recommend to all hon. Members. In-work poverty is the new feature of poverty. It is caused by rising prices, a cost of living crisis and falling incomes. The Government will continue on that exploitative path, which will, in fact, increase the benefits bill by £9 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out this morning. However, this morning the Secretary of State was bragging about something that Barnardo’s has complained to me about, namely the taking of £50 billion from the children of this country during this Parliament.
Hon. Members have asked, “What would Labour do?” I will tell them what Labour will do. The first thing that Labour will do is to abolish the bedroom tax.
Helen Goodman
Paid for by taxing the hedge funds, as was discussed during Prime Minister’s questions only this lunchtime, when the Prime Minister refused to do that. [Interruption.]
Helen Goodman
The bedroom tax bill of £3,800 over the next Parliament will be visited on the poorest people. Two thirds of those who pay the bedroom tax are disabled. If a Tory-led Government are re-elected, those people will face having to pay another £3,800. That is why the first thing that a Labour Government will do, if we are elected, is to abolish the bedroom tax.
We will also increase the minimum wage. We will tackle the zero-hours culture. We will tax bankers’ bonuses in order to get young people into work. We will sort out the energy market. We will do something about rents. We will take steps to improve child care, so that lone mums and other mums can get out to work and support their families. We will build more houses, which will help to bring down housing costs and provide more jobs. It is a comprehensive picture, and it is a real choice for the British people.
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing it. I begin by putting what I have heard today in context. Every story that has been brought here is important, and it is important that we listen to them, but let us look at the independent figures on inequality, which show us what is happening. Income inequality is lower now than it was at the election. There are 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than at the election. Why do I use relative poverty? There are various measures, but relative poverty is Labour’s preferred measure against which it set its targets. Labour said that it would halve relative poverty by 2010, but it missed that target. [Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Ms Nandy, you have had your opportunity to speak. Let us listen to others who want to speak.
Esther McVey
There are also 300,000 fewer children living in relative poverty.
Esther McVey
I will not give way for a while, because I would like to put these figures on the record.
The top 1% of income tax payers will contribute nearly 30% of this year’s income tax bill. We talk about the richest helping most to get us out of the financial situation in which we found ourselves after Labour left office, and that is what is happening. The top 20% of income tax payers are paying 80% of the bill, which is key. We also have 390,000 fewer children living in workless households, and in-work poverty has fallen by 300,000. In fact, in-work poverty rose 20% between 1998 and 2008.
Esther McVey
I will not give way for the moment.
It is also key to know that 1.75 million more people are in work. When my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) talked about what sorts of jobs those people are doing, he was right to say that, since the election, three quarters of them are full-time jobs. In fact, in the last year 80% are full-time jobs. What sorts of jobs are they? The vast majority, 75%, are skilled, managerial and professional. If we want to look at the figures from the other point of view, we could say that, at the election, 600,000 more people were in relative poverty and there were 670,000 more workless households. We could say that there were 300,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in relative poverty. We could also say that there were 50,000 more households in which no member had ever worked. That is what we were picking up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) pointed out—I hope this is a point of consensus for all of us—there had been a financial crash and the GDP of the whole country had shrunk by 7%. The truth of the matter is that everybody had to bear the brunt of the crash that we had from the Labour party, but we have ensured—[Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Please allow the Minister to respond.
Esther McVey
We have ensured that the richest are paying the most. We are ensuring that the richest people are now paying more than they ever paid under Labour. The hon. Member for Wigan talked about working for Barnardo’s, and I congratulate her because I am a child of Barnardo’s. When we talk about poverty and how we take people out of poverty, the key building blocks have to be education and employment, and the Government are creating those key building blocks.
When we look at this, what have we done? We have brought record rates of women into work. We are increasing and supporting lone parents into work. We have put £2.5 billion into the troubled families initiative, and we have put the same amount into the pupil premium. We have ensured that 3 million people are out of tax altogether and that 26 million people have had their tax reduced. We have increased the minimum wage to £6.50 an hour, which is the first real increase since 2008—a 3% increase—and which benefits more than 1 million people. People in full-time work on the national minimum wage are getting an extra £355 a year. All those things are key, and we are doing them.
Debbie Abrahams
Would the Minister like to comment on her point about the reduction in inequality? The OECD’s report before Christmas and the International Monetary Fund’s report from a similar time show that inequality has actually increased. In fact, we have the worst rate of inequality in 30 years. The reports show that inequality is harming growth and that the trickle-down economics to which the Government are absolutely committed does not work. It actually stifles growth and hurts human beings.
Esther McVey
I never recognise where the hon. Lady gets her figures. I have given the independent facts, which are correct. The only thing I will say is that here is a party that delivered the biggest financial crash in living memory. This is the party that said there would be 1 million more unemployed people now, but we are near to having 2 million more people in employment. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do better to listen for a change, rather than charging forward with things that really are not true. It is sometimes worth listening, rather than talking, especially when the Labour party delivered such a disaster for the UK, which we are all now having to cope and deal with. It is worth remembering that, because of our long-term economic plan, we are the fastest-growing developed nation. The UK has delivered more jobs than the rest of Europe added together. Those are the facts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton read out a list of facts about the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan. He talked about the unemployment figures and the claimant count rising by 100% between 2005 and 2010, but let us look at what is happening in Wigan now: the employment rate is up by 7.9 percentage points; the claimant count is down by 49%; the long-term claimant count is down by 44%; the youth claimant count is down by 70%; and the long-term youth claimant count—[Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister must be allowed to respond.
Esther McVey
The long-term youth claimant count is down 80% on the year. In fact, youth unemployment across the country has had its biggest fall in living memory. More than 170,000 more young people now have jobs. Those are just the facts. In the north-west region, the number of workless households is down by 41,000 since 2010, which is a decrease of 1.7%.
Last week, the local paper in Wigan stated that the number of apprenticeship vacancies in Wigan has hit a record high. There has been a 72% increase in the number of apprenticeship vacancies in Wigan posted online, and the paper said:
“An upsurge in firms willing to take on apprentices has been credited with bringing about a dramatic fall in young people not in employment”.
Lisa Nandy
One reason why we have managed to get young people into apprenticeships is because the council has taken exactly the opposite approach to the Government. The council pays the living wage, has stamped out zero-hours contracts and has created apprenticeships. If everything is going so well across the country, why does the Minister think that the incidence of scurvy and the number of hospital admissions for malnutrition have exploded under her Government?
Esther McVey
The numbers I have given are for private enterprise. Equally, I do not know what the answer was when the hon. Lady stood up to explain why there was a 100% increase in the claimant count between 2005 and 2010, but our claimant count has come down. The increase in malnutrition is a debate for another time.
Esther McVey
I think it is. Many people who have gone to hospital with malnutrition have actually put on weight, which is down to a poor diet. That is a much bigger debate for another time. What we can talk about is what is happening, how we are getting people into work and how worklessness is falling in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan. [Interruption.] Obviously she does not want to listen to these answers because they do not play to the things she was talking about. Equally, her local paper celebrated that Wigan has received the pupil premium award. A headmaster said:
“We couldn’t be more pleased to win the award”.
The award is key to helping young people to go forward.
I listened to the hon. Lady’s stories about sanctions, and I would like to know about the specific instances. I replied to a letter the other week—I hear that she has sent me another, to which I will be writing back in due course—but if she gave me the names of the people, rather than keeping them anonymous, I could find out what happened at the jobcentre. If someone wanted to go to a funeral, it would be good cause. Somebody with learning difficulties is a vulnerable person and has good cause. There is a booklet that the hon. Lady can download from the website that outlines the guidance, which is substantial. It is a heavy document that says how people will be given good cause. Equally, there have always been sanctions in the benefit system. This is nothing new—
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I am pleased to say that we will now move on to the next debate.
Broadband (Tech City)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have come to this Chamber with a very important issue. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report yesterday on access to superfast broadband. In large parts of the UK, fewer than 50% of households can access superfast broadband, and it is clear that some rural areas are being left behind.
Although 90% of London households are able to access superfast broadband, many Londoners are left out. Surely central London should have 100% coverage by now. We should certainly expect Tech City—or Old Street roundabout, as we used to call it—to have full coverage.
I am not the first MP to raise this issue. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) raised it in a debate on superfast broadband in September. He referred to Tech City, which borders his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who is here this afternoon, also raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions and at business questions.
Tech City is home to a large number of new and innovative businesses—film companies, public relations companies, property companies and pollsters—which all need fast and reliable internet access and download and upload speeds. We might assume that BT is able to provide that infrastructure, and that it and other providers can offer high-speed connections to all those companies, but they are not doing so.
The Prime Minister has been bigging up Tech City for a long time. In November 2010, he said:
“British Telecom has agreed to bring forward the roll-out of superfast broadband in the area, so you have some of the fastest internet speeds in the whole of Europe…we can help make East London one of the world’s great technology centres and sow the seeds for sustainable growth throughout the economy.”
A Tech City business without a high-speed broadband connection is like a city without a road going to it, or a port without a river or seafront. Superfast broadband is vital infrastructure. It is like a fourth utility; it is Tech City’s lifeblood. I was therefore very concerned when 38 businesses from Tech City signed a petition, which was sent to me in May, complaining about the slow, unreliable broadband in the area. I took a sample case to BT, assuming that I would be assured that the problem would be ironed out without delay, and that my constituent would get the service he needed. I was shocked and surprised when BT said that although other users in the area have high-speed broadband, it was not commercially viable for it to connect up my constituent to the green cabinet outside his premises.
I raised the case with the Mayor, and I am still waiting for a complete response. I know that he cares about the issue but, as my Nan used to say, warm words butter no parsnips. I would be happy to work with the Mayor on this issue, because we simply have to do something about it.
Recently, I was contacted by other businesses in EC1 and EC2 that had exactly the same complaint. I went to see a company called Proudfoot TV—a small company that makes short films, which have to be very good quality, and which it uploads and sends around the world. It recently uploaded a two-and-a-half minute film to send to Ford. I have been asking people to guess how long it took to upload that film all day. Extraordinarily, it took nine hours.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems is that advertised download speeds are an average, and that they do not take into account the important problem of uploading? That is also a problem for Shoreditch companies, because it slows down their businesses. We need to change the way that speeds are advertised.
Emily Thornberry
Absolutely. Tech City should be exporting, and if a two-and-a-half minute film cannot be exported without taking nine hours to upload, it should not be called Tech City.
Tech City serves not only the UK. Companies in my constituency have clients throughout the world, who expect those companies to have fast, reliable connections. Mr Proudfoot told me that although his business has evolved in the past 10 years, his connectivity has not improved in line with his work. He said that to send a high-quality sound file to Covent Garden, it is quicker to put it on a USB stick and cycle it round. Perhaps giving the USB stick to an owl, like Harry Potter, or sending it by carrier pigeon or even a raven, as they do in “Game of Thrones”, would be equally effective. He said that some of his employees get better broadband speeds on their domestic home connections than they do in the heart of Tech City.
Meg Hillier
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the editor of Tech City News, Alex Wood, each week produces a video rounding up the news in Tech City. The connection is so slow that he cannot upload the video from Old street; it has to be sent to his home address to be uploaded. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a national disgrace?
Emily Thornberry
It speaks for itself. I understand that things are difficult in central London; we have historical, narrow streets that are already full with all sorts of wires. It may well be easier to introduce superfast broadband in Bromley than in central London, but we need it in central London, and it should be a priority.
I visited another small enterprise, a company called YouthSight, whose broadband is so slow and unreliable that its 17 young employees struggle with everyday tasks such as research and communication. The company has complained on numerous occasions, and it has been visited by lots of BT engineers, but it has seen no improvement. It has a copper line, so it must put up with the speed of copper—plod, plod, plod. It is not in the Outer Hebrides; it is a two-minute walk from Old Street roundabout. The fact that the centre of London—the City and its fringes—has less access to superfast broadband than the suburbs seems contrary to common sense.
If BT remains intransigent and refuses to supply superfast broadband to that business, its only option is to buy a dedicated leased line, which can cost £5,000 for the connection and £400 per month, and there may be provisions locking it into the contract. That is not good enough. Why should small businesses in one street have to pay those huge costs when businesses in the next street get superfast broadband at a reasonable cost?
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. There are alternative forms of technology, but there are barriers to them. We can do two things to help. First, companies should be forced to share their infrastructure—to be fair, BT and Openreach do that in many cases. Secondly, we should change planning regulations to require landlords to ensure that their buildings have the capacity for certain technologies.
Emily Thornberry
I agree, although there are problems even with that approach, which I will come on to. If someone is willing to pay for a leased line, there is no guarantee that they will get it when they want it. Another company, also a few yards from Old Street roundabout, moved in two months ago. The previous occupants had a leased line, and that company applied to have it switched over in November. When I visited it last Friday, its staff were using mobile phones and were waiting for the leased line to be connected.
What must be done? My hon. Friend has made some proposals, and I have a suggestion. When British Telecom was privatised—it used to belong to all of us—it was given infrastructure, such as cables and cabinets, and it still has an effective monopoly. It should accept responsibility for installing superfast broadband to all existing cabinets in Tech City, and arguably across the UK. Aiming for 95% connectivity by 2017 is not ambitious enough.
I understand that London has particular problems. There are some cabinets missing, and there are some places where street cabinets cannot be installed. Some street cabinets have been taken out because they interfere with burglar alarms. I know that this is a historical city, but it must move into the 21st century. As my hon. Friend said, there are other options, such as connecting hubs inside buildings. It is not beyond the wit of man or BT to overcome those difficulties.
BT says that the Government should give it more help, that the state funding available to rural areas should also be available to cities, and that the European Union rules on state funding should be changed to allow that to happen. However, where Tech City is concerned, we need to look hard at BT’s arguments. Is it necessary for state aid to subsidise BT? After all, Openreach generates £5 billion of revenue each year.
I understand that BT has data indicating the areas where only copper lines are available. It is essential that that information is made publicly available, and I urge the Minister to ensure that BT makes it available, because frankly, if BT cannot change those copper lines to superfast broadband, it should get out of the way and let its competitors do so instead, but they need that information first.
Of course, in Tech City there are fibre cables to exchanges, but there is still no guarantee that individual small businesses can have an affordable high-speed connection. There are streets with fibre going down the middle, yet it is not connected to all the buildings on that street. That is an extraordinary situation. If we think about Victorian times, when sewers were built, can we imagine a sewer being built down the middle of the street and the company or organisation putting in that sewer refusing to connect up the buildings on that street to the sewer? If that would have been ridiculous in Victorian times, it is even more ridiculous now, is it not? Why are we going backwards, not forwards?
We should not allow this situation to drift. We have to change our attitude. This is infrastructure. Superfast broadband is not some sort of lifestyle choice for these businesses; it is their lifeblood. It is absolutely right for the Government and the Mayor of London to big up Tech City around the world and encourage it to do well, but if it is not given its absolute essence—its lifeblood—it will not thrive. There are many of these businesses, and I have met many of the youngsters involved with them. They are forward-thinking, innovative, great entrepreneurs and bright kids who will do well, but they are being held back by a company that is simply milking them, and it is about time that it stopped doing so.
Tech City cannot be built simply on hyperbole. The Mayor and the Prime Minister can continue to travel the world and tell everyone that London is a 21st-century city, but let us make sure that they lean on BT to give Tech City the tools it needs to get on with the job. We cannot make Tech City one of the world’s great technology centres and sow the seeds of sustainable growth, as the Prime Minister has said, when it takes nine hours to upload a 2.5 minute film. Tech City should not be relying on “Game of Thrones” ravens.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing this debate and for allowing me time to draw attention to the Government’s work in extending broadband.
During the last four and a half—almost five—years, we have very much moved forward in terms of broadband delivery. Superfast broadband is now available to 78% of UK premises; it was available to just 45% in 2010. In the UK, we have the highest superfast broadband coverage among EU5 countries. The average broadband speed in the UK has more than quadrupled. Superfast broadband take-up in the UK is the highest among the EU5 countries. So we have made a great deal of progress. However, I know that the issue of urban broadband continues to concern some of our colleagues, in particular issues around Tech City, because with Tech City’s prominence in the debate about how we continue to attract and grow technology companies, its connectivity sometimes gains national prominence.
When we started down this road, our focus was very much on rural areas, because we knew that the main providers and carriers of superfast broadband—Virgin and BT—were unlikely to go to many of them without some form of subsidy. I am pleased to say that that programme is well under way. We will shortly reach the halfway stage and we are well on the way to reaching our target of 90% superfast broadband by the end of this year.
Roll-out in urban areas is more problematic than in rural areas. To begin with, for example, it is not possible to get state aid to subsidise broadband roll-out in urban areas. The European Commission takes the view that the market is sufficiently competitive in urban areas not to need subsidy. However, that does not get away from the fact that there will be pockets in urban areas that some carriers do not believe are commercially viable to cover, and those areas could potentially get left behind.
Emily Thornberry
I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on what might be the problem. I hear what he says about there being competition, but the situation can be quite difficult. For example, if one street has only copper lines and the rival companies do not know that, whereas BT does, would it not be right for BT to be forced to hand over such information so that its competitors can compete and can go up and down the street, asking how many businesses need superfast broadband but do not have individual lines going into them? Then Virgin, or whoever it is, can say, “Right. We will invest in putting in our own fibre optics in that street and connect it up, because if BT won’t do it we’ll do it instead.” However, without such information, it is very difficult. We know that BT has that information, and yet it is sitting on it and not sharing it. It is in the Minister’s power to ensure that that information is disclosed.
Mr Vaizey
I am happy to correspond with the hon. Lady on that matter, because it is important that I fully understand the point she is trying to make. In the speech I am making this afternoon, I will try to address that point as well as I can, and if I have got things wrong we can correspond or indeed have a meeting about this issue, along with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has been very vocal about this subject, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who was referred to in the hon. Lady’s speech.
BT’s copper network is managed by Openreach, which is part of BT, and it is open to competition—what is known as local loop unbundling. That means that other operators, such as TalkTalk and Sky, can make a retail offer to residential customers and indeed to businesses that want to use, as it were, a consumer service. That has helped us to drive down the price of broadband. Indeed, those other operators are able to put their own electronics into cabinets.
Emily Thornberry
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. May I raise another issue with him? BT is not sufficiently transparent in relation to its policy for small and medium-sized enterprises. Some of my constituents have told me that if they ring BT on one day and speak to one person, they are told one thing, but then they ring the next day and speak to somebody else, and are told something else, or told, “Oh, we’ve got to refer it to x, y and z.” So, there is not sufficient transparency for these SMEs to understand how they can get this vital utility into their business at a price that is affordable and competitive.
Mr Vaizey
As I was saying, my understanding is that these sectors are separate parts of BT’s business. So, a residential customer who wants a BT line will get a BT line, but that line will also be open to BT’s competitors, such as TalkTalk and Sky, to run their service across that line. The business market is different, and BT is under no obligation to share its commercially sensitive data about which business customers it has and which business customers it is targeting. BT is a private company; it is not a national company. It is not running a not-for-profit service; it competes vigorously with other business providers. It is important to stress that in most areas there is a very vibrant business market, with a lot of different suppliers supplying it, whether that is in central London, Manchester or elsewhere.
Because we could not get state aid directly to subsidise the build-up of fibre, we wanted to support individual businesses to get the connections they needed. So we have made available, for example in London, connection vouchers, which would allow a business such as Proudfoot TV to apply for a voucher and to have the connection charge met by that voucher. In London, 2,500 businesses have taken advantage of that scheme. The other interesting thing we learned from that exercise was that the total number of potential suppliers—bearing in mind that the service was available in 22 cities—ran to something like 500 or 600 companies.
I hear a lot of criticism about BT in debates such as this one, and I sometimes feel that I am BT’s spokesman in the House of Commons because I am constantly having to defend it, either on customer service or on the grounds of competition, but it is interesting to note that where money, and a good margin, can be made, there is a competitive market. So, if someone is in the centre of a city such as London, with a lot of SMEs, they will find a lot of suppliers willing to build up networks and supply that marketplace. However, if someone is in a village in a very rural area, the only game in town tends to be BT. That is the problem we are addressing.
Meg Hillier
There is hot competition to challenge the Minister on that.
I thank the Minister for his comments, and for the move to reduce the cost of Openreach prices to some of the competitor companies. I say that because one of the issues is the overall cost of superfast broadband, both for businesses and residents. Would he, along with the Department for Communities and Local Government, look into this issue about changing planning, for wayleaves—to gain access across property—and to allow other technologies to be installed on or in buildings, because currently the planning rules make it harder for competitive technologies to enter the market?
Mr Vaizey
I am certainly happy to look at the planning regulations. Through the Infrastructure Bill, we were proposing some changes to the electronic communications code, mainly to help those erecting mobile masts. We withdrew those amendments when it became clear that there was some concern over whether mobile operators could use them to go on to each other’s masts and make changes. We will consult and are keen to make those kind of amendments. We would certainly look at any other planning changes that could make life easier for anyone who wants to build a mobile network, a fibre network, or something between the two.
While I am talking about mobile, it is important to remember that in most urban areas, and in particular in central London, the roll-out of 4G is continuing apace. We have the fastest take-up and roll-out of 4G of pretty much any country in the world. It is important, however, to stress the difference between the business market and the residential market. When you or I are at home, Mr Crausby, we will want a connection of 2 to 3 megabits and probably of 7 to 8 megabits, and with that connection, we would want do the normal things that one would expect, such as watching something on iPlayer or sending a document back to our office by e-mail. We would not necessarily, however, be uploading a very data-heavy two-and-a-half minute film. If a business has at its core the transmission of huge packets of data, one would expect it to be prepared to invest in the kind of business lines that are legion in London. An ethernet line is available in St John street in Islington. Virgin Media is in that street. It would cost that business perhaps £200 to £300 a month, once it had the connection established, to run it.
Another key point is that although we have some of the lowest broadband speeds anywhere in the world—the lowest compared with the EU5 and the USA—it will not astonish the Chamber to learn that the faster the speed, the higher the cost. Sometimes, my hon. Friends and colleagues say to me, “I have just been in such and such a country. You know what? The bloke I was staying with had a 1 gig connection. It was amazing. They could download a film in two minutes. It was incredible.” They never bother to ask that bloke how much he is paying for that 1 gig connection. If someone wants a 1 gig connection, they will pay more than if they want a 1 meg connection.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister has spoken about vouchers. I am sure the vouchers have been of some assistance to those businesses that have applied for them. The vouchers, I believe, are for £3,000, but to get a dedicated line costs £5,000. It then costs £400 a month and the business has to sign up to a contract that could last for many years. Those costs are a huge outlay for a small business just starting up and trying to establish itself in Tech City, exporting videos, music videos, adverts and all the sorts of things that are made in Tech City.
When I left Proudfoot TV, I bumped into a couple of BT engineers and said, “Are you going to give them some broadband? What are you up to?” They started to explain to me that they were putting in a dedicated line to a building two doors down. For Proudfoot TV to have a line put in, it would have to pay as if there had not been a line before and would have to start all over again. It would go to box 17, I believe, which is the problem in that particular area. It seems to be nonsense, when businesses have such a lot to be doing, to be unable to get such a basic utility without having to go through all these hoops and climb over all these hurdles.
Mr Vaizey
We are getting to the crux of the matter. Fundamentally, this debate is not about whether broadband is available, but whether businesses that use a huge amount of data should get a cheap broadband service. My contention is that, first, broadband is available and, secondly, it is a highly competitive marketplace. I will, however, highlight some of the changes.
The hon. Lady is quite right; there may be an established business with 10 or 20 employees that understands the need to invest in a leased line, because it is moving large amounts of data. A start-up business with one, two or three people may, however, find those kinds of costs prohibitive in the early stages. Is the market competitive enough to give them the kind of broadband speeds they need to get going? The championing, if I can put it that way, of this issue by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Islington South and Finsbury and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on at least three occasions in the House has led to progress, so they should take pride in that. It is a good reminder to us all that it is sometimes worth raising these issues in the House, even if we sometimes think that no one is listening. Virgin Media Business is working closely with the Tech City team and is offering businesses a 50 meg symmetrical service for around £200 a month and a 100 meg symmetrical service for £249 a month. You may still say, Mr Crausby, that that is too much money, but it slightly takes the heat off BT, as it illustrates what a competitor that would dearly love to take all of BT’s business has to charge to make a return.
Meg Hillier
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way once more. He suggested that the argument boils down just to cost, but let me be clear that there are still companies in Shoreditch that cannot easily get a physical connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has told me that there are also such companies on her side of the roundabout. Alternative technologies would open up the market, make it more competitive and help drive down the price.
Mr Vaizey
Our speeches almost seem to be synergising. The next point I was going to make was that thanks to the campaigning of the hon. Lady and others, Virgin and BT have said that they will increase their footprint. Virgin will cover an additional 100,000 premises in east London and BT is aiming to cover an additional 400,000 premises in cities, with 250,000 of those in city centres and 100,000 of those in central London. UK Broadband is launching a superfast wireless broadband service across central London, including the Cities of London and Westminster. CityFibre and Hyperoptic are looking at delivering those kinds of services in other cities outside of London.
On planning, we are seeking to reduce red tape by introducing legislation to permit the installation of broadband, street cabinets and new overhead lines without prior approval from local planning authorities for five years. We also introduced changes to streamline the process to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. Those are areas where we have made progress.
The City of London has talked about building its own network. Thanks to campaigning by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Islington South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we had a meeting with the City of London corporation and BT. BT is trialling “fibre to the basement” technology to try to overcome some of the technical obstacles in providing broadband for multi-dwellings. I am also pleased to say that the Mayor and the London Assembly are taking ownership of the issue. He has set up a connectivity advisory group, which has been formed to bring actors together to improve digital connectivity across London.
A great deal of progress has been made, but I sympathise with any business that is looking at the kind of costs that have been mentioned. Ofcom is due to launch a consultation on business-leased lines in spring that will report, we hope, in early 2016. It will look at competition on business-leased lines.
Emily Thornberry
Is the Minister aware that if one looks at the access to superfast broadband, London looks like a doughnut? It is much easier in outer London than in the centre, and a great deal of work is being done to expose that. I hope that he remains on top of that issue, because as the picture is established, it will become clear that Government intervention is necessary.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I am about to suspend the sitting for a Division in the House. Is the Minister about to wind up?
Radiotherapy Services (North East Hertfordshire)
(9 years, 10 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
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
This debate could not be better timed, because today is world cancer day, and the day on which we heard from the charity, Cancer Research UK, that although we are seeing better outcomes with cancer, more people are at risk. This is also an opportunity for me to ask for help for my constituents, who have to travel day after day, for many hours, to get their radiotherapy, which is tiring, dangerous, onerous and needs changing.
The situation that I am about to describe affects people not only in my constituency, but in Stevenage, North East Bedfordshire and Hitchin and Harpenden. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) in the Chamber to support the campaign. I am also receiving great support from the public, patients and their families in seeking to ensure that radiotherapy treatment is available to cancer patients at the Lister in Stevenage, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to his work in raising the issue so strongly.
I have asked questions in Parliament and have secured today’s debate. The Minister will, I know, listen to our case, and I hope that she will intercede for us with NHS England to break the logjam, so that we finally get the Lister hospital this facility, which it needs. The hospital recently opened a new cancer centre in conjunction with Macmillan Cancer Support, and radiotherapy would be an important addition. Furthermore, our local newspaper, The Comet, has long supported the cause.
Radiotherapy for people living in the Stevenage, Letchworth, Baldock and Hitchin area, and just over the border in Bedfordshire, at the moment takes place in Mount Vernon hospital in north London, in Hillingdon. It is a great hospital and the treatment is excellent but it is a difficult journey there, either by car or by the hospital bus service. That service takes all day—it collects patients at 7.30 am, delivering them back at 4 pm. Those long daily journeys are often needed for a three-week period, which is gruelling for patients and their families.
My constituents have described the visits as tiring and stressful. One young woman who is about to start treatment says:
“I am having to go for a three week stint at Mount Vernon, after my breast cancer op at Lister. I’ve been told by people in the same boat that it’s quite a stressful journey and the parking! Lister also has a small bus service pickup from your home at 7.30 back at 4ish! Daily. This is great but after all the patients go through it would be another stressful stage of getting well and to fight cancer.”
Another said:
“I had 39 Radiotherapy sessions for prostate cancer treatment at Mount Vernon Hospital. The treatment was excellent and was given by wonderful staff. Fortunately the transport was provided but this would have been saved if Lister had the appropriate facilities.”
One of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire told me:
“I am pleased to see you raising the question of installing a radiotherapy unit in the Lister Hospital. This treatment is sorely needed in N. Herts as the travel and journey is particularly onerous for what can be very repetitive and tiring treatment to Mount Vernon in Middlesex…from Stotfold where I live. Myself and two neighbours have had need of this treatment in the past 12 months…the requirement generated from a single road so the need is certainly there.”
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I have already apologised to both my hon. and learned Friend and the Minister that I am not able to stay to hear the Minister’s speech. I very much want to support my hon. and learned Friend. My constituent’s point is very pertinent. The A1 runs directly down from where that constituent was talking about to the Lister. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a perfect example of how a facility closer to north-east Bedfordshire would make all the difference to relieving our constituents’ suffering?
Sir Oliver Heald
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. There are many arguments for the change. One patient from east Hertfordshire, who is a constituent of mine, said:
“Being diagnosed with cancer is devastating for the person and the family and to discover that part of the treatment involves regular journeys to north London just adds to the stress that family is undergoing.”
Another aspect to consider is patients with children. One constituent wrote to me about her daughter, who is in her 30s and has three children. She needs radiotherapy at Mount Vernon and will have to find someone to travel with her and someone to look after her children on a daily basis for three weeks. Her mother says:
“This all adds to the stress of having to deal with cancer, especially at such a young age.”
She ends her letter to me:
“Here’s hoping we are successful in making someone see sense.”
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on securing this debate, which is important to my constituents in Stevenage. He and I have secured the support of the local newspaper, The Comet, and have run a petition over a number of years to improve radiotherapy access. We have dealt with thousands of people. There is no public transport available for them to get from Stevenage in north-east Hertfordshire to Hillingdon in London, so they are very much stuck with having to have private vehicles and people to support them.
Sir Oliver Heald
That is very much the nub of the issue: there is no alternative to the car or the bus, and the bus takes a day to take patients and bring them back.
The NHS is currently mapping the country to find areas where it takes more than 45 minutes by car to reach radiotherapy, in order to assess pressing need for new and satellite centres. My hon. Friend and I have been in contact with Kim Fell of NHS England about this issue. We have arranged to meet her, Ruth Derrett, who is the head of specialised services, Dr Adrian Crellin, who is the radiotherapy clinical reference group chair, and Pam Evans of the specialised commissioning team, because they think that the journey from our area takes less than 45 minutes.
We have been told that, as part of the review, the National Clinical Analysis and Specialised Applications Team has produced a map that shows the 45-minute position across our area. Apparently, the map shows that only a small proportion of the population of Stevenage travels more than 45 minutes for treatment, and questions have been asked about whether that would generate sufficient activity for the satellite service that we are asking for.
The methodology used is clearly flawed, so we are pressing on the 45 minute figure. Even if one ignores the heavy traffic congestion in our area—my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and I have been campaigning for some years to widen the A1(M) between Stevenage and Welwyn because it is so congested, and we have recently got about £100 million for it—the AA, the RAC and everyone who does that journey all say that it takes longer than 45 minutes. The senior management at the trust that runs both hospitals, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, allows one hour 15 minutes each way for the journey. I have done the journey only once, and it took me two hours in the rush hour. I have offered to do the drive seven times at different times of the day using the three possible routes and to report the findings to NHS England. I am waiting to hear whether it considers that to be a satisfactory methodology. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and I have suggested that the key officials might like to come with us on the journey one morning at the same time as the bus, so that they can see the challenge to the 45 minute figure.
I am arguing that Mount Vernon hospital should put a satellite radiotherapy centre at the Lister hospital. We like the Mount Vernon hospital—the treatment there is excellent—so we would like it to use its staff and machines at the Lister. The machines that they use do need to be replaced from time to time, and there are currently eight of them. I am told that fairly soon an opportunity will arise when two need to be replaced. The new machines should be sited at the Lister hospital. That would leave six at Hillingdon and allow Mount Vernon to offer its expertise to an even wider area, thereby securing its position as a cancer centre. It would be able to offer services to a larger group in Bedfordshire, for example, than it currently can. That would benefit the status of Mount Vernon hospital as well as helping the patients.
The Lister hospital has recently benefited from the opening of the wonderful Macmillan cancer care centre on its site. Radiotherapy would greatly improve the support and care available to people in our area. Patients and their relatives strongly support the idea of the move, which has been described to me as “wonderful”. Another person wrote to me to say:
“It would be fabulous to have the device at Lister. It makes sense as we have just opened a great cancer chemotherapy unit”.
I hope that the Minister might intercede on our behalf with NHS England so that our case can be properly considered. The idea that it takes 45 minutes or less from our area to Mount Vernon must be reconsidered. It is time for a satellite radiotherapy centre at the Lister, but we need help to make it happen. I intend to present a petition to Parliament in March. We already have hundreds of signatures, and it can be downloaded from my website: www.oliverheald.com. I will present it on the Floor of the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends, our constituents and I feel strongly that it is time for the change to be made. It is time that those endless journeys, hour after hour, day after day, ended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate on, as he pointed out, a very apt day: world cancer day. I am still getting used to the idea of the MPs’ road trip that he appears to be planning for himself, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I will come on to address the issue of access, but that certainly sounds like an offer that no one could refuse.
Stephen McPartland
NHS England has refused us on several occasions. We keep pushing, so we would be grateful if the Minister could persuade it to accept the offer to embark on our road trip.
Jane Ellison
I will certainly draw NHS England’s attention to the force with which the invitation was put in this debate.
Let me say a few words about the bigger picture on cancer before we go into the detail in the contribution by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The Government are committed to improving cancer outcomes and matching the best in Europe. As Members are aware, we do not match the best in Europe; we were certainly lagging behind some important countries when the Government came to office in 2010.
The 2011 strategy, which was backed by £750 million, set the ambition of saving an additional 5,000 lives a year. We believe that we are on track to save an additional 12,000 lives a year, far exceeding that ambition. Much of the focus has been on early diagnosis and awareness. Given the clear interest in cancer that Members have expressed by being here, I hope that they will join me in welcoming the announcement of NHS England’s cancer taskforce, which is charged with designing a new cancer strategy for the NHS to take us through to 2020.
I thought Members might be interested in the statistics for East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust over the last 12 months. Some 2,881 more patients with suspected cancers were seen than in 2010—a 49% increase. In addition, 239 more patients were treated for cancer than in 2009-10—an 11% increase. Local NHS staff, to whom I pay tribute, are therefore doing a good job of seeing more people.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that important point. About half of the patients require radiotherapy, so the numbers on that journey are getting higher and higher, and there surely comes a point when we can have our satellite.
Jane Ellison
Indeed, and I will address some of the issues my hon. and learned Friend raised, but let me say a quick word on radiotherapy more generally. The Government have set about improving these services. NHS England will be investing an additional £15 million in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy on top of the £6 million already committed. That will benefit about 750 patients a year. There is also a £23 million radiotherapy innovation fund, which has resulted in the doubling of intensity-modulated radiotherapy activity. In addition, we are investing £250 million in building two new proton beam therapy centres. A lot of investment is therefore being made in some very up-to-date and important technology.
Let me turn to local health matters. First, I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who are all known as doughty champions of their local health services. It is particularly good to see the latter, who champions health matters with great vigour in this place.
I am aware of the issues that have been raised. Regardless of the part of the country we live in, we would all expect patients to have ready access to radiotherapy services as part of patient care. Obviously, radiotherapy is a specialised service. It is commissioned directly by NHS England. Fortunately, it is not needed by the majority of NHS patients, but it is vital to those who do need it. The smaller number of patients involved means that the health service needs to think carefully about access—locating units to provide the maximum benefit closest to the highest possible number of people. I will go on to talk about the implications for expertise.
Such decisions are made locally, and are best made locally, by clinical leaders who have the full benefit of local knowledge. However, it is right, of course, to bring concerns to Parliament and to give Ministers a chance to understand what is happening in the local health economy, so that we are aware of the issues and can discuss them, where necessary. Decisions on where to locate specialist services need careful consideration. The issue is of particular note to those who represent more rural constituencies. Patients who live some distance from treatment centres—not only those providing radiotherapy—can, unfortunately, face repeated, long and tiring journeys. I realise that the seats of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire are not necessarily rural, but those are factors in parts of our country. My hon. and learned Friend gave us examples of the anxieties that long, tiring journeys bring, alongside the already stressful situation of being treated for cancer.
Interest in where radiotherapy services are located is understandably heightened by the NHS England review of stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radio surgery services, which is being undertaken at a national level. For the benefit of Members, let me explain that those services involve a type of external beam radiotherapy treatment currently commissioned by NHS England for the treatment of patients with a wide range of cranial cancers. That consultation closed recently, on 26 January, and as part of the review, NHS England found
“an unmet need in the provision of treatment, with services distributed unevenly across the country.”
The proposed changes to the way in which stereotactic radio surgery and radiotherapy services are commissioned in England was looked at in the public consultation. Proposals include consideration of the location of services provided in the interests of ensuring equity of access, and the results are being reviewed by NHS England.
My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that NHS England has also carried out a separate, high-level exercise to assess capacity and demand for external beam radiotherapy more generally at a national level to give it a sense of the national picture. A further phase of work is proposed to take place locally, as there will be some specific local issues of which commissioners and providers will need to take account. That process is due to begin in late March.
Accessibility is characterised by an assurance that all patients are offered the most appropriate and effective treatment for their cancer. The latest research suggests that about 40% of all cancer patients should receive radiotherapy, complementing earlier recommendations made by the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group that aim to boost cancer survival through increasing access to that therapy, delivered as part of a treatment with curative intent. The England average access rate was 33% in 2007, and 38.8% in the most recent figures, which demonstrates real progress. I know, however, that there is further to go, as my hon. and learned Friend made clear in his speech.
NHS England has told me that the radiotherapy clinical reference group, which supports it in commissioning radiotherapy, is of the view that all patients should be offered equitable access to specialist radiotherapy care and treatment. The clinical reference group plans to build on the assessment of radiotherapy demand and capacity for England by considering aspects such as innovative treatments, the stock of equipment and how needs differ across areas. That national overview will enable commissioners to ensure that the right services are in the right places to meet future demand, including innovative forms of radiotherapy. Such improvements might well mean that, in future, patients need fewer episodes of treatment, so the problem of repeated tiring journeys would at least be reduced. I think we would all welcome that.
Access to radiotherapy treatment locally is a matter for NHS England to lead on. The decisions on the introduction of satellite radiotherapy centres will need to involve the local providers—in this case, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust—and NHS England as commissioners. As my hon. and learned Friend said, his closest radiotherapy services are the excellent services at the Mount Vernon hospital, and there are also services at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge. NHS England will continue to review the need for additional radiotherapy facilities outside those centres, if such facilities would benefit sufficient numbers of patients, be economically viable and enhance the existing care pathways.
It is possible that, as a result of those discussions, it will be found that more radiotherapy services are needed, but the optimum location will be determined by a number of criteria, including the impact on nearby trusts and existing cancer pathways—in other words, in trying to balance out one lack of access, we would not want to cause a problem elsewhere. Such decisions need to be looked at in the round in the local health economy. However, my hon. and learned Friend made good points about access, and I will ensure that those are underlined.
I understand that in 2009-10 there was a capacity review of radiotherapy provision for the Mount Vernon cancer network. That concluded that although the capacity to meet future demand up to 2016 could be met by the current providers, increasing access to the north of the network was an objective that needed looking at. My hon. and learned Friend underlined that point.
Sir Oliver Heald
It is remarkable that the county of Hertfordshire, which has 1.2 million people, does not have radiotherapy facilities at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgency of the matter is changed by the fact that the whole county—or at least most of it—has to go all the way down to London? That is a rather old-fashioned approach. I do not know whether she is prepared to ensure that my remarks, and the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), are relayed to NHS England.
Jane Ellison
I will certainly do that. I make a point of drawing the attention of the relevant clinical leaders to our debates, and to the strength of feeling expressed by Members on behalf of their constituents. I am of course happy to do that.
The siting of a satellite unit at either the Luton and Dunstable hospital or the Lister hospital in Stevenage was considered in the previous review, but given that the system already had sufficient capacity to meet future requirements, the report acknowledged that any satellite development would need to be planned as part of existing capacity, not additional capacity. In other words, services would have to transfer.
Any review should include an assessment of the best fit, to ensure that if a radiotherapy satellite service is a preferred solution, it is located in the right place. I understand all the points made about location and the county not having such a facility, but equally, looking purely at the geography and the county boundaries might not always lead one to completely the right conclusion. That point was, however, important and has been well underlined today. The unit has to be located in the right place, so that there is capacity, and so that the preferred location offers cost-effective treatment to a sufficiently large number of patients. That is the important point: the number of patients.
I understand, too, that my hon. and learned Friend is not talking about using old equipment, but looking at the location of new equipment. Furthermore, sometimes there is concern about involving what might be called the “penny packet” approach, scattering specialist services thinly to achieve better access. One of the challenges with that approach, however, is that while it can often make sense to people on the face of things—“Of course we want those services there”—there is always the caution about staff not getting the benefit of mutual support, and expertise in particular can become diluted. That approach might also make it sometimes more difficult to manage demand, as one unit might become overwhelmed while others are underworked.
Those factors need to be taken into account, and I underline the expertise one in particular. We all want our constituents to be seen by people who treat sufficient specialist health problems to be really expert in them. We want those experts to see enough patients to know what they are doing when they see something. Concentration of expertise is important in many areas of health and has been much focused on.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am suggesting a Mount Vernon operation—that it provides the service in the Lister. Mount Vernon would have two fewer machines, which we would have in the Lister. In that way, we hope that the expertise would be as good as it always has been, but people would not have to do the long journeys.
Jane Ellison
I completely understand that point. I expect local clinical leadership to understand the expertise and staffing available. All those factors will be taken in the round and looked at, because the work is specialist. I would expect the NHS to look at things such as his suggestion about the new machines at Mount Vernon. I will of course write, drawing attention to the particular concerns of my hon. and learned Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage about access and the travel distances. They, however, would in turn expect the local NHS to look at issues such as the distribution of expertise to ensure that the continuity of expertise was available.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. The local Lister hospital in Stevenage is part of the same trust as Mount Vernon. The chief executive and the cancer surgeons of the local hospital support the concept of a satellite radiotherapy unit, so the local NHS supports having such a unit in Stevenage, or nearby in Hertfordshire. The issue we have is with NHS England getting on and commissioning it. The problem is that we cannot understand how the NHS is getting travel times of 45 minutes.
Jane Ellison
I have certainly picked up from the debate the importance of the issue of travel times. I will make a particular point of drawing that to NHS England’s attention.
It is always heartening to hear that colleagues are so engaged with their local health leaders as to be working together on such things. I am sure that that will all be fed into the process of making a decision. That will have to look at the implications for the whole cancer pathway, and all the other patients who receive services as part of the cancer network.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage are hoping to meet the local NHS, as they detailed. Again, it sounds as if all the right people will be at that meeting. I strongly encourage colleagues to continue such meetings. Such a high level of engagement with local clinical leaders can only be to the benefit of their constituents. They will want to get the best and safest services for their constituents.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, who was supported by other right hon. and hon. Friends, on the debate and on their interest in the issue, which they are championing on behalf of their constituents. It is great to hear that they have the local newspaper, The Comet, involved, because it is always good for local newspapers to be involved in health campaigns, drawing attention to and explaining the issues to their readership. It sounds like a real commitment to fighting cancer in their part of the country. I commend them. I will draw the debate to the attention of those who will be interested, including NHS England. I am happy to continue to liaise with Members, and to hear how they get on with their discussions and the eventual outcome of the local review.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Files
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today regarding the inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
The Cabinet Office will support the inquiry and will work with the Home Office to ensure that Departments provide the inquiry with all relevant information.
As the House is aware, the Cabinet Office last week released to The National Archives a file containing information about a former United Kingdom High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman. This file is now public. This file should have been submitted to the review by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. I regret that the file was missed in error and was not submitted at the time. However, a similar set of papers was held in the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam. The complete and unredacted Cabinet Office file will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see it, and the inquiry. However Wanless has already confirmed that the file would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
As a result of the discovery of the Sir Peter Hayman file, the Cabinet Office has conducted additional searches of its extensive papers and files. Officials have identified four additional relevant files, one of which was marked for destruction pending further checks by the Cabinet Office and The National Archives. The Cabinet Office already has in place a process for reviewing its files scheduled for destruction. I am ensuring that relevant departments have a similar process in place. These files are being shared with the inquiry, the Hart inquiry, the relevant departments, and the Metropolitan Police Service. All the complete and unredacted files will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see them.
The files were found in a separate Cabinet Office archive of sensitive, historic papers. This archive, colloquially known as the Cabinet Secretaries’ file, was closed in 2007. It is largely uncatalogued and unregistered; a programme to review it has been underway since last year but remains in progress. Officials assure me that the available titles have now been searched and more detailed searches are ongoing. My officials will work with the inquiry to ensure it has the assurance it requires that all papers held by the Cabinet Office have been fully examined and that relevant papers are correctly identified and disclosed.
[HCWS251]
Care and Support Appeals System
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
Today I am publishing a consultation on draft regulations and statutory guidance to introduce the cap on care costs system that will complete the historic reforms set out in the Care Act. For the first time ever, the cap will protect people from the risk of catastrophic care costs and offer more people means tested financial support towards the costs of their care. Also included in this consultation are policy proposals for a new system of appeals that will enable people to challenge certain decisions made by local authorities under the Care Act.
This consultation continues the collaborative approach we have taken throughout the care and support reform programme and seeks views on the elements of the reforms that are due to come into force in April 2016.
Part one of the consultation focuses on funding reform and seeks views on draft regulations and guidance that will introduce the cap on care costs and extend access to means-tested financial support. The draft regulations and guidance set out the detail of how we propose to implement these reforms enabling local authorities to plan and prepare for implementation. Alongside this, the consultation sets out a small number of areas that we wish to further explore.
The introduction of a cap on care costs will provide people with greater clarity about what they will be expected to contribute towards the cost of their care and what help they can expect from the state. This will not only bring people much needed protection and peace of mind, but also certainty that will enable them to better plan and prepare. The extended access to means tested financial support will mean that more people will be eligible to receive financial support from their local authority towards their care costs.
Part two of the consultation seeks views on policy proposals for a new system of appeals for care and support under the Care Act and the need for a new system. These policy proposals flow from the broad consensus of support for a right of appeal that emerged as the Act progressed through Parliament. The policy proposals set the framework for a cost effective system for people to appeal against certain decisions made by local authorities under the Act which focuses on achieving early resolution.
I am placing a copy of the documents relating to this consultation in the Library of the House. These are also available on the Government’s website at: http://careact2016.dh.gov.uk. These comprise a consultation document, draft statutory guidance and regulations on the cap, policy proposals for an appeals system and an impact assessment.
[HCWS250]
Police Grant Report England and Wales
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House, the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2015-16” (HC 930). The report sets out my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s determination for 2015-16 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.
At the time the provisional police grant report was published on 17 December 2014, I said that I was also considering whether a limited amount of police capital grant would be reallocated to support the communications capabilities development (CCD) programme and emergency services mobile communications programmes (ESMCP). After careful consideration I have decided that £20 million will be reallocated to support the CCD programme. This will reduce overall infrastructure costs, maintain capabilities to comply with current legislation, and develop future communications capability. More time is needed to fully define the capital requirements for ESMCP in the future and so I have decided that it is not appropriate to reallocate funding for this programme in 2015-16.
This statement also includes details of other funding streams that the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Government intend to provide to the police in 2015-16.
The police grant settlement 2015-16
2015-16 | |
|---|---|
Total General Funding: | £m |
Comprising…. | |
Police Core Settlement | 4,309* |
of which Home Office Police Main Grant | 4,136 |
of which National and International, Capital City Grant (MOPAC only) | 174 |
Former DCLG funding | 2,851 |
of which formula funding | 2,818 |
of which Ordnance Survey | 2 |
of which Legacy Council Tax Freeze | 31 |
Welsh Government | 135 |
Total Home Office Specific Grants: | 822** |
Comprising…. | |
Welsh Top-up | 13 |
Counter Terrorism Police Grant | 564 |
Police Innovation Fund | 70 |
Police Knowledge Fund | 5 |
Independent Police Complaints Commission (for the transfer of integrity functions) | 30 |
College of Policing (for direct entry schemes) | 5 |
City of London National and International Capital City Grant | 3 |
HMIC (for PEEL inspection regime) | 9 |
Police Special Grant | 15 |
Major Programmes | 40 |
Legacy Council Tax Freeze Grants | |
of which Council Tax 2011-12 freeze grant | 59 |
of which Council Tax 2013-14 freeze grant | 7 |
of which Council Tax 2014-15 freeze grant | 3 |
Police Private Finance Initiatives | 73 |
Total Government Funding*** | 8,190 |
% cash change in Total Government Funding**** | -3.5% |
% real change in total Government funding | -4.9% |
* **Rounded to the nearest £m ***The police will also separately receive £434.4 million in local council tax support grant. This will be paid by the Home Office. ****This is the difference in total central Government funding to the police compared to 2014-15. The reduction in core Government funding (i.e. funding that is subject to damping) is 5.1%. |
2015-16 Police Capital | £m |
|---|---|
Police Capital Grant | 89.5 |
Police Special Capital | 1 |
Communications Capabilities Development (CCD) | 20 |
NPAS | 10.4 |
Total | 120.9 |
Local Policing Body | HO core (including Rule 1) | Welsh Top-up | Welsh Government | Ex-DCLG Formula Funding | Legacy Council Tax Grants (total from HO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | ||||
Avon and Somerset | 105.6 | - | - | 56.8 | 14.7 |
Bedfordshire | 40.6 | - | - | 23.5 | 4.6 |
Cambridgeshire | 48.8 | - | - | 24.5 | 6.0 |
Cheshire | 61.8 | - | - | 45.0 | 8.3 |
City of London | 18.5 | - | - | 33.8 | 0.1 |
Cleveland | 46.4 | - | - | 38.8 | 7.7 |
Cumbria | 28.9 | - | - | 31.0 | 4.8 |
Derbyshire | 62.5 | - | - | 37.9 | 8.7 |
Devon and Cornwall | 103.3 | - | - | 63.5 | 15.5 |
Dorset | 41.5 | - | - | 17.4 | 7.3 |
Durham | 43.0 | - | - | 37.2 | 6.1 |
Dyfed-Powys | 31.4 | 6.1 | 12.8 | 0.0 | - |
Essex | 103.4 | - | - | 56.3 | 13.1 |
Gloucestershire | 34.6 | - | - | 19.6 | 5.6 |
Greater London Authority | 1,040.1 | - | - | 754.1 | 119.7 |
Greater Manchester | 227.9 | - | - | 182.4 | 24.5 |
Gwent | 43.2 | - | 29.7 | 0.0 | - |
Hampshire | 120.7 | - | - | 63.5 | 12.9 |
Hertfordshire | 71.8 | - | - | 36.6 | 9.5 |
Humberside | 67.6 | - | - | 46.8 | 10.0 |
Kent | 106.9 | - | - | 67.0 | 13.3 |
Lancashire | 101.1 | - | - | 79.6 | 12.8 |
Leicestershire | 65.7 | - | - | 39.9 | 8.9 |
Lincolnshire | 38.6 | - | - | 20.4 | 6.8 |
Merseyside | 123.2 | - | - | 113.5 | 15.6 |
Norfolk | 50.5 | - | - | 28.9 | 9.3 |
North Wales | 45.4 | 6.5 | 21.3 | 0.0 | - |
North Yorkshire | 41.9 | - | - | 27.2 | 7.9 |
Northamptonshire | 43.4 | - | - | 24.3 | 6.6 |
Northumbria | 110.8 | - | - | 108.0 | 8.2 |
Nottinghamshire | 78.4 | - | - | 48.4 | 9.7 |
South Wales | 89.3 | - | 71.2 | 0.0 | - |
South Yorkshire | 101.2 | - | - | 77.9 | 10.9 |
Staffordshire | 66.9 | - | - | 40.2 | 11.3 |
Suffolk | 41.0 | - | - | 23.0 | 6.8 |
Surrey | 62.5 | - | - | 29.4 | 9.2 |
Sussex | 98.4 | - | - | 54.2 | 13.2 |
Thames Valley | 142.0 | - | - | 74.3 | 15.3 |
Warwickshire | 31.2 | - | - | 17.5 | 5.2 |
West Mercia | 66.7 | - | - | 43.6 | 12.0 |
West Midlands | 252.3 | - | - | 181.3 | 19.0 |
West Yorkshire | 172.5 | - | - | 130.1 | 16.7 |
Wiltshire | 37.7 | - | - | 20.8 | 5.2 |
Total England & Wales | 4,309.2 | 12.5 | 135.0 | 2,818.3 | 503.2 |
Local Policing Body | £m |
|---|---|
Avon and Somerset | 2.0 |
Bedfordshire | 0.8 |
Cambridgeshire | 1.0 |
Cheshire | 1.3 |
City of London | 0.7 |
Cleveland | 1.0 |
Cumbria | 0.7 |
Derbyshire | 1.2 |
Devon and Cornwall | 2.2 |
Dorset | 0.8 |
Durham | 1.0 |
Dyfed-Powys | 0.6 |
Essex | 1.8 |
Gloucestershire | 0.7 |
Greater Manchester | 4.5 |
Gwent | 0.9 |
Hampshire | 2.3 |
Hertfordshire | 1.1 |
Humberside | 1.4 |
Kent | 2.1 |
Lancashire | 2.1 |
Leicestershire | 1.3 |
Lincolnshire | 0.8 |
Merseyside | 2.6 |
Metropolitan | 23.7 |
Norfolk | 1.0 |
North Wales | 0.9 |
North Yorkshire | 0.8 |
Northamptonshire | 0.8 |
Northumbria | 2.5 |
Nottinghamshire | 1.4 |
South Wales | 1.9 |
South Yorkshire | 2.1 |
Staffordshire | 1.3 |
Suffolk | 0.9 |
Surrey | 1.2 |
Sussex | 1.8 |
Thames Valley | 2.9 |
Warwickshire | 0.8 |
West Mercia | 1.4 |
West Midlands | 4.8 |
West Yorkshire | 3.5 |
Wiltshire | 0.8 |
Total England & Wales | 89.5 |
[HCWS248]
EU Justice and Home Affairs Matters
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have prepared the fifth annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU)—“the treaties”—in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters. The report, which is today being laid before the House, is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Secretary of State for Justice.
On 9 June 2008 the then Leader of the House of Lords committed to table a report in Parliament each year setting out the decisions taken by the Government in accordance with protocol 21—“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”—and to make that report available for debate. These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.
The Minister for Europe confirmed this commitment on behalf of the coalition Government in 2011, and this is the fifth such report. It covers the period 1 December 2013 to 30 November 2014. For completeness, the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU—“the Schengen opt-out protocol”.
Over the period covered in the report, the Government took 33 decisions on UK participation in EU Justice and Home Affairs legislative proposals. Of these, the UK opted in to 21 proposals and did not opt in to 10 proposals. The Government have also taken two decisions to opt out of proposals under the Schengen opt-out protocol during the period covered by this report. At the point of publication, two EU legislative proposals are subject to ministerial and parliamentary consideration with regard to an opt-in decision. The report also provides an indicative list of legislative proposals which are expected to be brought forward over the next 12 months that are likely to require a decision on UK participation under the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in or Schengen opt-out protocols.
[HCWS249]
Better Workplace Pensions
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that today I intend to lay before Parliament draft regulations to ensure value for money in relevant occupational pension schemes, which provide money purchase benefits, through improved governance and measures to safeguard savers in qualifying schemes against high and unfair charges. I am also publishing the accompanying Government response to the October consultation on these measures, “Better workplace pensions: putting savers’ interests first”.
We are committed to building a pensions system that people can save into with confidence and that will help ensure financial independence in retirement. Over 5 million people have now been automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes. By 2018, 8 to 9 million people will be saving for the first time, or saving more towards their pension.
It is vital, therefore, that workplace pension schemes are run in the interests of members, whose savings will not be diminished by excessive charges.
Since these proposals were announced last March, we have been working closely with industry stakeholders, consumer representatives and regulators to develop the detailed regulations. Today’s Command Paper is therefore the culmination of an extensive and rigorous process of analysis and consultation. It provides a response to our recent consultation on the draft regulations to implement our proposed governance and charges measures for qualifying schemes. It also announces the next stage of our work to ensure full disclosure of costs and charges throughout the value chain in workplace pension schemes, as we plan to publish a joint call for evidence with the Financial Conduct Authority in spring 2015.
For relevant workplace personal pension schemes, the Financial Conduct Authority will be introducing corresponding rules to control charges and to establish Independent Governance Committees from April 2015. Their rules, together with our regulations, will ensure that savers are protected regardless of the type of workplace pension they are saving into.
Subject to parliamentary approval, these draft regulations will be a major step towards ensuring a positive outcome for millions of people in retirement.
[HCWS247]