Citizens Convention on Democracy

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing time for this debate, which comes at a very significant time for this country. Indeed, I am delighted to make my ministerial maiden speech in Westminster Hall; it is an honour to be here. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who did an excellent job in office and whose dedication to constitutional affairs was evident today in his speech on the ten-minute rule Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

The events of the past few weeks have provoked much discussion of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I welcome that discussion and the wide-ranging contribution that hon. Members have made throughout this debate. The UK’s constitution is constantly evolving. It is right that there is debate and discussion as it evolves, and the hon. Member for Nottingham North has been at the forefront of ensuring that that happens. Only a few months ago, he introduced a private Member’s Bill for a constitutional convention. I thank him for this further opportunity to debate these vital issues and I put on record my gratitude to the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for their contributions. I am only on my third day in the job, but I have listened intently to everything they have had to say.

I am coming to the realisation that constitutional debates tend to be fairly wide-ranging. Nevertheless, when we look at what has been said, almost all major parties think it extremely encouraging that we have that representation. We may not agree on everything, but one thing we can agree on is a greater level of democratic engagement. Indeed, one of my driving priorities as a new Minister will be to encourage that engagement wherever possible. I was heartened by what the hon. Member for Nottingham North said about cross-party working—indeed, these matters are too important not to work on on a cross-party basis—and I have noted the contents of the letter he read out in his opening statement. However, while we can have cross-party agreement on engagement, the Government disagree on the means of delivering it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have no plans to establish a convention on democracy. We believe that the evolving nature of the UK’s constitution means that it is ultimately unsuited to a convention.

The UK constitution is characterised by pragmatism and an ability to adapt to circumstances. That arrangement has delivered a stable democracy by progressively adapting to changing realities. I fear that a static convention that decided on constitutional matters once and for all would not fit with the tradition of evolving and adapting in line with people’s expectations and needs. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned other precedents of constitutional conventions in Ireland, Iceland and Ontario. However, those international examples highlight how countries that have gone down that route have found the entire process challenging. The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned that it is a lengthy process, but it is important that we learn from what has happened in other countries. The recommendations of the conventions in British Columbia and Ontario were rejected when they were put to the public in referendums. In Ireland, of the 18 recommendations made by the Irish constitutional convention, only two were put to a referendum and only one passed.

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, only two recommendations were put to a referendum and one passed, but more are to follow. The Government said that the country could not have a referendum on all the issues at once, but other referendums are to follow, including on extending the vote in presidential elections to the Irish diaspora.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What he says is important and relates to the fact that the discussion of constitutional matters is a process in which we have to take the confidence of the people with us. I fear that if certain expectations are put down or if findings are not immediately delivered— the hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned a convention’s findings being adapted wholesale—we will run into difficulties.

Let us look at other countries. In Iceland, where a more wide-ranging constitutional convention was undertaken, all six of the proposals were passed, but they were not taken forward by successive Governments. That is another issue with the binding nature of constitutional conventions that highlights one of our key concerns with such proposals: they often fail to deliver their intended result.

I want to put on record that the Government do not believe that exercises of engagement are a bad thing. They are laudable endeavours to engage the public in a discussion on the constitutional principles that underpin a country. In particular, I recognise the concerted and sustained effort of the hon. Member for Nottingham North to keep constitutional reform at the top of the agenda. He is a dedicated campaigner who is respected on both sides of the House and whose work on early intervention has ultimately resulted in a change in Government policy. I wish him the best with what he is trying to do. As Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he oversaw numerous inquiries into constitutional issues, including constitutional conventions. As I said, any initiative designed to promote engagement is welcome. Having exhausted all avenues in Westminster, there is nothing to stop him personally reaching wider afield, beyond the walls of this austere building—any private endeavour that raises public participation is surely to be welcomed as a good thing. However, I must set out some concerns about the proposals as they stand.

One of the key problems with national constitutional conventions is that ultimately it is very difficult to engage those who are not already engaged. The people who should be participating are exactly those who do not respond to the invitations. As a Government, our focus must be on ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote in polls is able to do so. We have already made great progress, but there is more to do. We are working with the Electoral Commission, civil society organisations and local authorities to reach communities who are not represented on the electoral register. Online registration has made it easier to register to vote, and we have seen record levels of registration in recent months. Data collected from the 382 local voting areas show that the provisional size of the UK and Gibraltar electorate now stands at a UK record 46.5 million.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned a “flash of hope”. With the record levels of engagement we are seeing post the referendum, that flash of hope is to continue that engagement. Amid all the constitutional discussions about the franchise, my overriding priority as a new Minister will be to reach out to the disfranchised who are already eligible to vote but who remain invisible from public participation. It is that challenge—one we have to take as seriously as an unacceptable inequality as we do educational underachievement or social deprivation —that I intend to make my focus.

[Stephen Twigg]

Does the Minister agree that for the efforts he just described to be successful, we need to restore citizenship education in schools?

[Chris Skidmore]

I remember very well, when I had first become a Member of Parliament, debating with the hon. Gentleman, when he was shadow Education Secretary, about his excellent record as an Education Minister in the previous Government. It is understandable that he is passionate about education, and I do believe it is key. Citizenship as a subject in schools is important. Education will be vital, but aside from what happens in schools, we have to reach out into those communities—those black spots. We can break down the data to understand where people are not registering to vote, and that is where I want to focus. We have reached an ultimate high, with registration at around 83%—in the mid-80s—but we can go further. We may not reach 100%, but the challenge now is to up our game and get to the last 10%. To do so, we must reach into the most deprived communities in the country.

Members asked about the devolved nations. Now more than ever, the Government must focus on getting on with delivering a fair and balanced constitutional settlement for people across the UK, as promised. Our unique constitutional arrangements enable agility and responsiveness to the wishes of our citizens. We in Government believe that those wishes are clear: a desire to be part of a strong and successful Union that recognises and values the unique nature of each of our nations. Although the Government do not believe that now is the right time for a constitutional convention, it is none the less clear that we must continue to deliver on our commitments to a coherent constitutional settlement that provides fairness, opportunity and a voice for all.

Many Members raised the issue of devolved representation. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the devolved Governments should be fully engaged as we take vital decisions about the future of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister’s visits to Scotland last week and to Wales on Monday are clear examples of our immediate commitment to do so. We must continue to protect and advance the needs of all people in the United Kingdom. As we do so, the Government will continue to deliver on their commitment to provide further devolution and decentralisation to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We are creating some of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world, and we are also devolving greater powers away from Whitehall to the cities and regions, driving local growth in areas that have strong governance and the capacity to deliver.

[Mark Durkan]

Before the Minister moves on from the point about the devolved territories, do the Government recognise that the settlement in Northern Ireland rests not on the concession of devolution from Westminster but on the express consent of people in Ireland, north and south, when they voted for the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, as reflected in the Irish constitution as well? At times, it seems like devolution is seen as just a gift from Westminster and people do not understand the integrity of the democratic institutions in Ireland.

[Chris Skidmore]

The establishment of the Good Friday agreement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries was one of the most important constitutional changes we have seen. We have to give credit to the previous Labour Administration, and the Conservative Administration before that, for coming up with that settlement—

[Mark Durkan]

The people of Ireland had something to do with it too!

[Chris Skidmore]

Of course. That settlement proves the importance of laying aside differences and of people, whether from different parties or different countries, being able to work together. We will not get such agreements unless we not only spend a lengthy period being able to decide them, but put aside often bitter differences. When it comes to the discussion of any constitutional reform, nothing will happen without cross-party agreement, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. The Good Friday agreement clearly highlights the need for such discussions to be cross-nation and cross-party.

We do not believe that all the important changes that have so far taken place in the devolved nations, which were designed to hand power back to people, should be delayed by the establishment of a convention. What matters about the constitution is that it works and is flexible enough to adapt to political challenges, not that it has been neatly drawn up and is theoretically pure. Hence the Government are very much focused on making sure that the UK’s constitutional arrangements work for all our citizens, in a Union based on fairness, friendship and mutual respect.

In closing, I again welcome the intentions of the hon. Member for Nottingham North in making his proposal, which will help to inform and add to a rich debate on this issue. I wish him well, but I cannot undertake any commitment to Government involvement, financial or otherwise. As I have made clear, our immediate priority is on delivering the constitutional settlement we are committed to, but there will always be opportunity for debate and discussion in the House about the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I look forward to many more opportunities, I hope as Minister, to discuss and debate the constitutional matters that underpin this nation. Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for allowing us to discuss these important matters.

Record Copies of Acts

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I should declare an interest, not only as a part-time historian who spent a large part of his youth burrowed away in the National Archives researching Tudor history, but as the chair of the all-party group on archives and history. The group has more than 100 members in both Houses, and has been fortunate to have as its secretariat the Archives and Records Association of the UK and Ireland, the leading professional body for archivists, record managers and conservators in these islands. The ARA has about 2,500 paid-up members, who have naturally raised concerns over the possible change in the recording of Acts of Parliament from vellum to archival paper, which I wish to reflect in my speech.

There has been a lot of debate on this issue and strong feelings have, naturally, been expressed. That is entirely understandable, as vellum, and parchment, its sheepskin cousin, is at the core of our national heritage. Vellum has been used to record some of the most important events in the history of these islands, not just Acts of Parliament. It is still actively used by our conservation community to repair and extend the life of our existing ancient manuscripts. Vellum is also a highly practical material. It is durable, accessible and much more resistant to fire and water than any kind of paper. It is also an alkaline material. Paper is more fragile, and it is acidic and deteriorates much more quickly over time.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the even the highest quality archival paper is going to last only about 300 years, and even then it would cost a lot to maintain in the right humid conditions, whereas vellum can be kept just about anywhere on a shelf and will last 5,000 years?

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: with vellum, we know it will last. It has already stood the test of time, as any historian or archivist will verify, through its continued existence over centuries. With paper, we can only guess how long a printed version will last; it depends on precisely what paper is used, what ink is used and how the resulting document is stored.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I had better repeat what I said earlier. In this House we have been recording on parchment equivalent since 1497 and on paper from 13 years later. Having looked at the paper, the parchment and the vellum, I can say that they look the same.

[Chris Skidmore]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but I suggest he goes and looks.

[Chris Skidmore]

I want to talk from my own professional experience as a historian. Someone who goes to the National Archives and tries to order up SP1—the state papers of Henry VIII—will find that they are not allowed to do so. They will only be able to look at those on microfilm, because the paper is so fragile that it will crumble if touched. I have opened boxes and been amazed at how many documents have still not been looked at, but I know that paper from the 15th and 16th centuries is so fragile that it would crumble to the touch, and often those documents have to be returned unopened. That is not the case with vellum. People can order up stuff that is still in its original leather bag. It will be filthy but it remains there and people can study it, using ultraviolet light. That is the contrast I have seen as a historian. What if in 500 or 1,000 years’ time future generations of historians have this problem? It is simply not true to equate paper and vellum.

Europe’s leading expert on the subject, Dr Henk Porck of the Netherlands national library, has gone on record as saying that current ageing tests for paper

“cannot be reliably predicted by means of the present artificial ageing tests.”

When it comes to printing our country’s laws, arguably our most important documents, we need to ensure that we have a clear assurance that the materials they are printed on will last the test of centuries, as vellum has. Paper-printed Acts of Parliament may last a long time—I do agree that they last a significant amount of time—but it is not long enough, and we need all the details of what is being proposed.

There has also been significant debate about the cost of using vellum and the prospective savings from printing future Acts of Parliament on paper. On 19 January, in a letter to the Archives and Records Association, Lord Laming, the Chairman of Committees, explained that the cost of printing Acts of Parliament is about £103,000 a year, yet we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has said, that the only remaining UK firm involved in this, William Cowley Ltd in Milton Keynes, receives a maximum of £47,000 a year from selling vellum to Parliament. That means that associated costs are around £56,000 a year. Lord Laming stated in his letter to the ARA that the expected cost of printing future Acts on paper, including the paper itself, is around £20,000 a year, so there is still a discrepancy between £20,000 and £30,000. It would be good to know precisely what the saving is meant to be.

We know from specialists in the sector, including the ARA, that the cost of printing on vellum and paper should be roughly the same. It has been confirmed to the ARA by specialist printers, including the Gregynog Press and the Westerham Press, that current costs of printing on vellum could be achieved for much less. People who work with vellum say that printing techniques have come a long way in recent years. They add that letterpress, litho and screen-printing are all used successfully for vellum and parchment, and they should know. Yet the Chairman of Committees has said:

“Vellum requires a specialist and time-consuming printing process, and uses equipment which is not used for any other purpose. It is firmly expected to be significantly cheaper to print on quality archival paper.”

We have a difference of opinion here. First, will the Chairman of Committees set out the proactive efforts that he and previous incumbents have made to consult members of the heritage community on printing as it relates to vellum? Secondly, will he explain how often the contract for printing Acts of Parliament on vellum has been put out to tender, and—if known—what bids came in? Thirdly, will he publish the full cost-benefit assessment that he and his colleagues have carried out on this matter? We need this in order to give the issue proper scrutiny in this place, and for wider public transparency.

We all want to see value for money, but we should also be aware of false economies. Parliament should not subsidise vellum manufacture, but we should be mindful of the future cost of archival facilities, given the fragility of paper and the potential risk of damage to such important documents. We should also consider the impact on our conservation sector if the current Cowley contract is stopped.

Vellum, like sheepskin parchment, has played a key part at key points in the history of these islands in recording our most important events. Its continuous use over centuries should cause all Members to pause in sober reflection on the fact that we, as legislators, are the inheritors not just of a tradition of preserving our laws on vellum, but of a seamless legal tradition that goes back centuries. George Macaulay Trevelyan once wrote:

“The poetry of history lies in the quasi-miraculous fact that once, on this earth, once, on this familiar spot of ground, walked other men and women, as actual as we are to-day, thinking their own thoughts, swayed by their own passions, but now all gone, one generation vanishing after another, gone as utterly as we shall shortly be gone as ghost at cock crow.”

We, too, will be gone. We will be replaced by new generations of Members, and become footnotes to the past. If we are to govern in prose, we should at least allow ourselves, in our responsibilities to generations to come, to be reminded that the poetry of history matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is a lame duck—trying to get into Downing street on the back of Alex Salmond’s coat tails. The Opposition now know that they cannot win the election on their own, so they are preparing to answer the ransom note. Higher taxes, more borrowing, weaker defence, breaking up our Union—that is what we have to stop. Never mind talk of ducks; I am looking at Alex Salmond’s poodle.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Q15. On Friday, together with local businesses and the local enterprise partnership, I will be launching a new campaign, Gateway to Growth, calling for a link road from the M4 to the Avon ring road that will help to deliver millions of pounds of extra investment and new jobs to the Bristol region, and provide the Kingswood area with the access to the motorway it needs. As part of his long-term economic plan, will the Prime Minister look closely at the campaign and the case for an M4 link? First of all, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his very hard work for people in Kingswood and in Bristol more generally. He is absolutely right that we do need to see better transit schemes in Bristol, and I know that the Transport Secretary will be happy to look at the campaign and the case he makes. It is also of note—and I am sure that, as a great historian and, indeed, someone who has written about Richard III, my hon. Friend would want me to say it—that we should not let this day pass without noting that of course Richard III will be buried tomorrow. That is worth remembering. It is the last time that someone did in one of their relatives to get the top job and the country ended up in chaos.

Bill Presented

Protection of Children (Removal of Police Discretion)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Sarah Champion, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Meg Munn and Liz McInnes, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to remove the discretionary decision-making power afforded to police officers in charging individuals with rape in cases relating to acts of sexual intercourse involving persons aged under 16; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 195).

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are helping working parents with child care, and that is what the tax relief on child care that this Government will be introducing will be all about.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Q6. In January, my constituents Ross and Clare Simons were tragically killed when they were hit by a driver who had more than 10 previous convictions for dangerous driving and was disqualified from driving at the time. He received a sentence of just over 10 years for his crime. More than 8,000 people in Kingswood have signed a petition, “Justice for Ross and Clare”, calling for the law to be changed so that drivers convicted of dangerous driving while disqualified should receive tougher sentences. Will the Prime Minister receive the petition at Downing street? Does he agree that the law in this area should be looked at?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at the petition that my hon. Friend talks about, and I would like to join him by offering my condolences to the friends and families of Ross and Clare.

This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady speaks for everyone in saying that, which is why all these organisations, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Royal College of Nursing and the General Medical Council have to think about taking action when behaviour is not appropriate or professional codes are seriously breached. People should be struck off and should not be able to work again.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Page 1312 of volume 2 of the report describes a meeting that took place on 14 May 2008 between the chair of the Healthcare Commission investigation, Sir Ian Kennedy, and Sir David Nicolson before the investigation reported. In that meeting, the report states that Sir David Nicholson said that a local campaign group against Mid Staffordshire had been in existence for some time. He added:

“Clearly patients needed to express their views but he hoped the Healthcare Commission would remain alive to something which was simply lobbying or a campaign as”

opposed

“to widespread concern.”

I find those comments from the head of the NHS at the time utterly unacceptable. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he investigate Sir David Nicholson’s comments?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We should be clear, however, that David Nicholson has apologised publicly and repeatedly for the failure of the strategic health authority of which he was in charge for some important months during this whole approach.

The report makes it clear that we should not try to seek individual scapegoats, and I believe that Sir Robert Francis said this morning that too often that is what happens after a report is published: find someone to take responsibility, fire them out the barrel of the gun, then the job is done. That is not the case: in my view, David Nicholson has a deep affection for our national health service, does a good job on the NHS Commissioning Board, and he has thoroughly apologised and recognised his responsibilities for what went wrong in Stafford. The trust board was overwhelmingly responsible. Clearly all the other organisations, including the strategic health authority, need to learn the lessons, and I think that Sir David Nicholson has done so.

Debate on the Address

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

It is an honour, although a daunting one, to follow that excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who speaks with a wealth of expertise as both a parent of young children, a job she juggles very well with her other abilities, and an excellent parliamentarian. She spoke about businesses in Essex, again with a wealth of expertise as the daughter of shopkeepers, and gave a thorough going over of the Queen’s Speech.

It feels odd to speak on the first day of a parliamentary Session. It reminds me of when I turned up here in the previous Session hoping to make my maiden speech. I wanted to make it as soon as possible so that I could get into the cut and thrust of debate, so I put in and waited to make it on several occasions. I will never forget my first moment in Parliament. I was sitting in the corner of the Chamber and waiting, and new Members on both sides bobbed up and down to say how beautiful their constituencies were—it was funny how that theme kept coming up. I waited from half-past 2, without having a drink of water or going to the toilet, until half-past 10. I sat there for eight hours, so afterwards I went over to the Chairman of Ways and Means and explained that I had hoped to be called that day. “Oh no”, he replied, “You weren’t going to be called at all. You should have come and seen me and I could have told you that you were never going to make it today.” That was the first lesson I learnt here.

[Priti Patel]

Welcome to Parliament.

[Chris Skidmore]

Absolutely. There is a lot of waiting going on here, but we do not have to wait long for the contents of the Queen’s Speech, which I will come to shortly.

To continue with my anecdote for a moment, I remember still wanting to make my maiden speech as soon as possible, and sitting in the Tea Room looking through the draft of what I hoped to say when a more senior Conservative Member came over and asked, “Oh boy, you’re looking to make your maiden speech, are you?” I replied that I was and explained that I had waited to be called for eight hours the day before. “Oh well, there’s only one piece of advice I can give you about making your maiden speech,” he said. I was a young newbie and so asked what it was. “Well, just don’t muck it up,” he said, before wandering off laughing. He actually used stronger language, but I will not use it in the Chamber—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, it rhymes with muck.

[Stephen Pound]

Don’t say it.

[Chris Skidmore]

Oh dear; hopefully the Hansard reporters can delete that for me—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. To help the hon. Gentleman, I think that his colleague was telling him, “Good luck in making your maiden speech.”

[Chris Skidmore]

Indeed, and I wish the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) the best of luck in contributing to this excellent debate on the Queen’s Speech.

The first line of the Queen’s Speech refers to the importance of growth in the economy, but one of the sectors in which we know there will certainly be growth is social care, because we have an ageing population. We used to say that there are two certainties in life: death and taxes. We now know that our population is getting ever older; by 2030 the number of 85-year-olds will double and 11% of the population living today will reach 100. Therefore, we have an enormous cost—not a burden—that society will face as a result of the population getting older, which is inevitably a good thing. The Queen’s Speech recognises this, importantly, by proposing a draft Bill that will seek to modernise adult social care and support, which I absolutely welcome, but it is worth reflecting on the word “modernise” and on what we need to do to modernise adult social care and support.

The Government recognise that tackling social care is not just an issue of tackling the funding of social care, important though that is. The Health Committee, of which I am a member, has already produced a report on the Dilnot commission and recommended it to the Government, and I hope that the Government will look at it in the forthcoming White Paper and that we will have proposals on the table. I know that there is cross-party support for looking at the Dilnot commission proposals and that we had a Backbench Business debate on that in the previous Session. Members from across the House, regardless of their party colours, are passionate about tackling this issue and the impending crisis.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, but is he concerned that the Dilnot commission and the risk of open liabilities could make the process unaffordable, or are Members being misinformed on that?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Dilnot issue, which is one of presentation, is that the Government commissioned a report that addressed the specific question, “How do we fund social care as it currently stands?” That is why I want to turn to the issue of modernisation, but we have to remember the important tenet that Dilnot does not cover all forms of social care. It does not cover domiciliary care or living costs, so it is not a panacea, and we as parliamentarians must ensure that we work together and at the same time—Dilnot was very strict on this—come up with a proper system by which we can inform not only elderly people now but the elderly people of tomorrow that they need to begin to save. Only by developing a savings culture and a culture of contribution, which I shall turn to also in my speech, will Dilnot work and will we ensure that the social care system works tomorrow as well as today—although today it is beginning to fail, as I shall explain.

In modernising social care, we need to recognise that the current system is not working on several levels. Personally, I feel that local authorities are becoming not the best places in which to deliver social care. Last week I published a report on local authorities and their delivery of social care, demonstrating from a series of freedom of information requests to every local authority in the country that local authorities have already written off £400 million of debts owed to them by families—and are still owed more than £1 billion.

Put simply, we have a system in which local authorities are not only struggling to provide care, but for financial reasons have lowered the bar and reduced their eligibility criteria. They have done so principally because they have to juggle social care with the services on which people really want to focus when they pay their council tax. For instance, people want their bins emptied or potholes filled, and that, for democratically elected local authorities, can take priority over those citizens who are most vulnerable but who, unfortunately for them, form a small minority. So roads and bins take precedence over social care. That should not be the case, but at the same time local authorities are deeply mired in debt because of their services, and we desperately need them to break out of that.

The current system also does not work because the failure of social care ends up rebounding in only one place: the NHS. We need to make the point strongly that the NHS and social care are two sides of the same coin, and that if there is a crisis in social care there will soon be a crisis in the NHS. Even the IMF has produced figures on how the NHS will look by 2050 if we do not manage our ageing population and work out ways of prevention. We must also look not only at how elderly people can be given the life and dignity that they deserve, but at early intervention. If any problems that they may have, such as diabetes or a disability, are dealt with soon enough, it costs the NHS less. The IMF predicts that the NHS will end up costing £230 billion by 2050, and that is completely unaffordable. It means that the NHS will go broke unless we solve the social care crisis now.

[Dr Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cross-party consensus on the draft social care Bill is critical? That is why a draft Bill is appropriate. Does he agree also that, as long as somebody is in hospital the NHS pays for them, so the draft Bill needs to tackle the key issue whereby local authorities sometimes delay a person’s exit from hospital so that they do not have to pick up the bill in the interim?

[Chris Skidmore]

That is an interesting point. Obviously, one of the first moves that the Government made when they came into office was to create an output measure of 30 days’ discharge from hospital. Although that was created in August 2011, it is already controversial because we are seeing the scale of the problem. The problem is not new; it has always been there, but the Government are for the first time providing the figures on how many people are leaving hospital and rebounding back into hospital. We should have solved that problem sooner.

My hon. Friend argued for a cross-party approach, and I entirely agree. We must achieve cross-party support on social care. We are talking about a settlement that must last decades, so it cannot be a patchwork solution or a plaster over a wound that might open up in several years’ time. We need to come up with a binding compact on social care. I hope that the draft Bill will aspire to that.

I have talked about the relationship between the NHS and social care. The Government have recognised that the future of saving the NHS will come through a consideration of social care. We focus very much on the NHS, and the Health and Social Care Bill of the previous Session tried to address the matter. Funds were placed in the hands of GPs; for the first time, GPs are taking responsibility for patients. Rather than sending patients directly to hospital, GPs have to look at what preventive measures they must take to cure illness or disability. Over the past three years, the number of over-80-year-olds who have been admitted into A and E has risen by about 40%. We know that 65% of unplanned NHS bed admission stays involve the elderly. If we can solve that, we will solve a huge issue within the NHS.

I am a member of the Health Committee, which recently wrote a report on social care. We visited Torbay, which was instructive. The authorities there have ensured complete integration between social care and health care services. They have done that by pooling budgets; when they have team meetings, there is no empire building in which people say, “This is my budget for the primary care trust, this is mine for the GPs and this is mine for the hospital.” People sit down and consider their overall budget. They have in mind an 85-year-old lady called Mrs Smith, and they ask what treatment pathway they could create to ensure that Mrs Smith gets the best possible care.

The authorities in Torbay recognise that social and community care is the best way to prevent unplanned admissions to NHS hospitals. The result is that Torbay has the fastest-decreasing and lowest number of unplanned hospital bed day admissions in the country. The approach there clearly works, so the modernisation of social care must also be about proper, true integration between social care and health care.

We also need to recognise that to modernise social care is not to speak of the elderly as some homogenous group. Above all, senior citizens are individuals with individual needs. Each will have their own particular pathway through the later years in life. As a Government, we must recognise that to ensure that the individual has the best possible life in old age, we must give them a chance to lead their life as they would like to.

To do that, the Government have built on the work of the previous Government in introducing personalised services. Above all, we have seen the rise of personal budgets. In England, their uptake doubled, from April 2010 to March 2011, to almost 340,000 service users. That is still only about 35% of eligible users and carers. Although the increase in personal budgets is welcome, it has come in the form of local authority managed budgets, rather than individual direct payments, which make up only 26% of that 340,000—that is, 26% of the 35% of eligible users.

Although there has been an increase in personalisation, there has not been a proper increase in individuals being given freedom in how they would like to use their budgets. In other words, councils are offering a menu to choose from but they are not offering a choice of restaurants.

Key to the modernisation of social care will be the introduction of direct cash payments. At present, individual budgets cannot be paid to a spouse or partner to provide care, and that limits uptake and entrenches the difficulty that millions of people have in wanting to care for a loved one in their old age. If we look across to the continent, we see that places such as Germany have a far more liberalised social care system. In Germany, people are assessed as needing care at one of three levels, and they are then offered a choice between an individual budget cash payment with services in kind, including residential care, and a tailored combination of the two. Interestingly, the individual budget cash payment is of significantly lower value than the social care package. In 2007, people who needed considerable care, or care level 1, received €384 per month; those in need of intensive care, or level 2, received €921 per month; and those in need of highly intensive care, or level 3, received €1,432 per month. They were also offered the choice of claiming direct individual budget cash payments that were about two thirds lower than the payments in the social care package, which meant that people at care level 1 received €205 per month, those at care level 2 received €410 per month and those at care level 3 received €665 per month.

One might have expected the population to opt for the higher payment, given that the social care package seems to be more sophisticated and pays more in euros, but in fact 49% of Germans decided instead to opt for the direct cash payment, which gave them greater choice and freedom in how they spent the money, or spent it for their relative. That control is every bit as valuable to individuals as money. It gives them the opportunity to stay in their own home and receive informal care from relatives. They can purchase the service they need without an additional layer of bureaucracy getting in the way. We can learn from what Germany did in modernising social care. Local authorities have traditionally focused on a one-size-fits-all response, in effect acting as a single, inflexible state supplier that cannot hope to offer the choice that people approaching their old age nowadays—baby boomers who have lived their lives having choice—will want equally as they get older.

What would happen if we introduced such a system in this country? In 2009-10, local authorities spent £3.4 billion on residential elderly care. On that basis, if the same thing happened here as in Germany, with half this group opting instead for cash payments and staying at home, we would save £1.14 billion a year, with people receiving £566 million instead of £1.7 billion. We could free up £1.1 billion or £1.2 billion a year, which could go a significant way towards producing the money that might then implement Dilnot.

Above all, the way in which people contribute to their care must be something that they can control rather than something that is done to them. We need to ensure that in modernising social care we make the best possible services available. People will not put up with paying for the current levels of services if they do not think that they are good enough. If we are going to expect people to pay more for their social care in old age, knowing, as we do, that it has never been free of charge—it is a bit of a nasty shock for some people when they find out that it is not provided free—then they need to have the best possible services for their money, and that, essentially, means choice.

With choice comes competition. We must ensure that there is thriving competition between social care providers. We must not only introduce direct cash budget payments but ensure that agencies are available to guarantee a level playing field. The Good Care Guide website is a fantastic resource, but we should be looking to introduce a TripAdvisor-type service into social care so that people can analyse which are the best care homes and write about their own experiences of what they are like. We should trust the people to make those judgments.

I want to end by reflecting on this year. Many Members have spoken about it being the year of the diamond jubilee, but it is also 70 years since William Beveridge published the Beveridge report on 1 December 1942. On that day, there were queues at the shops to purchase the report, and in the first week 600,000 people did so. The report set out what the welfare state would look like for most of the 20th century.

In many ways, Beveridge still casts a shadow over us. The NHS and pensions were established, but when Beveridge wrote his report the average life expectancy was 69. When people received their pension at 65, their pensionable age was only meant to last an average of four years. Beveridge never gave any thought to how we should care for the elderly. It was assumed that families would look after their elderly loved ones. Somewhere along the line, we have gone wrong. I am not blaming any one political party, but why is it that in many countries it is a mark of honour for people to look after those who have brought them into this world? Why do we pay people child benefit in recognition of being parents but not focus on rewarding carers who look after their parents? There is an imbalance, and I hope that by focusing on social care, as all parties must in this Parliament, we can try to redress the balance.

I wish to end with a quote from Beveridge. The odd thing is, the Beveridge report cannot be found online, but I managed to dig out from the Library a copy of the original 1942 report. Everyone remembers the five giants—Idleness, Squalor, Want, Ignorance and Disease—but in the passage after that famous part Beveridge stated that

“social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The State should offer security for service and contribution. The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.”

Beveridge understood 70 years ago that we needed a contributory principle in our public services. Somewhere along the line, that has been lost. Only through individuals making contributions towards their elderly care will we achieve the best social care services. I hope that as we consider how to modernise social care, the draft Bill that will be published as a result of the Queen’s Speech will focus on all the matters that I have mentioned.

Much of the media’s focus has been on the other place, which we might call a retirement home for rather successful eminent politicians, but what we actually need to focus on, and what our constituents want to focus on, is retirement homes for the elderly population as a whole and what is happening to them. We would do well to remember that. I recognise that I have spoken only about one specific point in the Queen’s Speech, but I believe it was possibly the most important one.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Duddridge.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The four Church leaders came to London to meet the Minister responsible for welfare reform, my noble Friend Lord Freud, who is taking the Bill through the Lords. He explained many of the details of the Bill, which, sadly, is not well understood in Northern Ireland. I see great benefits in making work pay, and we will ensure that every person, regardless of their opportunities, will be better off if they work one hour longer.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on dealing with the legacy of the past.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had on dealing with the legacy of the past.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Since taking office, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met the political parties and other interest groups to discuss the issue of dealing with the past, but there is no consensus. I shall meet the parties again in the coming weeks.

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and I welcome the progress made by the Historical Enquiries Team. Is my right hon. Friend confident that all cases will be dealt with by 2014?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is quite right to comment on the HET, whose satisfaction levels have been extraordinarily high, with some 90% of families being either satisfied or very satisfied. I last spoke to the Chief Constable about this a few weeks ago and he was confident that on his current track the HET would complete on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look carefully at the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. One of the points of the NHS reforms that is perhaps not yet fully understood is the idea of having public health budgets properly ring-fenced, properly funded and with properly employed directors of public health in each area, which will help in many of these areas.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

My constituents in Kingswood entirely agree with the Government’s proposed benefits cap. They believe that no one should earn more in benefits than hard-working families earn. Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is a damned disgrace—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—that the Labour party is opposing and trying to wreck this important measure?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Moderation in the use of parliamentary language—and, indeed, the use of parliamentary language— is much to be preferred.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not question the hon. Lady’s motives, but the point about this place is that people can watch what has been said, and they can form their own judgments.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

As a matter of public record and as part of the public inquiry, will the Prime Minister ask Sir Gus O’Donnell to publish any record of meetings held between special advisers at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street since the year 2000?

[The Prime Minister]

Tempting as it would be, under our system politicians in one Government cannot order the publication of papers in another Government, fascinating though it might sometimes be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

2. What plans he has to introduce a power for electors in a constituency to recall their elected Member of Parliament.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

5. What plans he has to introduce a power for electors in a constituency to recall their elected Member of Parliament.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

7. When he plans to publish his proposals to allow electors in a constituency to recall their elected Member of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: that is precisely the kind of detail that we need to get right in the Bill. In some cases it is clear: if someone is sentenced to prison for 12 months or more they are automatically disqualified already, under the present rules. There is certainly a case for removing that 12-month cut-off line. If someone is imprisoned for any period, it seems to me that there is a strong case for disqualifying them. The key problem is when wrongdoings do not lead to a prison sentence, and that is exactly why we would want to engage the House authorities, to provide a means by which they could be clearly proven.

[Chris Skidmore]

In other countries that already have a right of recall, there is a significant annual cost in having departments to administer public petitions. Has the Minister considered making an impact assessment of the annual cost of introducing such a measure?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend may know, we want the recall mechanism to be based on two simple steps: first, proof that wrongdoing has been committed, as I explained in answer to the previous question; and secondly, a petition by at least 10% of the electors to trigger a by-election in the constituency concerned. That is slightly different from some of the models to which my hon. Friend referred, in California and elsewhere, where there is a much more open-ended process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

13. What recent progress has been made on his Department’s review of non-departmental public bodies.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

Last week I announced the first results of the Government’s review of quangos. This is a work in progress; the principal aim is to increase accountability. We believe that where the state carries out a function it should be accountable to a Minister or to a local council unless one of three rigorous tests is met. To pass, the function must be purely technical, tasked with measuring facts or figures, or plainly required to be politically impartial. We reviewed 901 bodies and intend that nearly 200 will cease to be NDPBs, and we will merge a further 118 and substantially reform a further 171.

[Mr Maude]

Guidelines already limit the use of external consultants for those purposes, and we intend to tighten them further, because the public find it quite offensive that a quango should be spending taxpayers’ money on hiring external consultants to lobby the Government to encourage them to spend more taxpayers’ money.

[Chris Skidmore]

Will the Minister tell the House how many quangos were created by the previous Government and, of those, how many will remain as a result of the changes that he is introducing?

[Mr Maude]

As I said, we will reduce significantly the number of NDPBs. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) was bragging the other day about how many quangos he was planning to get rid of, but sadly the last Labour Government failed to act on their intentions.