House of Commons

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Monday 16 January 2017

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017

Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017.

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

1. What discussions he has had with local authorities on 100% business rate retention.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on enabling local authorities to retain 100% of business rates.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Councils have long campaigned for 100% business rate retention. Last week, we introduced the Local Government Finance Bill, which will establish the framework for the reform system. We will continue to work closely with local government during the passage of the legislation to shape the detail of the reforms.

[Steve Double]

I welcome the decision that Cornwall will be a pilot area for the retention of business rates. However, business rates in Cornwall are low, particularly when compared with urban areas. Will the Secretary of State reassure the people of Cornwall that Cornwall Council will not lose out on any funding as a result of the changes?

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that Cornwall will be one of the areas to pilot some elements of the new 100% business rate retention system. The pilot will help us to develop the system and make it work for all local authorities, including rural authorities. We have been clear in setting up the system that we will ensure redistribution between councils, so that areas do not lose out just because they collect less in local business rates.

[Mr Baker]

As you know, Mr Speaker, Buckinghamshire is the entrepreneurial heart of England. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the people of Wycombe that the needs-based review and the new business rate system will result in rebalanced service funding to reflect better economic growth in entrepreneurial areas such as ours?

[Sajid Javid]

I have visited the area with my hon. Friend several times, and he is right to call it entrepreneurial. Under the new business rates retention system, the redistribution of resources will continue, with baselines set through the fair funding review, so that all authorities are treated fairly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government was supportive in principle of the Government’s proposals when it considered this issue, but it wants a lot of details. A major question of detail that needs resolution is this: future demand for adult social care is likely to grow far more quickly than the growth in business rates, so does he recognise that, in addition to retaining 100% of business rates, local authorities will need additional funding for adult social care? Will he agree to a review to consider that?

[Sajid Javid]

I am sure that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee welcomes last month’s announcement of additional resources for adult social care, but he quite rightly points to the need for longer-term reform—something that the Government are taking seriously.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Government’s plans to devolve attendance allowance as part of business rates retention has caused great distress to the over 1 million elderly people who rely on it to maintain independence and remain in their own homes. Will the Secretary of State reassure them today that the reform will not in any way strip them of that vital allowance?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady highlights the fact that councils will have an additional £12.5 billion a year when the 100% retention reform takes place. More responsibilities need to be pushed down to councils as a result. She asks what might make up those responsibilities. We have not yet made a decision, but we will do so in due course.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

In two-tier local government, it is the district council that allocates land for important commercial development. Will the Secretary of State ensure that districts are appropriately awarded for taking often difficult decisions?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about districts and their role in promoting business and development. We introduced the Local Government Finance Bill last week. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that councils outside London can also promote business development districts.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The Government’s autumn statement showed an increase in business rates income to the Treasury of £2.4 billion in 2017-18, but that remains unallocated. Will the Secretary of State protect local people from massive council tax increases by investing that money in social care and ending the precept, as suggested in October by Unison, the largest trade union supporting careworkers?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will be fully aware that this country had a huge budget deficit back in 2010, thanks to the previous Labour Government. All areas of Government have had to make a contribution to dealing with that, including local government. I am sure that she will welcome the changes to adult social care that were announced last month.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the new system allow local authorities any discretion with regard to business rates levied on hospitals that, like Southampton general hospital, face a rather large increase in business rates following a revaluation?

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell my right hon. Friend that the new system does allow some discretion to councils, but I do not think it will apply to hospitals. It will apply to businesses, and only in one direction, but as he has made the point, I will take a further look.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), when the Government committed to letting local authorities keep 100% of business rate income, they promised, alongside that, commensurate further cuts to their funding from Whitehall. Given that the Local Government Association estimates that councils are already underfunded for their legal responsibilities, including social care, to the tune of almost £6 billion, when will the Secretary of State tell the House what further cuts in funding the people of England can expect their local services to suffer?

[Sajid Javid]

As we have publicly announced the numbers, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that 97% of councils have accepted the four-year budget deal and have come forward with efficiency offerings. In return, the Government have guaranteed the funding. That does not mask the fact that, of course, so many councils find it challenging to deal with their settlement, but many councils are able to deal with it. He should look at that carefully.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for adult social care.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Our actions through the spending review in 2015 and the provisional local government finance settlement have brought the total dedicated funding for adult social care to £7.6 billion over the four years from 2016 to 2020. How much a local council spends on adult social care is rightly a matter for local councillors, who know these pressures best.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Local Government Association has been clear that the money raised through increasing the social care precept will not be nearly enough to address the £2.6 billion gap facing adult social care by 2020. Instead of exacerbating the postcode lottery, will the Secretary of State not commit to additional ring-fenced resources for social care to tackle this crisis?

[Sajid Javid]

In the last spending review, the Government allocated an additional £3.5 billion a year by 2020 to adult social care. Just a few weeks ago, I announced £900 million of additional help over the next two years. Local councils do have to play a role in this, and I note that in Sunderland the average council tax bill is down in real terms since 2010. If a local council in Sunderland chooses to allocate more, it can do that.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

For many of my constituents the fundamental problem in all too many cases is that we still separate healthcare funding and social care provision. That makes no sense to my constituents and increasingly little sense to me. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to speed up the integration of health and social care provision, so that we can actually deal with patients’ needs in the round and put them, rather than budgetary arguments, first.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that adult social care is not all about money. Of course, money and resources have a huge role to play, but it is also about how those services are delivered. The many councils that are able to approach integration in a better way have seen significant efficiencies, and we can all learn from that.

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to the Secretary of State to face the House, so that we can all benefit from his mellifluous tones.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

19. Between 2010 and 2020, around £40 million will have been taken out of the adult social care budget in Hull. The effect could be seen this weekend in what is happening in our local NHS hospitals. Will the Secretary of State think again and make sure that the problems that local authorities such as Hull are facing are addressed by central Government ring-fenced money?

[Sajid Javid]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the announcement made a few weeks ago that tried to recognise the pressures that she identifies: there will be £900 million of additional funding over the next two years, on top of the £3.5 billion by 2020. She rightly highlights that we need to keep looking at this situation to see what more can be done.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). Most Members have had somebody come to their constituency surgery who desperately needs help, with local government and the health service agreeing that they need help with social care, but with both blaming each other, and it becoming a complete mess. Would it not be a good idea, on a cross-party basis, to look at a new model for social care?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out, and I have seen many situations such as he describes in my constituency. He also highlights the need for all of us to talk about this issue to see what we can do, working together.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

20. According to Stoke-on-Trent’s clinical commissioning group, there is, on average, a 26-day delay between someone being ready to leave Royal Stoke University hospital and getting social care in place, and that despite a £6 million subsidy from the CCG. Is that the fault of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, or is it because of the Government’s lack of funding?

[Sajid Javid]

Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that for many areas, delivering adult social care is challenging, which is why I know he would welcome our recent announcement of additional funding on top of the funding settlement announced in the spending review in 2015. But the Government also recognise that there needs to be a long-term, sustainable solution, and I know that is the reform he would welcome.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I spent a day with carers just before Christmas, seeing the amazing work they do across Rossendale. They, like me, feel frustrated that they are constantly under financial pressure, so will the Minister look at what can be done about increasing funding for social care, in addition to what we have already done, and making sure that the funding has a cast-iron ring fence to make sure that the money goes where it is needed most?

[Sajid Javid]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to look at the resources applied to adult social care, from both local councils and central Government, to make sure that they are adequate. We will also continue to push the case for reform to ensure that all councils realise that more can be done, besides just getting more funding.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that local authorities are able to move patients in need of social care from hospitals to a more appropriate facility in a timely manner, thus preventing bed-blocking?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that both my Department, working with local authorities, and the Department of Health have a role to play in doing just that; they are working together closely on integration plans with all local councils. Part of the funding— £1.5 billion a year by 2020, in the improved better care fund—is designed to do just what the hon. Lady suggests; it is money that goes towards trying to promote just such integration.

[Kate Hollern]

Library figures show that between November 2013 and November 2016, instances of bed-blocking for which social care needs were solely responsible increased by 89%. In the 12 months to November 2016 alone, bed-blocking has increased by 39%. Does the Minister recognise that the precept package brought forward by the Government in December is insufficient to solve the crisis in our social care system, and is putting further pressure on our already stretched NHS?

[Sajid Javid]

What the Minister recognises is that the additional funding announced in December will make a big difference: £240 million of additional money is coming in from the new homes bonus repurposing; and an additional almost £600—[Interruption.] It is new money. An additional almost £600 million is coming in from the precept changes. When it comes to using that money, we all want to see a reduction in delayed transfers of care. The hon. Lady will be aware of big differences between local councils on delayed transfers of care, and some councils can certainly learn from others.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with local authorities on long-term funding certainty.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

15. What discussions he has had with local authorities on long-term funding certainty.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Ninety-seven per cent. of councils have accepted our historic offer of four-year funding certainty, and the Local Government Finance Bill will ensure that councils keep 100% of locally collected taxes by the end of this Parliament.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The Secretary of State will be particularly aware that Worcestershire is a very attractive place to live, work and visit, and a particularly attractive place to retire to, which is why we have a disproportionately large elderly population. How is the Department factoring into its long-term funding plans the additional needs of areas with a more elderly population?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As a Worcestershire MP, I wholeheartedly agree with his opinion of our great county: it is a great place for anyone to visit, live and holiday in. I recognise that demographic pressures are affecting different areas in different ways, which is why we are undertaking a fair funding review to introduce a more up-to-date, transparent and fairer needs assessment formula—something that I know my hon. Friend will welcome.

[Mrs Gillan]

Mr Speaker, as you will know, the Secretary of State has received a proposal from Buckinghamshire County Council to create a new unitary authority to serve the whole county. He is also meeting the district councils, which are submitting to him a proposal for two unitary authorities. Will he confirm that he will give both those proposals equal and full consideration, including by consulting local residents, as happened in Dorset? Can he assure me that unitary status will not lead to any reduction in funding for Buckinghamshire residents?

[Sajid Javid]

I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance she seeks. Of course, I will give careful consideration to all proposals from local authorities, such as those in Buckinghamshire, including any financial implications. We need to ensure that any reform is right for local people and can deliver better services and strong local leadership.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I should declare that I am an elected member of the council of the London Borough of Redbridge. Local authorities such as mine face a double whammy of pressures from an ageing population and a high birth rate, which lead to funding pressures on our local authority. Does the Secretary of State accept that even if local authorities like mine divert resources from other council services into adult social care and charge the maximum social care precept available, they will still face a shortfall in funding for vital services for older people? What is he going to do about that?

[Sajid Javid]

The measures we announced in December will help the hon. Gentleman’s local authority; they will help every local authority in the land to deliver more adult social care services. Nevertheless, as I have said, as well as more money, we need reform. Some councils need to learn from others.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

A 2015 Public Accounts Committee report outlined a 37% reduction in central Government support for local authorities between 2010 and 2016. What does the Secretary of State have to say to my Bristol South constituents, who are concerned about how the £64-million cuts announced by Bristol City Council last week will affect them?

[Sajid Javid]

I say to the hon. Lady’s Bristol South constituents, “Don’t forget where a Labour Government gets you.” The deepest deficit of any developed country, the biggest recession in almost 100 years and the largest banking bail-out—all that has meant that this Government have had to make some difficult decisions, and every part of local government has had to contribute to that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-term financial stability of local government is a function of not only funding from Government but good management in local authorities? What does he think we can do to attract people with business experience to running good local government?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is also about leadership, which means local authorities having many businesses in their area and promoting them. They need someone with a good track record and experience from which local people would benefit. I can think of someone like that in the west midlands: Andy Street.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows full well that leaving patients in hospital when they are medically fit to be discharged, as has happened to 130 people currently at Aintree hospital, is a very expensive way of looking after people. Why is he not shouting from the rooftops for the £4.6 billion that was cut from social care to be reinvested, so that councils can address the problem now and in the long term?

[Sajid Javid]

Helping with adult social care is about resources, which is why I know the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the announcement a few weeks ago of an additional £900 million over the next two years. I am sure he will agree that it is also about reform, and that he will have noticed the big difference in delayed transfers of care between one authority and another.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

5. What plans he has to increase funding for social care.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have listened to calls from local government and to representations from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. New changes outlined in the provisional local government finance settlement in December provide access to an additional £900 million over the next two years.

[Tom Brake]

The social care precept in Sutton would raise about £2.5 million, but Sutton is losing £8 million in revenue support grant. A one-off social care grant will give Sutton about £750,000, but Sutton is losing £1.5 million from the new homes bonus changes, which are paying for the one-off grant, resulting in a loss of £800,000. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as long as the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul, we will see cancer operations cancelled and patients left in distress because of bed-blocking?

[Sajid Javid]

As a result of the spending review announcement of £3.5 billion extra to be paid into adult social care by 2020—£3.5 billion a year—and the announcement that I made a few weeks ago of £900 million over the next two years, all councils, including Sutton, will have more resources to deal with adult social care challenges.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State will agree that the progress made with Torbay’s integrated care organisation was very welcome, but does he also agree that it was concerning to see that very strict financial rules from NHS England are now prompting a renegotiation in terms of a risk agreement even though no extra money will be spent? Will he agree to work with the council, the trust and colleagues in the Health Department to see whether we can resolve this?

[Sajid Javid]

I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to see what can be done and to listen to the concerns that he raises. Torbay is a good example of how integration can work and how it can really help local people.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

6. What recent steps his Department has taken to help rough sleepers and homeless people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government are committed to tackling homelessness. We have launched a £50 million homelessness prevention package and are backing the most ambitious legislative reforms in decades through the Homelessness Reduction Bill. I am delighted that Chelmsford will be one of the country’s first homelessness prevention trailblazer areas announced by the Prime Minister last month.

[Sir Simon Burns]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that in the 21st century rough sleeping is totally unacceptable? Will he tell me more about what is being done not only in England as a whole but in Chelmsford to end this stain on our society?

[Mr Jones]

The whole House will agree that rough sleeping is totally unacceptable and that we should do all we can to end it. Our £20 million rough sleeping grant will fund 54 projects working to provide rapid response support for rough sleepers across England. It will help to prevent people from spending a night on the streets in the first place. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that Chelmsford will receive almost £900,000 funding for preventing homelessness in partnership with neighbouring local authorities.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. The inspirational ladies football player, Fara Williams, was homeless at 17, but went on to play 157 times for England, including as captain, and is now at Arsenal. Fara supports Centrepoint’s appeal for funds to set up the first national freephone helpline for 16 to 25-year-olds who are homeless and at risk of living a life on the streets, as she was. Does the Minister agree that that is a tremendous, long overdue initiative and that it should be funded by the Government?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to bring that prime example to our attention. The fact that somebody is rough sleeping does not mean that they do not have the ability to reach their full potential, but we need to encourage them to do that. The Government currently pay for a service called StreetLink, which people can ring, or use an app, to report those who are sleeping rough. The details are then brought to the attention of the local housing department.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council.

Will the Minister congratulate Kettering Borough Council and its inspirational housing director, John Conway, on the measures they have taken during the recent cold weather to get all rough sleepers off the streets in Kettering and give them the appropriate housing advice they need?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving that very important and heartening example. Some local authorities across the country are doing excellent work to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping, and the type of initiative he mentions should be followed by other local authorities.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On Wednesday, Glasgow City Council will consider a report that shows the devastating impact the universal credit roll-out is having on homelessness services in the city. So far, it has resulted in 73 homeless individuals racking up debts to the council of £144,000, an average of £1,971 per person. That is completely unsustainable both for the individuals and the council. What impact is the UC roll-out having on local authorities across the UK?

[Mr Jones]

The Government have increased discretionary housing payments to £870 million across this Parliament to mitigate some of the short-term challenges people face from the welfare changes. As for the local housing allowance rate, 30% of the savings from that policy will be repurposed to help people in the highest value areas with the challenges in affordability.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am afraid that is completely inadequate. Since 2011-12, welfare reform has meant that homelessness services in Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, have seen cuts of more than £6 million to their temporary accommodation budgets. Does the Minister not accept that really to help rough sleepers and people who are homeless there must be co-ordinated work across all Government Departments? We cannot have one Department undermining the services of another.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and I assure her that we are working extremely hard across Government through a cross-governmental working group, which I chair. She mentions the fact that temporary accommodation and the temporary accommodation management fee, which originates from Department for Work and Pensions policy, is being devolved to local authorities and to the Scottish Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Rather than patting themselves on the back, should not the Government be apologising for allowing rough sleeping to double since 2010? This is not an insoluble problem; it merely requires action such as that taken by the previous Labour Government, which cut street homelessness by three quarters. Will the Minister adopt the initiative announced last month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and commit to an extra 4,000 homes to end rough sleeping altogether?

[Mr Jones]

It will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman that under the Labour Government, in 2003, homelessness was at its peak. This Government are absolutely committed to making sure that we eradicate rough sleeping and we are working extremely hard, with a £20 million fund for local authorities, as I mentioned earlier, and £10 million for social impact bonds to get our most entrenched rough sleepers off the street.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

7. What estimate his Department has made of the number of high street store vacancies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)]

We have taken significant action to help high streets adapt to changing shopping habits and to thrive. Shop vacancy rates are well down from their peak in 2012 and figures from Savills estate agents show that investment in high street retail property last year was up 17% from the year before.

[Justin Madders]

High streets in my constituency continue to struggle, as they do up and down the country. My local authority does what it can, but the support it can give is limited. It needs Government intervention and support to make the necessary transformation. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other interested colleagues to see what can be done?

[Andrew Percy]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. The business rate revaluation will have a positive impact for his constituents, and I discussed the issue of high street regeneration with the chair of his local enterprise partnership, Christine Gaskell, just before Christmas, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss that. We are also looking at proposals that we are working up with Revo on how we can share best practice, because this is very much a varied picture across the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. Our small market towns are being stripped of their banks: there is no bank now in Caistor, and Market Rasen is down to one. What is the Minister’s policy to try to encourage more competition in the retail banking sector so that we can try to encourage banking in our rural towns?

[Andrew Percy]

This is an important point—the issue has affected my constituency—and one that I am happy to discuss further with the Treasury. The business rate revaluation will have a positive impact on retail property in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it will across many parts of the north and midlands.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure that adult social care is adequately funded.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

We recognise the pressures faced by the social care system. On top of the funding that we announced in 2015, which will deliver nearly £3.5 billion a year by 2019-20, we are providing an additional £900 million over the next two years for social care.

[Helen Goodman]

Unfortunately, Durham has already had to make £55 million-worth of cuts. The precept will bring in £4 million, but another £40 million of cuts are in the pipeline. Some villages will face private contractors being unable to afford to provide any social care whatsoever. May I suggest that the Minister go back to the Treasury and ask for another announcement on 8 March?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that Durham will benefit from the additional £900 million to which the Government are giving local authorities access over the next two years. It will also significantly benefit from the improved better care fund, which is £105 million this year, £825 million the following year and £1.5 billion in the last year of this Parliament.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Given that so much of the funding for adult social care goes towards care homes, and given that so many care homes are failing their Care Quality Commission inspections, will the ministerial team consider wrapping care home reform into the adult social care reform that has been announced? In particular, will they consider requiring local authorities to build new care homes, just as they have to build schools and GP surgeries?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestions—we are always willing to listen to those. As he might be aware, the Department of Health is looking carefully at how care homes are provided, and particularly at regulation and the role of the CQC.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Funding per head of population in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea is almost double that received by Enfield, and Enfield is facing spending pressures of £5.9 million in adult social care in 2017-18 alone. Can the Minister confirm not only that will he look at the ring-fencing issue, but that he is serious about properly reflecting the assessed needs of our communities in the future local government funding formula?

[Mr Jones]

I met the chief finance officer of Enfield Council last week, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), as part of the local government finance settlement consultation. The right hon. Lady will be aware that local authorities across the country will benefit from the £900 million that they will have access to over the next two years, and from the improved better care fund, which is ramping up quickly over the next three years.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to enhance and extend neighbourhood plans.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

The Neighbourhood Planning Bill and my recent written ministerial statement will further strengthen neighbourhood planning, ensuring that communities have the ability to shape the development of their area, not speculative development.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the Minister for that welcome answer. It has been encouraging to watch local communities develop their neighbourhood plans over the past few years. Will the Minister clarify how much time councils and communities will have to update their neighbourhood and local plans once data on new housing numbers have been published, and will he ensure that neighbourhood and local plans carry full weight for that period?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. The Government’s expectation is that plans should be reviewed every five years, but when new data come to light it does not mean that existing plans are automatically out of date.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister ensure that when we have neighbourhood plans we involve local and national businesses more in the planning procedure? So many of the global and national chains suck the money out of our communities, and many of them put little investment back. What incentives can he introduce?

[Gavin Barwell]

First, there is the possibility of having neighbourhood plans purely for business district areas, which the hon. Gentleman might want to look at in his constituency. There is also the wider issue of ensuring that we capture the uplift in value when businesses apply for planning permission, and there is a review of the community infrastructure levy and section 106 on my desk at the moment.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the hundreds of people in Mid Sussex who have devoted a great deal of time to putting together neighbourhood plans, and will he assure us that in his White Paper steps will be taken to secure the integrity of the plans?

[Gavin Barwell]

I pay tribute not only to the people my right hon. Friend mentions but to him, because he has been a huge champion of neighbourhood planning in Mid Sussex and has spoken about it repeatedly. I hope that my written ministerial statement has helped addressed some of his concerns, but there will certainly be further action in the housing White Paper.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Pressure on local authority budgets is leading local authorities to encourage the building of high-cost homes to boost the council tax take. That completely misses the point regarding the local need for starter homes and affordable family homes. What can be done to encourage and, indeed, perhaps to incentivise local authorities to ensure that housing need is matched by housing provision?

[Gavin Barwell]

The national planning policy framework is very clear on that point. When local authorities conduct their assessments of housing need, they should not just look at the total number of homes required, but the right mix of housing to cater for the demographic profile including, for example, the number of elderly people who might need specialist housing. The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to that issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I very much welcome the increase in housing starts, the number of which has doubled since the first quarter of 2009. To get to the level we need, we need a resurgence of small and medium-sized house builders. Does the Minister agree that we need local authorities and local communities to allocate more small sites in their local plans and neighbourhood plans?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are far too dependent, at this point in time, on a small number of large developers. Therefore, we need to ensure that the land that has attracted small developers is released and that those developers have access to finance.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to promote the building of more homes.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

Since July, we have announced: a £3 billion fund to support small and medium-sized enterprises; an additional £1.4 billion for affordable housing; a £2 billion accelerated construction programme; a £2.3 billion infrastructure fund; funding for starter homes; and support for 17 garden towns and villages. The White Paper will contain further measures.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, of which I am the chairman, published its findings into the quality of new build housing. Would he be willing to meet the all-party group to discuss our findings and our suggestions of inclusions in the forthcoming White Paper?

[Gavin Barwell]

I would be delighted. I have attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector, which my hon. Friend also chairs; he is a busy man. He is quite right to say that, as we address the fundamental challenge of getting the country to build the homes we desperately need, we must not lose sight of quality as well as quantity.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is very busy. He has many commitments and an extremely full diary. I do not think that anybody doubted the point.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is Westminster City Council right to expect other local authorities across the south-east and as far as the midlands to take on the responsibility of housing as well as providing education and social care for London’s people in housing need?

[Gavin Barwell]

I would think that London MPs, Westminster councillors and, indeed, everybody would expect that, as much as possible, local authorities should meet the need to house in their area those who are homeless in their area. Our guidance is clear about that. The fact that some local authorities have to place people outside their areas is an indictment of the failure of the country, over 30 or 40 years, to build enough homes. We are going to put that right.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Local authorities and communities are incentivised to deliver vital new homes through the new homes bonus. However, very few residents are aware of the new homes bonus, so do not see the gain of development. Does the Minister agree that local authorities should set out how they spend their new homes bonus in the annual council tax bill statement?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am happy to look into. There is a wider issue of ensuring that communities see the benefit of new housing. With the community infrastructure levy and section 106 payments, we must ensure that communities know the benefits that they are getting in return for accepting housing.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Dudley would be able to do much more in the area if its budgets were not being cut by 20% compared with just 1% in Surrey and 2% in Buckinghamshire. That has put pressure on a whole range of council services, not just housing. For instance, libraries are closing and social services are under pressure. Over Christmas, hard-working, low-paid staff in Dudley had to take three days unpaid leave—effectively a pay cut of 1%—because of this Government’s cuts. How can Ministers sit there and tell me that the cuts they have imposed on Dudley are in any way fair?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly creative. The question was actually about building more homes. I point out to him that, over the course of this Parliament, the Government are doubling the housing capital budget, which will enable more homes to be built in his area.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

11. What progress has been made in the review of business rates.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government concluded the business rates review in March 2016. Following the review, the Government announced a £6.7 billion cut in business rates over the next five years and a permanent doubling of small business rate relief. As a result, 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister, but has he done any serious analysis of the process in order to give any comfort to the hard-pressed average high street currently competing against the internet and trading in very, very difficult circumstances?

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no doubt that many external factors do challenge our high streets, but there is a significant package of £6.7 billion. He may want to encourage some of the business owners on his high street to check the revaluation of their business rate following the 2017 business rate revaluation, which is now online.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of homeless people sleeping rough between 2010 and 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

No one should ever have to sleep rough. Our £20 million grant fund will help those new to the streets. The £10 million for eight social impact bonds covering 48 areas will build on the success of the world’s first social impact bond, which we funded in London. This has helped over 400 entrenched rough sleepers to get back on to their feet and into accommodation.

[Holly Lynch]

I appreciate that response, yet Calderdale Council tells me that the number of non-statutory rough sleepers in our district has never been higher. While local charities are doing everything they can to tackle homelessness, the council’s supporting people budget has been slashed by 50%. Does the Minister agree that unless we support and empower our local authorities to do this work properly, we stand no chance of reducing the numbers sleeping rough on our streets?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Lady will know, this Government are backing the Homelessness Reduction Bill, currently going through the House, which will put a number of obligations on local authorities to help people earlier so that they do not become homeless. The announcement on funding for that Bill will be made very shortly. We are also, as she has heard, providing £50 million to start that work at this point so that we do not waste time waiting for the legislation to come into effect.

[Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)]

In Derby city we are currently looking at alternative ways of giving to homeless people, such as vouchers, an app, or through a website. Will the Minister consider looking at these alternative giving methods to see whether it is possible to take them forward?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is generally for members of the public to consider the way in which they might want to give to homeless people. As I have said a number of times today, the Government are absolutely focused on helping rough sleepers. The £10 million being put into the social impact bond will help to get some of the most entrenched rough sleepers off the street, and I am sure that is what we all want to see.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of permitted development rights on pub closures.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)]

Pubs are at the heart of community life. That is why we have made provision for assets of community value to be placed on the register by communities that value their pub. That takes away the permitted development rights automatically.

[Mr Shuker]

The co-operative pub model is saving valuable locals right across the country, but the asset of community value designation process that the Minister mentions, which enables this in the first place, can often be far too clunky and lengthy. Would not a better approach be to remove permitted development rights and protect all pubs by default?

[Andrew Percy]

There are now already in excess of 1,750 pubs listed as assets of community value. The moment a nomination goes in, the permitted development rights are removed. Moreover, local authorities are free, if they wish, to apply for an article 4 direction to remove those rights across a whole area.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

As the hon. Gentleman now knows, the Minister for Housing and Planning was misled by the British Beer and Pub Association about the fact that removing permitted development rights would not have any effect on improvements to pubs, so will the Department now confirm that it would simply change the use class order?

[Andrew Percy]

As I have made clear, this is an area where we have to balance competing interests. I am keen to continue looking at it as I continue in this role. We want to support community pubs. That is why today I can announce to the House that we are providing £50,000 of funding to Pub is The Hub, which will help more pubs to be transformed and to be valued by their communities. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who has lobbied me quite hard on this.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to raise standards in the private rented sector.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

We are in the process of introducing banning orders for serious offenders, civil penalties of up to £30,000, a database of rogue landlords, and mandatory licensing for smaller houses in multiple occupation; and we are banning letting agency fees.

[Mike Kane]

Manchester is doing some very innovative work on cracking down on rogue landlords, but there are issues with the geographical scope of the licensing scheme. Will the Minister meet me, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Residential Landlords Association to see how we can raise standards together?

[Gavin Barwell]

We have in the past provided £100,000 of funding to Manchester for this work. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. This is a critical area, and we need to drive out the rogue landlords so that decent landlords do not face unfair competition.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Peterborough City Council is just about to commence a selective licensing scheme to crack down on rapacious slum landlords and protect vulnerable tenants under the Housing Act 2004. Will the Minister keep under review the bureaucratic burden that falls on local authorities? The whole process, from start to finish, is not timely and takes far too long.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am very happy to give that undertaking, and to meet my hon. Friend if he wishes to discuss these matters in more detail.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to support the midlands engine for growth.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the autumn statement, we will shortly publish a midlands engine strategy. This will include £392 million for our local growth fund for the midlands engine local enterprise partnerships.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I was delighted to see that he led the first ever midlands engine trade mission last year. Will he update the House on progress on that?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has also done a lot to champion business and economic growth in the midlands. That first mission—the trade mission to north America—went well. It went so well that we went ahead with a second mission—to China—for the midlands region. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are working with the Department for International Trade and other Departments across Government, and we will shortly publish a midlands engine strategy, reaffirming our commitment to the area.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

At DCLG, we are starting 2017 as we mean to go on. The housing White Paper is nearing completion. The Local Government Finance Bill was published last week and, as we have heard, it creates the framework for business rate retention. It also features what my briefing refers to as discretionary relief on public toilets, which is, I am sorry to say, not quite what the name suggests.

[Mr Betts]

I will try not to follow the Secretary of State’s joke.

I thank the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse for his helpful comments in support of the Sheffield city region in the last few days. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government want the city region deal to go ahead as agreed and that they do not support this vague concept of a mayor for Yorkshire, which will not deliver better local services or improve economic growth and which is, arguably, outwith the legal framework for mayoral combined authorities contained in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016?

[Sajid Javid]

It is very good of the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, to thank the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse. We remain strongly committed to the devolution deal for the Sheffield city region. We will continue to work with local leaders, who have proposed a mayoral election for May 2018. We will also continue to discuss with local partners proposals for a devolution deal elsewhere in Yorkshire, including Leeds.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T4. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to creating a housing market that works for everyone. In my own local authority area of North West Leicestershire, new housing starts are now 273% higher than they were in the year ending September 2010. May I give the Secretary of State a challenge as he sets out his new housing White Paper: can we do even better?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

I hope we can rise to the challenge. If every local authority was building at the rate that my hon. Friend’s local authority is building, we would be building 370,000 homes a year. That is a sign that it is possible to build the homes that this country needs; it just requires the political will to do it.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

My question is for the Secretary of State: where is his housing White Paper? We were promised it in the autumn. We were then promised it alongside the autumn statement, then before the end of the year, and then first thing in the new year. We were told that it was in the Government’s grid for publication today. It has been delayed more times than a trip on Southern rail. I say to the Secretary of State: what is the problem?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long for the housing White Paper. When he sees it, he will see that it does a lot more than happened under the previous Labour Government. When he was the Housing Minister, I understand house building fell to its lowest level since the 1920s.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman has shown us exactly what the problem is: the huge gap between the Government’s rhetoric on housing and their record. Under Labour, we saw 2 million new homes, 1 million more homeowners and the largest investment programme in social housing for a generation. For seven years under Tory Ministers, we have seen failure on all fronts—higher homelessness, fewer homeowners and less affordable housing. Even the Housing Minister has said that affordable housing is “unacceptably low” and “feeble”. Does the Secretary of State agree, and what is he going to do in his White Paper to deal with this crisis?

[Sajid Javid]

Under Labour, we saw housing affordability, measured by median income compared with the average house price, double—going up from three and a half times to seven times. We saw the number of first-time buyers fall by 55%, and the number of units available for social rent decline by 421,000. That is Labour’s record on housing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Short questions and answers, please, because there is a lot of interest. A single sentence will do.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

T5. Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils are preparing a new local plan, and have consulted on the options for meeting development need using the green belt. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that green-belt land is vital to preserving the character of places such as Chesham and Amersham and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and should not be developed other than in truly exceptional circumstances?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The purposes of the green belt are very clear. It should preserve the setting and the special character of historic towns—for example, those in her constituency. Where councils look at the green belt, they should always make sure that the national planning policy framework rules are met: the circumstances must be exceptional, and brownfield land should always be prioritised.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T2. The recent publication of the voluntary right-to-buy pilot schemes for housing association tenants shows that very few completions were achieved in return for the enormous time and effort expended. New affordable housing is a key element in Cambridgeshire’s devolution deal. Will the Minister promise no distraction from the opportunity this gives us to build the supply of homes needed in our area?

[Gavin Barwell]

Voluntary right to buy provides replacement affordable housing. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting it, because it helps people who could not otherwise own their home to do so and provides new affordable housing.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T8. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced an extra £7 billion fund to expand the Government’s affordable housing programme. I welcome this, and it will help my constituents. However, there is also a concern that the need for new homes will outweigh the need to protect our greenfield land, so will the Minister assure my constituents that he remains committed to it?

[Gavin Barwell]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I congratulate her on championing brownfield land. The new brownfield registers that we are introducing will help to ensure that development is, rightly, focused on brownfield first.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Does the Minister agree that available housing provision is the key to reducing homelessness and that his Government should look to the Welsh Labour Government’s legislative pledges of £5.6 million in 2015 and £3 million in following years to fund affordable homes to rent as well as to buy?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Lady will have heard, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adding £1.4 billion to the affordable housing budget. We are doubling the housing capital budget over this Parliament. That is not rhetoric, but proof of our commitment to delivering the housing that is needed.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

T9. Together with the starter home land fund, the new locally led Welborne garden village in Fareham will deliver new homes and support first-time buyers. Will my hon. Friend explain how the Government are working with local authorities to deliver the new garden villages, and will he agree to visit Fareham to see how the local community will benefit from this new scheme?

[Gavin Barwell]

It was a pleasure to announce support for 14 new garden villages, which will between them provide 48,000 new homes, and it would be a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the progress being made.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T6. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is proposing to cut children’s centres. Does the Secretary of State think that is acceptable?

[Sajid Javid]

Every council needs to provide certain statutory services, including children’s services. We want to make sure that every council is properly funded. Stoke-on-Trent council, like many others, has accepted the four-year settlement, and that is good news.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T10. Labour city councillors in Lincoln are determined to build homes on the Swanpool floodplain in the heart of our city, even though a private developer decided that the site was unsuitable. What message will my right hon. Friend want to give Labour councillors such as ours who act in such a reckless manner?

[Sajid Javid]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on a specific planning case, but we have strict, clear rules that say that councils must consider strict tests under the national planning policy framework that protect people and property from flooding. Where those tests are not met, that development should not go ahead.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. A year ago, local authorities were hit with a £200 million in-year cut in public health support. The Select Committee on Health described it as a “false economy” that will add to future health costs. What impact does the Minister believe those cuts will have on health inequalities, and will he meet me and representatives from Hounslow so that they can raise their concerns about the impact on children and others in the community?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

As 25% of Government expenditure takes place through local government, there will always be situations where funding has to be reduced. As the hon. Lady knows, the health budget is being increased by £10 billion across this Parliament. In terms of public health, I think the cuts she mentioned equate to about 1% to 2%, which was not ideal. I am sure that local government is more than able to meet the challenge.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

While it may be true that Ministers have been in touch with councils directly hosting proposed new garden villages, they have not necessarily been in touch with neighbouring councils, which may be more affected by the proposals than those hosting the development. May I suggest that Ministers spread their nets a little wider when deciding which schemes to promote and, in my case, contact Basildon and Thurrock Councils as a matter of urgency?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me outside the Chamber, and I will make sure that both he and the council have the information. The scheme has not yet gone through the planning systems; there will be every opportunity to address concerns.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In 2009-10, there were 40,000 building starts for social rented homes. Last year that was down to 1,000. Why is that?

[Sajid Javid]

The number of socially rented homes declined by 421,000 during Labour’s time in office. Since the change of Government in 2010, we have invested billions in socially rented homes, including the additional £1.4 billion that was announced in the autumn statement.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Last week, Bath received £259,000 of funding as part of the rough sleeping grant. Will the Minister join me in endorsing the great work of the council and charities such as Julian House, the Genesis Trust and Developing Health and Independence, as they put together those plans to ensure that no one else ends up with a winter on the streets?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I certainly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. That was exactly what we wanted to achieve with the funding that we provided: local authorities working with charitable and third sector organisations to deliver the support that we need and all want for people who are rough sleeping and homeless.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Today is Martin Luther King Day, which we have just celebrated in your state rooms, Mr Speaker, by launching Freedom City 2017, the year-long festival that commemorates the 50th anniversary of Dr King’s visit to Newcastle to receive an honorary doctorate from the university. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), the shadow Minister for diversity, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), the sadly outgoing US ambassador Matthew Barzun and you, Mr Speaker, all spoke to King’s great work and the challenges he highlighted of race, poverty and war. Mr Speaker, you emphasised the need to champion those values exemplified by King in our House and also our communities. Does the Minister agree that Freedom City 2017 provides an excellent opportunity to do just that?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. She is quite right to point out the importance of Martin Luther King on this day, which is a celebration of his life and work. We would all do well to remember what he taught us, and one thing that he said is that we must live together as brothers or we all perish as fools. We can all learn from that, no matter who we are, whether in the US or the UK.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the housing White Paper envisage a greater role for the public sector?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that this Government want to see everybody get involved in building more homes, so if he is referring to local councils and their role, then absolutely: the more people who can get involved in building the homes we need, the better.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Councils across the country are highlighting the enormous gap between what the social care precept raises and the increased costs of social care as a consequence of the increase in the minimum wage and increasing needs among the population, as well as the cuts that they—the councils—are already having to make. Does the Secretary of State accept that his approach to social care funding is simply not credible, and will he commit to taking a different approach to ensure that people across the country get the care that they need?

[Sajid Javid]

We have taken the pressures on our social care very seriously. The hon. Lady will know from the announcement of just a few weeks ago about an additional £900 million for the next two years, which will make a difference. We also accept that there is more to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I want to hear the conscience of Christchurch. I call Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Last summer, the nine Dorset councils submitted a proposal to my right hon. Friend to establish a combined authority. Will he ensure that the order establishing that authority is brought forward in sufficient time to enable the authorities to be set up on 1 April this year?

[Sajid Javid]

[Official Report, 19 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 6MC.]We have only just received the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers. We want to make sure that we take the right amount of time to consider it carefully. Whatever the result, we will make sure that enough time is allowed for this House to do its business.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that Bristol has been named as one of the trailblazers for homelessness prevention and is getting additional money for it. Does the Minister share my concern, however, that in some cases it is far more attractive for landlords and developers to move into providing houses in multiple occupation or emergency accommodation rather than providing decent, proper family homes?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Yes, I certainly understand the hon. Lady’s point when it comes to the practice of flipping temporary accommodation for the uses that she mentions. We hope that the devolution of the temporary accommodation management fee will make it far more attractive for people to be able to maintain temporary accommodation in the way we want it to be provided.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

The new garden village at Deenethorpe will bring thousands more new homes to East Northamptonshire. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that new infrastructure to support those new homes will be at the forefront of his mind as this project progresses?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, given that it is part of the concept of garden villages. More generally, if we want communities to accept more housing, we have to make sure that we get the infrastructure in place at the same time. That is why the Chancellor’s announcement of a £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund was so welcome.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry that we have run out of time. I shall, however, take one more question. I call Imran Hussain.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Last month, I asked the Health Secretary how many local authority leaders he had met to discuss social care. The answer was not very positive, so I ask this Secretary of State how many cash-strapped local authority leaders he is willing to meet to discuss the real crisis in social care.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I have met a number of local authority leaders in the last few weeks, as a result of local government finance settlement consultations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done the same, and we will continue to meet local authority leaders and chief executives to understand the challenges that they face.

Points of Order

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

15:37

[Hon. Members]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to save up the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—he is a specialist delicacy.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have seen reports at the weekend that the Prime Minister is now blaming family doctors for the NHS crisis. It is not the fault of GPs that social care has been cut or that general practice is underfunded. Has the Prime Minister or the Health Secretary given you notice that they are going to come to the House to make a statement, or should we assume that they want to avoid scrutiny for their floundering response to this NHS crisis?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that I have received no indication of an intention for a Government Minister to make a statement on that matter. I have received notification of other intended statements for the coming days, but that is not among their number.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Tuesday at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, the Foreign Secretary was asked whether the UK would be participating in yesterday’s summit in Paris on the Israeli-Palestine peace situation. He told us that we would be participating and would “reinforce our message”, yet we read in press reports today that, alone among the western nations, the UK had no Minister present, and only a civil servant was sent to observe without the authority to sign the final communiqué. Have you been given notice that the Foreign Secretary intends to make a statement on the summit, and if not, what can Members do to compel the Foreign Secretary to divulge the full intentions of his Department when answering questions?

[Mr Speaker]

In the short time—approximately 20 months, I think—for which I have known the hon. Gentleman, I have come to realise what a persistent fellow he is. In response to the last part of his observations—about what can be done, and what facilities or recourses are open to him—let me say that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the concept of the written question and, I think, with the location of the Table Office, in which he can submit such questions. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I rather suspect that he will keep raising the matter.

I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. He has registered it with force, and what he has said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. If the Foreign Secretary feels that inadvertently the House has been misled—it is not immediately clear to me that the words were inaccurate; it may be that there has been a change of mind, which is not without precedent in our proceedings—no doubt he will take steps to correct the record. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman can go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step in the knowledge that he has put his point forcefully on the record.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House, but you in particular, will want to join me in paying tribute to the great Professor Anthony King, who was one of our country’s foremost political academics, psephologists and commentators, and who made a huge contribution to public life. He helped to educate thousands of young people in Britain, including yourself, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and, of course, me—although, as I recall, Mr Speaker, you were the only one who got a first. I am sure that you and the whole House will want to pay tribute to the late Professor King.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and, more particularly, I rather imagine that Professor Anthony King’s widow, Jan, will be especially appreciative when she hears of the noble step that the hon. Gentleman has taken today. Colleagues will doubtless have noted that Professor King died last week, aged 82, after a stellar career and vocation as one of the most distinguished political scientists of this generation. He was a brilliant teacher, he was an outstanding communicator, not least on television when giving his analysis of by-elections, and he was a prodigious and illuminating writer. Personally, I feel every day a sense of gratitude to Tony for what he did for me; and God, I must have been an awkward student to teach 30 years ago—[Interruption.] And, indeed, I still am. He stuck with me, and I am hugely grateful.

The hon. Gentleman and I got to know each other at the University of Essex 30 years ago, and I say in affectionate tribute to him that he is as noisy today as he was when he used to heckle me in student union meetings between 1982 and 1985.

Tony King was a great man who did wonders for the study and teaching of political science in the United Kingdom, and we should honour his memory.

BILL PRESENTED

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Paul Flynn, supported by Kelvin Hopkins, Ronnie Cowan, Mark Durkan, Kerry McCarthy, Kate Green, Michael Fabricant, Mike Wood, Yvonne Fovargue, Dr Philippa Whitford and Siobhain McDonagh, presented a Bill to enable persons in England to withhold consent for organ donation and transplantation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 123).

National Citizen Service Bill [Lords]

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:43

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The National Citizen Service is a huge success. More than 300,000 young people have taken part, and many of them say that the NCS has changed their lives forever. For those who do not know, the NCS is a summer programme that lasts for up to four weeks, with no cost to parents who cannot afford it. It is open to all 15 to 17-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the foundational strength of the programme is that it brings together people from all backgrounds. There is a focus on fun, and personal and social development, along with the design and delivery of a social action project. As Michael Lynas, the chief executive of the NCS Trust, has written:

“We build bridges across social divides and ladders to opportunity. We bring young people together in common purpose to change their perspectives and lives for good…Above all we try to show them that life is not a spectator sport.”

I got a sense of how transformational the programme is when I visited Liverpool last summer and met representatives of Everton football club’s NCS project. There was tremendous enthusiasm, and I was told by several people that they had become firm friends with neighbours from the same street whom they had not previously known at all. That is not untypical. An independent Ipsos MORI evaluation found that the vast majority of NCS graduates leave feeling more positive about people from dissimilar backgrounds and about themselves. Expanding the horizons of young people while increasing social cohesion is a massive win-win.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to warmly thank NCS East for its superb work in helping young people in Peterborough to develop as good citizens, one of whom, Tapiwa Tandi, is beginning a work experience scheme with me tomorrow?

[Karen Bradley]

I suspect that a theme of this debate will be the experiences that we have all had in our constituencies with NCS graduates, and the enthusiasm and self-belief that doing NCS projects gives them. I commend my hon. Friend on taking his NCS graduate into his office. I look forward to hearing how that work experience goes.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have also been impressed when I have visited NCS in Bradford, but I wonder what the Secretary of State’s response is to the National Audit Office report about the NCS, which says that it has not met its participation targets in six years and that the cost works out at an estimated £1,863 for every youngster who is expected to take part. What is the Government response to that NAO report?

[Karen Bradley]

I welcome the NAO report because it is important, with any programme of this type, that we understand value for money and what is being achieved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that this was a very ambitious target. We have had great success in getting towards that target, but there is still more to do. The Bill is important so that more of the young people such as those he has met in his constituency will have the chance to participate in the NCS.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that more than 3,000 people from Lancashire have had the benefit of the NCS, including some 71 from my constituency last year—I saw the figures today? Has she, like me, been struck when she has visited NCS programmes by how well they have reached out to two particular groups: those from lower income families; and, most importantly, disabled constituents, who have been greatly involved in these programmes and have played a vital role in making sure that they are so successful?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that the NCS has an above-average success rate in reaching those hardest-to-reach young people. We have all seen NCS projects in which there are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, young people with disabilities and young people from more affluent backgrounds, all working together with the common purpose of achieving their social action project, and in doing so making lifelong friends. That work should be commended. I am very pleased to hear that 71 people from my hon. Friend’s constituency were involved last summer, and I am sure there will be more this summer.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I concur with all the positive things that have been said about the NCS. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking former Prime Minister David Cameron for all that he did to drive the programme forward, Lord Blunkett, who was also a key guiding hand behind the project, and my friend Michael Lynas, who has taken this from a small seed to the great success that we see today?

[Karen Bradley]

I will, of course, join my hon. Friend in so doing. Former Prime Minister David Cameron is now chair of the patrons board of NCS. The work that he achieved in government will have a lasting legacy. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that the noble Lord Blunkett has been instrumental in this, as has Michael Lynas, the NCS chief executive. They have done great work to get this far. Let us remember that that has been achieved from a standing start, and that 300,000 young people have now gone through the programme. Congratulations are definitely in order.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

When I went along to the end-of-project session at Somerset College in Taunton Deane, I was impressed by the confidence of the children who had undertaken the course and the skills that they had gained. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in these days when we are trying to upskill our young people and to make them fit for business—even if it is just by teaching them to be polite and to communicate—we ought to promote this scheme much more widely because it has such a great future?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is why we want to grow the NCS as quickly as possible, in a way that is sustainable and that continues to be successful.

We have all seen the sense of self-worth and confidence that working in a team can give to young people, and I have seen them achieving some really stretching targets. That is a fantastic testament to the scheme, and we want to see more people taking part in it. The NCS can break down barriers just at the time when they could become entrenched, and 95% of participants said that the NCS had allowed them to get to know people whom they would not normally expect to meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made that point a moment ago.

Although the programme is for young people, it is not only the young who benefit from it. For example, NCS participants have prepared and distributed care packages to the parents of premature babies in east Durham, raised funds for the Huntington’s Disease Association on Merseyside, and built a sensory garden for the residents of a Weymouth care home. Moreover, volunteering can become a lasting habit. The NCS Trust estimates that in the 16 months following the summer programmes, the 2013 and 2014 graduates did an additional 8 million hours of volunteering in their communities. The Government are determined that the NCS should become even more popular and successful, but adventure and inspiration need to be underpinned by nuts and bolts, which is what the Bill puts in place.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karen Bradley]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove).

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I, too, would like to thank and congratulate everyone involved in delivering the NCS in Corby and east Northamptonshire. My right hon. Friend has said a lot about the benefits of the scheme. Does she also agree that employability is one of its key achievements, as young people learn lots of skills that transfer well into the workplace?

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely agree. The soft skills that the NCS can bring to young people make them much more employable and much more valuable in the workplace. That is exactly what we want to see from the NCS, among its many other benefits.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

When I visited Somerset’s NCS scheme in Exmoor last summer, I was struck by the number of students from previous years who had returned to be leaders and mentors. Is there any way in which the Secretary of State could reward those who go back as leaders and give them recognition for that further service?

[Karen Bradley]

We have announced a long-term review of young people in volunteering. My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion about the way in which the NCS can encourage volunteering within the scheme in future years.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the examples that she has set out demonstrate clearly the Government’s continuing commitment to the big society and that, in contrast to some of the mischievous reporting in some of the media, that is wholly compatible with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s welcome promotion of the shared society?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. This is an aspect of a country and a Government that work for everyone, and of the shared society that we all want to be part of. I shall now give way to my newly knighted hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier).

[Mr Speaker]

A Kentish knight, no less.

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

We did that last week, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Not everyone was here then, so I thought that that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an encore.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.

Speaking as a huge supporter of the NCS, locally as well and nationally, does my right hon. Friend agree that the adventure content is critical? We must be careful about the continuing erosion of adventure in residential centres up and down the country, in terms of both numbers and quality, if the NCS is to continue to deliver success.

[Karen Bradley]

I agree that the adventure side of the programme is incredibly important—it might mean that some young people get to reach the dizzying heights of being a knight of the realm like my hon. Friend—and represents an opportunity for young people to be away from home and to manage in an outward bounds situation. I met some young people from Liverpool who had camped in the Peak district, just outside my constituency, and they were astonished to discover just how hilly some bits of the country are and how cold they can be at times—although very beautiful, of course.

This short Bill is focused on establishing sound, transparent governance arrangements. It works in conjunction with a royal charter, making it clear that the NCS is above partisan politics. A draft of the charter was published as a Command Paper and laid before the House when the Bill was published. I have published an updated version today, which we will lay before both Houses, that reflects commitments that the Government made in the other place and will accompany the Bill as it goes through this House.

The Bill begins by outlining the royal charter and the functions of the NCS Trust, which will be a new body in a new form that is designed to last. However, we do not want to lose the talent and experience of those who work in the current body, which is also called the NCS Trust, who have overseen the fastest-growing youth movement in this country for 100 years. The Bill makes provision for schemes for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities from the current body to the new trust, and allows the Government to fund that trust out of money authorised by Parliament. It also allows the trust to charge participation fees at variable rates to maintain the principle that anyone can afford to take part. At present, the maximum fee is £50, but many participants pay no fee at all. The royal charter requires the trust to ensure equality of access to the NCS.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I visited an NCS scheme in Fareham this summer where 70 youngsters were engaged in a stimulating project that was helping the community. I applaud those who have led the success of this scheme, including Michael Lynas, whose steadfast commitment has been critical. In the light of the Casey review’s recommendations and findings about segregation among our young people, does my right hon. Friend agree that that participation fee—or lack of it—has been critical in enabling the breaking down of barriers so that people from different backgrounds, classes, religions and ethnicities can come together to restore civic pride and solidarity in our country?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to make the point that money should never be a barrier to such social cohesion and integration. We want young people from all backgrounds to have the chance to participate in the NCS. It must never be the case that money is the barrier that prevents them from doing so.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The NCS represents an impressive cross-party effort. Its precursor came under the previous Labour Government in the form of the “Be Inspired” programme in which Lord Blunkett and Gordon Brown, among others, were involved. How much work will be done on successor programmes for the hundreds of thousands of young people who will be going through the NCS? I must declare an interest here: the UpRising leadership programme works closely with the NCS, and one issue is the need for mentoring to enable people to continue their progress. I will be delighted if the Secretary of State looks into the programme’s new initiative to recruit and train 1 million mentors over the next decade and to deploy them to organisations such as the NCS.

[Karen Bradley]

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who has responsibility for civil society, has had discussions with the hon. Lady about precisely that point. We are looking at mentoring programmes and, of course, the #iwill programme is an important part of making sure that there are places for young people to continue developing the work that NCS starts.

It is vital that any expenditure of public money is transparent, accountable and proper, so the bulk of the Bill is a series of measures on that front. The NCS Trust must prepare annual accounts, which the National Audit Office will audit before they are laid before Parliament. At the start of every year, the trust must publish an annual business plan setting out its strategic priorities and annual objectives. At the end of each year, the trust will produce an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, outlining how the trust has fulfilled its priorities and main functions. Furthermore, the Bill lists specific metrics that that report must assess, including value for money and the extent to which the NCS has mixed people from different backgrounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) mentioned. The Bill requires the trust to notify the Government in the event that a breach of contract has serious financial consequences, if a provider is in serious financial difficulty, or if a staff member commits fraud, which will allow the Government to take rapid steps to minimise the loss of public money.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am very supportive of the Bill. Will the Secretary of State define how value for money will be gauged?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will know that the National Audit Office is responsible for looking at value for money. Of course we will look at the findings of each year’s report to make an assessment of value for money.

Following an amendment in the House of Lords, the trust must also notify the Government of any police investigation into an allegation of criminal activity that could have serious consequences for the NCS. The trust will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Records Act 1958. Together, the measures will ensure that the NCS Trust works efficiently, effectively and transparently.

The Bill has one other purpose: to advertise NCS. The Bill allows Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pass on information about the NCS to the young people, parents and carers whose addresses it holds. Receiving a national insurance number at the age of 16 is a rite of passage, and we want that letter to arrive with an invitation to participate in the NCS, too.

As the Government continue to work to build a shared society that works for every one of our constituents, the NCS has already transformed hundreds of thousands of lives. The Bill can ensure that it transforms millions more.

16:02

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I suspect that the House will not be subjected to too much of a bunfight this afternoon. Labour is delighted to support the Bill, and its passage through the Lords smoothed over some of the more contentious issues, so it is extremely welcome that the NCS therefore has strong support on both sides of the House. My one small regret is that the Secretary of State referred to a new draft of the royal charter, which was laid before the House only two minutes before this debate began. We have checked with the Vote Office, and it is not yet available in hard copy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We just got it. Here it is.

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend has just received a hard copy, but I have not had a chance to read it.

[Karen Bradley]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that there has been a problem in the post room, but the document is now available. I apologise if he did not receive it before the debate.

[Mr Reed]

I thank the Secretary of State for that. I look forward to reading it. I am sure she will tell me if any of my points have already been miraculously addressed in the new draft.

Before getting into the detail of the Bill, I will talk briefly about its context. The Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister mentioned the NCS in her speech on the shared society, and we need to make sure that that vision does not end up hollowed out like the previous Prime Minister’s big society. The big society shrank down to little more than an attempt to replace paid professionals with unpaid volunteers, which is a shame because there is an urgent need to reshape politics in this country around people, family, community and shared institutions in a way that strengthens society and gives people more direct power. For all their talk, so far the Government have tended to do the opposite, rather than matching the power of the words they speak in this Chamber.

If we want people to feel they really have a share in society, they need two things: a voice to articulate what they are looking for; and the power to make it heard, be it at work, in their community or about the public services they use. In all that, there is a real big vision about national renewal based on sharing power, reshaping politics and opening up opportunity to everybody. We already see the potential of that in communities that have taken more control through projects such as tenant-led housing organisations, user-directed social care, community land trusts and community energy generation, to name just a few. The NCS can play a significant role in building young people’s capacity to participate; but the Government’s approach, including what we have heard of the “shared society” so far—I accept that that is not much yet—is still too narrow and too centralised to tear down the barriers that frustrate wider and deeper engagement by citizens. I hope that will change. The NCS will achieve great things, but it could achieve even more if the Government really understood the power and potential of communities freely co-operating for the common good, and allowed that principle to influence and shape the direction of Government policy right across the board.

Let me move on to some of the detail in the Bill, most of which, as I said earlier, is not contentious, unless the changes I have not seen have suddenly inserted a raft of things we are not expecting—I doubt that is the case. One of the most powerful aspects of the NCS is how it brings together young people from a range of different backgrounds. The divisions so starkly exposed by the EU referendum, and, I am sorry to say, widened by the Government’s unfair approach to funding cuts since 2010, show just how important it is that we promote better integration right across society.

I had the privilege of meeting some young people in Croydon who were taking part in the NCS, and their passion to make change real was tangible and moving. They had clearly learnt a lot from living, working, eating and facing challenges with other young people from backgrounds that were very different from their own. Let me give an example of why it is so important that we break down barriers. In some parts of urban Britain we see a growing problem with violent gang crime. Mercifully, the problem is still small at national level, but if you live in one of the neighbourhoods most affected, it is disfiguring and destructive in a way that is hard to imagine without having experienced it. In London, I have worked with people living on housing estates where violent, gang-related youth crime is endemic, but right next door there were streets full of better-off people leading completely different lives, with completely different expectations. The two communities live parallel lives that never touch. Young people on one estate that I visited spoke as if the borders of their world ended at the borders of the estate they lived in and the world of opportunity beyond was closed to them.

We have to break these barriers down, and I hope the NCS has a real role to play in that. I would like to hear the views of the Secretary of State or the Minister on strengthening the focus on integration in the Bill. It talks about “cohesion”, but not about the process of integration necessary to achieve it. A change along those lines in clause 1 has the support of a number of delivery organisations. We will revisit this in Committee, but I hope that any change can be achieved through cross-party consensus.

It is fundamentally important that the NCS continues to offer opportunities to young people from different backgrounds, so it is a concern that the proportion of participants from poorer backgrounds, as measured by eligibility for free school meals, has fallen since the NCS was created in 2011. Indeed, the National Audit Office states that

“in many…areas a disproportionate number of young people from certain backgrounds participate”.

It is of course very important that the NCS is an organisation for every young person in the country, whatever their background.

[Tim Loughton]

It is slightly disappointing to hear the hon. Gentleman making quite a lot of negative comments about a scheme that I thought his party had come to support, after several years of trying on behalf of many of us. Does he not acknowledge that the number of young people going on this programme who qualify for free school meals has been put at 17%, which is more than double the proportion in society as a whole? In that respect, this programme is actually doing rather well.

[Mr Reed]

The points I am making are intended to strengthen and improve the NCS; if we do not make them, it may never change, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in the spirit of seeking to offer constructive criticism to improve what the Government are doing.

Applications in general are below the target set by the Government—they were 13% behind in 2016. That must be addressed, and although the delivery organisations are aware of that, we look to the Government to provide the support that they need to reach more young people. In particular, we encourage the Minister to look again at introducing a specific duty on the NCS to promote the programme to young people from socially excluded backgrounds and explore new ways to reach them.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

To proceed in the tone that I thought had been set for the debate, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the work the Government are doing, through the Bill, to authorise HMRC to work with NCS to reach more people is a key part of ensuring that the NCS reaches a far wider range of eligible young people? Hopefully that will increase participation rates, as well as diversity in the schemes.

[Mr Reed]

That is certainly helpful, but if that is the limit of the hon. Gentleman’s ambition for the NCS, he needs to find a little more of it, in the way that Opposition Members do.

A truly shared society requires everyone to have a voice and the power to assert it. There is no single model for achieving that: how we give people more control depends on the circumstances and context in which we operate. When the state sets up new organisations or services, it often fails to give people on the receiving end a real say, despite the fact that organisations benefit from higher levels of input from their users. If the NCS is to remain relevant to young people and in touch with their lives, it is important that they have a real voice in what it does and how it operates, now and in future. That means giving young people a direct role in NCS governance and decision making.

I was involved in setting up one of the biggest community youth trusts in the country, the Young Lambeth Co-operative, which took control of a number of the council’s youth services. The intention in setting it up was to give young people a real voice by reserving half the positions on the governing board for them, and ensuring that those young people who were appointed properly represented young people from more deprived backgrounds who had the greatest need of the services on offer.

In the absence of a mutualised structure, which is not being proposed for the NCS, it would still be good to see the NCS take a similar approach to that of the Young Lambeth Co-operative and ensure that young people have a key role at every level. That will be critical to making the NCS credible and attractive to as wide a range of young people as possible, particularly those who are categorised as harder to reach. The governance changes in the version of the draft royal charter that I have seen are important. There is to be a new board of patrons, but the NCS would benefit from more young people, and fewer politicians, at the top.

The NCS has the Opposition’s full support. I am raising concerns in the spirit of constructive criticism, with the intention of improving the organisation’s operation. We want to see some changes in the Bill that we believe will strengthen the focus on integration, ensure that the NCS reaches as wide a range of young people as possible, and give young people a bigger voice at every level in the organisation. Such changes would help the NCS to meet its laudable objectives, and we hope that they can be achieved through consensus.

We live in a country with a generous and open spirit, full of talented and ambitious young people who want to make a difference to their own lives, their families, and the community around them. But to do more, they need a bigger voice and the power to make it heard. Civil society organisations such as the NCS have an important role to play in making that happen. Ours is already a sharing society in which people instinctively co-operate; it is government that needs to catch up. The measure will be whether the Government make real progress in opening up and sharing their power with people so that they can make, or at least influence, the changes that affect their own lives.

The Bill may be small, but it has some very big ideas behind it: power, opportunity, community and contribution. Given the chance, young people and the NCS have much to teach us, and the Government, about those great national themes. We wish them every success in doing that in future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful to the House if I say that there is no time limit on Back-Bench speeches at this stage, but that an informal limit involving a certain self-denying ordinance might help. An informal limit of 10 minutes per Back-Bench Member seems reasonable and well within the capacities of a Kentish knight. I call Sir Julian Brazier.

16:14

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The House must be getting very bored with that reminder, although I was extremely grateful for the much undeserved honour.

I welcome this Bill, as I am a strong supporter of the NCS. I had the opportunity to meet some of the 130 constituents who did their National Citizen Service last year, and I was very impressed. Clearly, they had enjoyed the earlier adventure training phase and were producing some really interesting ideas for working with local charities. That combination of challenging activity and a sense of service will be a very important part of our former Prime Minister’s legacy, and I was really delighted to see that he has agreed to be chairman of the patrons.

I will focus my remarks on the first bit of the programme—the adventure training. Although I strongly support what is being delivered and the very strong team headed by Michael Lynas and chairman, Stephen Greene, whom I had the opportunity to meet just before this debate, I am concerned that there are some wider trends that lie outside the strict confines of this Bill. However, knowing how tolerant you are, Mr Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to touch on those trends as they are highly relevant to the supply chain for the NCS.

Adventure training, which every NCS student does for at least one week, and sometimes two, usually at the beginning of the programme, develops team work and confidence. It involves pushing the boundaries and learning how to manage risk in a positive and constructive manner. It is very, very important and also increasingly rare. As far back as 12 years ago, the then Education Committee pointed out that this country, which produced the team that cracked Everest, had actually slipped down the league and was, arguably, below average around the world in our capacity for adventure training.

Five years ago, the English Outdoor Council produced a list of residential centres that deliver good quality adventure training. Of those 180 centres, 30 have since closed. Equally disturbing, a number of others have been taken over by providers, which are giving a good commercial offer in the sense that their insurance premiums are low because their risks are extremely low, but which, according to one expert in the field, typically deliver every meal indoors for the children. In other words, these so-called adventure opportunities involve nothing that lasts for more than two or three hours at a time.

The NCS is firmly aimed at the right end of the market. All the NCS students I have met have had extremely good experiences drawn from good parts of the sector, but we must be clear that that element is shrinking. The reasons for that are twofold: our litigious culture; and the worry about prosecution. Two surveys that have been done—one in 2003 by the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the other in 2006 by the Scouts— revealed that the blame culture was the No. 1 concern among adult volunteers. We are also in the era of the corporate manslaughter charge, which is a very serious concern for the local authorities that run these providers.

I suggest that we have made some progress in rolling back the litigious culture. After an all-party effort behind a private Member’s Bill, which I was privileged to promote, the Labour Government introduced a small measure, called the Compensation Act 2006, with only one substantial clause that reminded the courts that if they make an award against an organisation, they need to take account of the damage to the wider interest in that activity. It had support on both sides of the House, but, interestingly, was opposed by a number of highly articulate lawyers on both sides of the House and in both Chambers.

The threat of prosecution remains serious. There has been a certain amount of banter in the media about stories alleging phony regulations and the Health and Safety Executive—I strongly welcome its new chairman, Martin Temple—has debunked lots of myths. The problem whenever I discuss this with people providing adventure training is never with regulation; no one has ever raised regulation with me as a problem in a serious adventure training context. The problem is the risk of prosecution if something goes wrong.

Perhaps the worst case of this was at a place called Bewerley Park. In 2005, a boy of 14 was drowned in a caving incident at Yorkshire’s top adventure training provider. The HSE decided to prosecute the local authority and the case took more than five years to come to court. Finally, in 2010, the local authority was acquitted, but that happened because a critical body called the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, which considers standards in such organisations, had given the body a clean bill of health and testified in court that the standard of instruction and leadership was extremely high, that the freak and completely unpredicted weather conditions that had led to rapidly rising water could not have been anticipated and that in fact it was a remarkable achievement of the instructors that they got all but one of the children out alive. Had that prosecution gone the other way, we would have lost not only that centre but many others up and down the country would have decided that they were no longer willing to take the risks of continuing.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My hon. Friend and I have often discussed these issues. Does he agree that that example shows the importance of ensuring that the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority remains in a condition in which it can take such a stance?

[Sir Julian Brazier]

My right hon. Friend, who is an absolute expert on this matter and did so much in this area in his time as a Minister, not just with the National Citizen Service but in the adventure field more widely, anticipates my next sentence. That is why it is crucial that at a time when we are about to start a public consultation on the future of the AALA, which will be conducted by a panel appointed by the HSE, the licensing authority not only survives but has its brief expanded so that it can ask why such centres have been closing over the past few years and, crucially, ask not just whether the practice is safe in the centres but what the quality is of the adventure that is being delivered. It is very easy to make so-called adventure training safe if it is not adventurous, so the authority needs to be able to ask what the character-building quality of the activities is.

I am delighted to say that the HSE has taken the decision to include on the panel one outside member, Ian Lewis, the director of the Campaign for Adventure— one of the patrons of which is, I should mention, another former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I very much hope that when we have a National Citizen Service whose patrons are headed by one former Prime Minister and the Campaign for Adventure is represented on the panel considering the future of the AALA, that panel will come up with a conclusion that will guarantee a future for the AALA that ensures it can continue to speak independently and expands its brief so that we discover why the centres are closing and get the focus back on the high-quality adventure that is so essential to the future of the National Citizen Service.

16:24

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Bill. It is a small Bill, and in many ways uncontroversial, its key strategic objective being to establish the effective governance of the National Citizen Service, but my sense is that seeing it in that way hides its true significance. What it really focuses on is how we live together, and there is no more important issue facing our country. How do we create a nation at ease with itself and foster a notion of service to others among our young people? Obviously that is vital, given the divisions in our society—so clearly exposed last year—around class, race, geography and religion, and a general fear that these tensions might continue to escalate. Those divisions suggest a brittle country, so resolving this and healing division will indeed take time, but the Bill will help. So although it is a small Bill, it is significant.

More generally, how do we ensure that our young people are knowledgeable about the country they inhabit in all its complexity, and how do we build an ethic of service among the younger generations? Really the clue is in the name: a programme of national service on behalf of our fellow citizens, the National Citizen Service. It is a simple notion, but an important one in shaping the character of our young people and the future character of our country more generally.

Across my east London constituency, which is one of the fastest changing communities in the UK, and one that has recently experienced issues with extremism and violence, I have seen at first hand the benefits of the programme: increasing the breadth of young people’s experiences; mixing with people from other backgrounds; and building links between generations, for example through new volunteer support for the elderly in the community. It is helping to integrate communities such as ours.

Across the country some 275,000 young people have already taken part in the programme, and a couple of the results are worth noting. An Ipsos MORI evaluation found that 82% of people leave the programme feeling more positive about people from different backgrounds and better prepared for the future. The programme is building a legacy of service and volunteering. I was struck by one statistic that the Minister mentioned earlier, which is that in the 16 months following participation in the programme, the cohort that went through in 2013 and 2014 contributed a further 8 million hours of service in the community. The ethos of the NCS—social cohesion, social mobility and social engagement in order to build resilient young people—appears to be working.

I think that we can all agree that in order to develop further, the NCS needs to be beyond party politics. The Bill will help to ensure that no one party can lay claim to the NCS. The governance changes will help develop it into an enduring, independent national institution, one beyond party politics, that appeals to everyone. That has to be a good thing. In order to be successful, it cannot be seen as another Government scheme, because that would put people off, and the evidence so far suggests that participants do not see it that way. That is further evidence for why we need to maintain the cross-party support.

The Bill will ensure the transition from a community interest company to an organisation with a royal charter. The NCS Trust will be a new body, and the Bill will ensure the effective transfer of staff and functions to the new trust from the current body. The royal charter requires the trust to ensure equality of access irrespective of background and ensures a flexible fee structure that will not inhibit participation. Much of the Bill is about the accountability of the trust. Accounts audited by the National Audit Office will be laid before Parliament. The trust must publish an annual business plan and at the end of the year it will supply an annual report to be laid before Parliament. That all seems pretty sensible and uncontroversial.

I want to make four points. I hope that they will not be seen as controversial, because they are intended to strengthen the Bill.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of the annual report cannot be overstated? In addition to laying the report before Parliament, should the Minister not consider ensuring that it is debated and discussed?

[Jon Cruddas]

I totally agree. If a stated objective of the Bill is to learn how to live together and all be virtuous citizens, it should not be beyond our collective wit to organise a few debates in Parliament every year so that we can test how successful we are, so I support my hon. Friend’s comments.

My four points begin with the question of links with public bodies. The original draft of the Bill included an obligation on public bodies, but that has gone. I can understand that public bodies might see this as a bit of an imposition, particularly as quite a bit is being thrown at local authorities at the moment, so there is no need to enshrine an obligation in the legislation. However, if we are to succeed, surely we must ensure that the programme is a core activity for our public institutions. I raised the matter with my local council and a number of schools, and found that it was not the concern that I thought it might be, not least when I found out that 95% of London schools are already involved in the programme, although I do wonder about the effect on the independent sector. When will the guidance for schools and local authorities on how to better engage with the NCS be published? More generally, I understand that nearly £20 million a year will be earmarked for advertising over the next four years to increase participation from 100,000 to some 300,000. That is a hugely ambitious task that raises the question of what role schools and colleges will have in the programme’s promotion.

Secondly, on questions of integration, I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) earlier. One point made to me from within the sector is whether the language used in the royal charter and the Bill, when laying out the functions and purpose of the trust, is sufficiently focused on the integration aspects of the NCS. Social integration— the act of mixing and forging bonds with those from different backgrounds—is a process and it should not be confused with social cohesion, which is the outcome that we seek to achieve.

At its best, the NCS helps integration through the intensive nature of the programme whereby participants spend almost three weeks together, through the social atmosphere as they cook, live and eat together, and through the levelling effects of the activities in which they are pushed out of their comfort zones as they engage in challenging activities on an equal footing and rotate leadership roles. The setting of shared goals—confronting participants with a shared challenge more easily overcome through teamwork, rather than an individual effort—is a key element of inspiring previously unlikely friendships. So, could we ensure that the integration function is enshrined in legislation? The integration elements are arguably the most important part of the NCS’s work. Is there enough about integration, not just cohesion, in the Bill and the royal charter?

Thirdly and briefly is the question of integration and inclusion. For a programme to have integration at its heart, it must include the hardest-to-reach young people. Doing so requires dedicated outreach teams and support workers on the programme. Should not some of the funding that delivery organisations receive be ring-fenced for this purpose to ensure that, in all areas of England and Northern Ireland, the NCS is genuinely a programme for all?

Finally, on the ambitions of the Bill, more than £1 billion over five years is a lot of money for a relatively young programme, especially given the austere times we live in. So is the Bill ambitious enough? For example, how does it link with wider questions of citizenship? Citizenship might well fall off the school curriculum, and that would appear at odds with the driving philosophy of the Bill and the programme. We regularly hear talk of a proposed year of service, advocated, for example, by the excellent City Year UK, although there is no mention of that in the Bill. In contrast, the NCS provides short programmes for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is a clearly defined programme but, if we were to be bolder, we might want to discuss certain issues. For example, City Year UK recruits young people to serve for a year in some of the most challenging communities, but the status of the volunteers is not clear. In other countries, such as the USA and France, full-time volunteering has a clearer legal status, and Governments are active in incentivising participation. Should we not consider a more systematic Government approach to the idea of a year of service including help with university fees and the like? As I understand it, full-time volunteers are currently characterised as NEETs—technically not in full-time education, employment or training. In other countries, full-time volunteering has a proper legal status. Why should we not move in this direction? Where have the Government got to on the issue?

In conclusion, I admit that I am one of the few people left who does subscribe to the idea of the big society. The NCS is what the previous Prime Minister called

“the Big Society in action”,

of which I am very supportive. I think it a good thing that the recently departed Prime Minister has agreed to chair the NCS patrons.

The Bill, although small and technical, has a big ambition behind it to build virtuous citizens and help us to live together peacefully. It is a little Bill, but one that is hugely significant for the future character of the country we wish to build. Nothing could be more important. If the Bill helps the NCS to achieve and endure, it will have achieved plenty.

16:34

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), whose remarks I received warmly. Having believed that this was a Bill to which it was not possible to make any objection, I thought that the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) had to cast around fairly widely in order to disguise his enthusiasm for it. Four years ago, I had my first encounter with the NCS, and I decided then that it was a good thing. This Bill seems to be designed to make it more of a good thing, and that is why I welcome it so warmly.

I think back over years to when one of the siren calls that one heard from young people was, “There’s nothing to do here”, whether “here” was a town or a village, and so on. In reality, of course, there were things to do, but there was no obvious way of making a positive contribution to the community beyond, perhaps, the Scouts and the Girl Guides. Then from an older generation one would hear the call, “Youngsters these days need discipline: bring back national service”—something that our professional armed forces rather disdained as an idea. People would say, “Well, it did me good, and I’m sure it’s what everybody needs today.” That view began to fade, quite rightly, but talk there was of a civilian equivalent. Yet somehow it never got going. It is to the credit of the former Prime Minister, the then Member for Witney, that he took this up and made a real achievement of it. Many of us always felt that there was scope for it, perhaps because we were enthused by what the late President Kennedy did with the Peace Corps in involving and harnessing the views and enthusiasm of young people. At last, with the National Citizen Service, we have a scheme that has taken root and is flourishing.

My connection with the NCS has simply been that I have tried dutifully to visit a group in my constituency in each of the past four years. I have seen a whole host of things that young people have been engaged in at various stages of the four-week process that they follow. I can certainly attest to the growing confidence I have seen among those young people, the interaction between them, coming as they do from many different backgrounds and never having met each other before, and the enthusiasm that they have. I welcome that. I never heard a voice raised to say that it was a waste of time or a bad thing; it was all about wanting to go back and tell other people that it was something they should think about when their chance came. I therefore accept the trust’s own findings of greater positivity among people whom it has managed to persuade to come into the scheme. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham referred to the Ipsos MORI poll evaluation, which is good evidence that young people themselves feel positive about it.

So what are the concerns? I suppose there is the possibility that the NCS has an effect on recruitment to other organisations, whether it be Voluntary Service Overseas, Médecins Sans Frontières, UN Volunteers, Save the Children, Oxfam, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme or the Prince’s Trust, but that is not the right way of looking at it. It is more likely that the NCS will be a stepping stone to looking around for other things that people may do in life having had the knowledge and experience of what being part of it was all about. In short, I do not see anything that the NCS can spoil. It is about inculcating a habit and an approach among young people, and that can only be for the good of our society.

Of course it is right that we should be concerned about governance. One or two colleagues have mentioned how we control the scheme, make sure it is offering value for money, and so on. It seems to me that an annual report presented to Parliament offers us all a way of checking that. I support the idea of a debate about it, because we should talk about such things more often. The achievements of young people as they are manifested in the NCS each year should be highlighted in Parliament. Too many people are ready to believe the worst of young people simply on the basis of a story that they read in a newspaper that puts young people in a bad light, while completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of young people mean well and, indeed, do well in their contribution to society, the local community and so on.

Having had the pleasure and privilege of some involvement with voluntary organisations over the years, I believe that one thing we must be careful about is supposing that we can attach a precise value to the benefits of being involved with the NCS. How can we measure somebody’s contribution—the enthusiasm with which they go out to collect money for a cause that they have become familiar with, and the way in which that becomes an ongoing part of how they want to run their lives? How can we measure that? We cannot. We cannot measure how a person’s outlook on society has improved, to make them a more positive citizen than they might otherwise have been. Although we must be responsible about the amount of money that is spent, we do not want to pretend that we can implement a view that amounts to knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I have visited schemes throughout my constituency, and three of my children have attended the NCS or been a mentor on the NCS. The benefit is some way down the line, in growing their confidence and their ability to understand where other people come from. One of my daughters is studying at university with a young man whose background, before they were both on the NCS, was somewhat challenging, but everybody equals out in that place. One of the fundamental benefits of the NCS is to level the playing field, both educationally and in ability. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend’s rather lengthy contribution has extended my speech. I absolutely applaud what she says, and I am grateful for her support for the remarks that I have just made.

The Local Government Association has expressed some concern about the idea that the money that will go into the NCS is money that the LGA will not get, or that the LGA might lose some money in the process. I do not think that any of us wants to decry what many local authorities, to their credit, do in providing youth services, and I have always been an advocate for such work. The NCS is a special organisation that in no way negates what local authorities do. We might actually find that more people want to take part in the various other youth services, thus extending the reach of those bodies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) raised the issue of safety, and of course that is important, but I hope that he did not overdo it. I thought about some of the schemes I have seen, where even the use of a fork in the earth to tidy up a community garden could cause an injury, or where someone on a street corner bravely advertising the fact that they are operating a car wash some little distance away could be knocked down in an accident. All sorts of horrors could befall people in the more ordinary things, not just in the high adventure activities. It is, of course, quite right that we should not assume that anything goes or allow people to be put at risk.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?