Budget Resolutions
Ed Davey Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I will make a bit of progress and then try to take more interventions, if that is okay.
It is also important to recognise that the Budget statement saw a significant increase in public spending overall. It is the case that no Government can be judged purely by how much they spend. How that money is spent is critical. Additional public spending without reform and without a focus on value for money is money wasted. But I do not think that anyone across the House can deny that, with reform and with a focus on value for money, additional public spending, appropriately targeted, can help to transform public services for the better. In this Budget statement, £150 billion more will be spent over the spending review period. That is a 3.8% growth, in real terms, and in the Department for which I am responsible there is a 4.7% increase. Alongside that, there are the biggest increases in capital investment from any Government for 50 years; the biggest block grants ever given, since the dawn of devolution, to the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and an increase of 6.6% in the national living wage, which takes it to £9.50 an hour. All Governments can face criticism and all Chancellors can be attacked, but I do not think it credible for anyone in this House to say that the package that the Chancellor unveiled last week is any way not equal to the challenges that we face.
The question for Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, is what they would do differently. If they argue that we should spend even more, where would they spend it? Which budgets would they prioritise? If they were to spend more, which budgets would they deprioritise? What would they cut to fund the additional spending? If they would not cut, would they borrow more? If so, how much more? With what impact on our credibility in international markets, on interest rates and on our capacity to fund our debt and deficit? Let us bear in mind that debt is falling and the deficit is being reduced as a result of the Chancellor’s shrewd approach.
If the Opposition were to borrow more, would they tax more? If so, whom would they tax? What credibility can they have on tax when we introduced a specific one-off increase to fund the national health service and social care—and the Labour party voted against it?
Those are all questions that Opposition Front Benchers want to avoid. To what lengths have they gone to avoid it? Well, earlier today I spent a few seconds on Twitter, not tweeting, but studying that social platform. In particular, I studied the tweets of my opposite number, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who has been tweeting promiscuously and vociferously over the weekend—but what has he been tweeting promiscuously and vociferously about? Has he been tweeting about the spending review? Has he been putting forward alternative plans for local government, alternative propositions on levelling up, a new plan for housing or perhaps a new proposition on communities?
No. The hon. Member has only one tweet about the spending review. In contrast, he has tweeted five times as often about Crystal Palace football club. We are all, I think, in awe of Patrick Vieira’s success in ensuring that Crystal Palace could beat Manchester City 2-0 at the weekend, but however historic and unprecedented that victory is, I think we all have a right to ask whether, if Labour is silent on the spending review—if it has nothing to say by way of criticism or alternative—that is perhaps an indication of the success of the Chancellor in framing a Budget and a spending review right for this country.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
To get back to some serious points for a moment, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told Glasgow’s COP26 today that the world’s
“addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink.”
Will the Secretary of State use his planning powers to protect the beautiful parts of his own county of Surrey and prevent it from being turned into a British Texas? Why are Conservative Ministers prepared to allow new oil drilling in the Surrey hills and the north of Scotland when we are in a climate crisis?
Michael Gove
I have huge respect and affection for the right hon. Member, but I remember when we sat in Cabinet together and he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I remember when he spoke to the Liberal Democrat conference, when such a thing occurred —when there were enough Liberal Democrats to get together to fill a conference hall. I remember him telling that Liberal Democrat conference hall that it was time—please forgive my language, ladies and gentlemen—to get fracking. Now that he is no longer in government and is in opposition, he seems, curiously enough, to have reversed his position, an unprecedented thing for a Liberal Democrat to do.[Laughter.] Saying one thing to one constituency and another thing to another? Remarkable!
I should say that my own views on fracking in Surrey—and indeed elsewhere—are on the record, and the right hon. Member can be reassured that my opposition to fracking in Surrey, particularly in a case that came up in my constituency, is on the record; but because my views are on the record of the past, I should say no more about the future.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Budget proved one thing about this Conservative Government: they are totally out of touch. They are out of touch with the cost-of-living crisis: despite people struggling with rising heating, food and mortgage bills, the Conservatives’ response is to raise their taxes. They are out of touch with the crisis facing our children: despite the dramatic loss of learning, thanks to covid, the Conservatives plan to spend less than a third of what their own catch-up expert recommended. They are totally out of touch when it comes to climate change: despite the Budget taking place on the eve of the most important set of climate talks ever, the Chancellor had literally nothing to offer on positive action for the climate. Instead, he offered tax cuts for people using fossil fuels, not least on short-haul flights.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It was such a missed opportunity and such an own goal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there were other things that the Government could have done, such as the electrification of east-west rail, which would have affected my constituency? That would have shown that the Government were serious about decarbonisation, but what they did was encourage people to fly when they should not be flying.
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend is a real campaigner when it comes to the environment and climate change, and she is absolutely right. I make a prediction to her: this continuing concerted love-in with fossil fuels will be seen by our children as criminally negligent.
Let me be crystal clear about the Glasgow COP. Having led the UK delegation to three past COPs—in Doha, Warsaw and Lima—when I was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and having prepared the UK’s negotiating position ahead of Paris, I desperately hope that Glasgow succeeds. But when I see the Government’s gross diplomatic mistakes ahead of COP26, and when I hear a Budget speech that does not even mention climate change, I fear for the outcome of Glasgow, and I am angry with this Government.
I regret to say that, as I watched the Prime Minister pose in Rome’s Colosseum, he reminded me less of Emperor Augustus than of Emperor Nero. He talks about ending coal use across the globe, while refusing to stop a new coal mine being opened in Cumbria. He asks world leaders for the political will to act on climate change, while allowing new drilling—new drilling!—for oil on land in Surrey and offshore in Scotland. With the Secretary of State for Levelling Up refusing to use the planning power that he has for climate action, I fear that the only levels that will go up under his leadership are the sea levels.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that I am proud to be the Minister who passed the regulation that did more to stop fracking under this Government and I am proud that I passed it under his own nose in the Cabinet. He was one of the people urging me to go on to fracking but, because I fooled him, I managed to make renewable energy the watchword of the Liberal Democrats in power. We nearly quadrupled renewable energy. We made Britain the world leader in offshore wind power, despite opposition from the Conservatives. I am so proud that it is the Liberal Democrats who were responsible for cutting coal use in this country more than any other party.
By failing to take tough action on fossil fuels, the Government have missed an opportunity to help people who are struggling with heating bills, and to help Britain’s industries which are struggling with high energy costs. Here is what the Liberal Democrats would have done. We would have brought in a one-year windfall tax, on the gas producers making an absolute killing with the rise in global gas prices. We would have used that windfall and shared it with Britain’s fuel-poor and with Britain’s struggling energy-intensive industries. We would have used the cash from our fossil fuel windfall tax to target help on low-income households having to choose between heating and eating. For this, we would have more than doubled the warm home discount, and doubled the number of people who benefit from it.
Ed Davey
In a second.
We would have matched that immediate help with heating bills with a massive programme of home insulation, where this Government have so spectacularly failed. As I give way to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will say what investment there is under this Government for people to insulate their homes. The answer, by the way, is none.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he had deceived members of the Cabinet, raising questions, inevitably, about the reliability of any Liberal Democrat promise. In 2013, he said this:
“Shale gas represents a promising new potential energy resource for the UK. It could contribute significantly to our energy security, reducing our reliance on imported gas, as we move to a low carbon economy.
My decision is based on the evidence. It comes after detailed study of the latest scientific research available and advice from leading experts in the field.”
He also said that the US’s economy had benefited greatly from fracking, and that was why we could benefit here. Which of those words does he now enjoy eating?
Ed Davey
The Secretary of State is known very well for his debating skills, but he is also known for his political skills. My political skills were shown in my ensuring that his Ministers, and he, believed that we were taking real action on fracking when I was passing the regulation that did more to stop fracking—let him hear this. We did more to stop fracking than any other group of politicians. I am really proud that the Liberal Democrats did more on renewable energy—
Michael Gove
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record must show that fracking was banned in the UK, but that it was the right hon. Gentleman who removed that ban because he was confident that the procedure would be safe from now on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think I am supposed to respond to a point of order. That was not really a point of order, however; it was a matter of continued debate.
Ed Davey
I am very happy to debate fracking, and my record and the Government’s record on it. Thanks to the tough environmental regulation that we passed, particularly the seismicity regulation, we in the Liberal Democrats did more to stop fracking. I had Conservative Ministers shouting their case, day in and day out, saying that I should go faster, but I slowed it down and it is not happening. The record will show not only that there is no fracking industry in the UK but that there is a massive renewables industry, and that is thanks to the Liberal Democrats.
As we debate the need to level up—[Interruption.]
Ed Davey
Conservative Members do not like it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they are going to have to learn to live with it.
As we debate the need to level up, anyone would have thought that the Government would want to save jobs in our energy-intensive industries, most of which are big employers outside London and the south-east. But no; there was no help at all in the Budget for the energy-intensive industries. The Government could have used money from a windfall tax on gas producers, as we would have done, to help those industries to decarbonise and to invest in the technologies of the future. This is yet another missed opportunity on climate change from the Conservatives. We can have a greener and fairer society, investing in climate action and helping the fuel poor, but we will not get it with this Conservative Chancellor and this Conservative Government.
Holocaust Memorial Day 2021
Ed Davey Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken in this debate so far, not least the last very moving speech by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I would like to start my contribution by reading a couple of lines from the memoir of Gerda Weissmann Klein, who was 18 when she was sent to the first of several concentration camps, Bolkenhain. She wrote:
“Ilse, a childhood friend of mine, once found a raspberry in the concentration camp and carried it in her pocket all day to present to me that night on a leaf. Imagine a world in which your entire possession is one raspberry and you give it to your friend.”
For me, those words simultaneously drive home the holocaust horrors, while exemplifying the compassion and generosity that existed even in those most awful conditions. It shows us that Ilse Kleinzahler, a young woman in a concentration camp with nothing in the world but a raspberry, could be the light in that unimaginable darkness.
Years later, Gerda said:
“I like to remember some of the things in camp, how people helped each other. I want to tell young people about that—that there was friendship and love and caring.”
Like so many accounts from holocaust survivors, the story has a heartbreaking coda. Ilse died on a death march a week before Gerda was liberated. They were holding each other’s hand. We must never forget the atrocities of the holocaust—never—how Ilse and 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis and the inhumanity inflicted on humans by humans. We must remember, so that we try harder to stop it happening again, as it has, tragically, in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere, as other colleagues have said. We must be vigilant in our opposition to hatred, discrimination and oppression and vigilant in defence of peace, respect and human rights.
Let us also remember, as Mrs Klein does, the friendship, the love and the caring that existed even amidst all that horror. If those qualities can exist in a Nazi concentration camp in the middle of the holocaust, they can certainly exist now. No matter how difficult things are, how big our challenges may be or how dark the days might seem, we can still find those most human of qualities. We can still care for each other, we can still love each other and we can still be the light in the darkness.
Rough Sleeping
Ed Davey Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
Let me again praise the good work that my hon. Friend has done, not least in presenting the Bill that became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which has played such a crucial role in driving some of the results that we are seeing today. He is absolutely right: we must not simply deal with the symptoms, but also tackle the cause. That may include some of the health issues that we have already discussed today, but the fundamental issue for me as Housing Secretary is that we must build more homes of all types in all parts of the country. Last year we built more homes than had been built in any of the last 30 years, but we have now set ourselves the objective of building a million new homes during the current Parliament, and we would like to see house building rise to 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the decade.
These are difficult and challenging targets which will require further Government investment in infrastructure and affordable housing, and we intend to make that investment. They will also require a great many councils to make difficult decisions. If councils really care about the acute housing need in their communities, they will have to use imagination and determination to ensure that the necessary homes are built, and we will be pushing them to do so.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a moral scandal that hundreds of homeless people are still dying every year on our streets, without the palliative care that they ought to receive during their last weeks and months? Will he look at the Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament? Will he also agree to meet me and the charities that helped me to write the Bill, including Pathway, St Mungo’s, Hospice UK and Shelter, and enable them to use some of the funds that he has announced today—in conjunction with the NHS—to end the scandal of terminally ill homeless people dying without proper care?
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points. It was for those humanitarian reasons, among others, that we chose to use the derogation enabling public money to be spent on compassionate services for non-UK nationals on our streets. We did not feel it was right that those individuals were suffering in silence and we were unable to support them. As I said in my statement, there are serious underlying issues. According to the latest figures that we have, from 2017, about 90% of the people who have died on our streets were suffering from serious mental health conditions, and we need to address those. I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Ed Davey Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Percy
I am not going to get into the debate that has been raging in Poland following what President Putin said. All I will say is that wherever the Germans occupied in world war two, there were very brave people who stood against them, and there were also, sadly, people who facilitated and aided their evil and vicious aims. That is true across every single country of Europe. There were people in this country in the 1930s who, as we know and as I have just referenced, gave succour to fascism and to that hateful ideology.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech, which I agree with. He touched on the conspiracy theories around George Soros, and I am glad he did. Will he join me in condemning parts of the Hungarian Government who are pushing this and call on Prime Minister Orbán to not allow this anti-Soros propaganda to continue?
Andrew Percy
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The indulgence of this Soros conspiracy theory—which I have heard from people in my own area, it has to be said—is completely unacceptable wherever it is found. It is racism, it is antisemitism, and it is an updated version of the tropes we saw in the 1930s. There are people who stood at the recent election who engaged in some of those theories. We must take people at their word when they apologise for that, and I would encourage anybody who has been guilty of that to work with us through the all-party group.
While there have been problems on both sides of politics, I do fear, sadly, that on the Labour Benches—some 30 of the party’s candidates at the recent election were accused of antisemitism—there is more work to be done to counter anti-Jewish racism. It is a real pleasure to co-chair the APPG with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who has made it absolutely clear that she will be steadfast in calling out antisemitism and racism on her own Benches and within her own party, and that she will have no truck with those who talk about foreign Governments being inspired by Zionist masters, any kind of relativisation of the holocaust in respect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or, indeed, pathetic antisemitic Beatles singalongs, which we have seen. As I have said previously, it brings shame on this country’s whole body politic that, sadly, this disgusting ideology has been at the heart of British politics and mainstreamed in recent years. When I was the Minister responding to such a debate a couple of years ago, I spoke about the Israelification of antisemitism, which we have seen in recent years.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who told us the story of her constituent and the film made about him. I hope the Chichester festival brings that message to many other people.
The contributions in this debate have been truly impressive. It feels odd to single out any one Member, but the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) deserves singling out not just for his stories about his family, but for the dignified way in which he told them. I will never forget the image that he painted of Heinz’s doctor sitting there in his first world war Wehrmacht uniform with the Iron Cross, giving the Nazi Waffen-SS the impossible task of how to deal with him.
I am delighted that the House is standing together today on this Holocaust Memorial Day. I want to share with colleagues the lessons that I learned on a trip to Auschwitz, which was organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. It was a truly moving day—I went with some young pupils from a school in my constituency. I had been to Auschwitz before—I had been to Dachau and Yad Vashem—but I had never received the insight of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I learned two things. One was about telling the individual stories, and I want to tell an individual story today in the words of someone who was murdered in the camps. It is a story of how her hopes for her child were snuffed out. I also want to talk about the academic studies that have been done on how we learn the lessons, and what the lessons to be learned are.
Let me start with the individual story first. When people go round Yad Vashem, they see the candles and they see and hear the names. That does speak powerfully, but among the material from the Holocaust Educational Trust was a pamphlet with a letter from a lady to her daughter, and that daughter, Miriam Bas Leiba, published it many years later. I want to read from that letter, because it is a testimony from those days, from the people who were experiencing the holocaust. In the letter to her two-year-old daughter, a mother wrote:
“Dear Mirele,
I can’t believe I have one night to fill a lifetime of love into this letter.
Tomorrow morning…I am giving you up. I am taking you, Mirele, to the back entrance of dear, brave Herman’s grocery store and the child rescuers will be waiting there for you and the thirty-two other children under the age of three. They’ll inject you with a sedative so you won’t cry and then they’ll slip you off in the predawn with you—my life, my love—out of this barbaric country to safety.
By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, these are just extracts. I will not detain the House by reading the full letter.
“Mirele, do you see why I have to give you up? He said no belongings, but I will beg, I will plead that this letter be allowed to go, sewn into your undershirt. And then, I will pray to God that the letter stays with you until you are old enough to read it. You must know why you are alone, without parents. Not because they didn’t love you…but because they did.
It’s eerie to think that by the time you read this, I will probably be dead. That’s what Herman says is going on…But I won’t have lived in vain, Mirele, if I know that I have brought you into the world and you will live and survive and grow big and strong and you will be happy. You can be happy, Mirele, because we loved you.
What makes a difference in the lives of adults, it seems, is if they have secure childhoods. Secure, with lots of love and acceptance and needs fulfilled and predictable routine and the like. You’ve had that up to this minute…but then you won’t. Who knows who will end up taking care of you? Some family who will take you in for the money Herman will pay them? They will surely be kinder to their own than to you.
Here is where the pain mixes with rage! I rage at the animals who are making it possible for you to cry and I won’t be there to comfort you.
But you will have this letter, and this letter will make you feel secure, if God answers my prayers. You have us, Mirele, even though you can’t see us, we’re with you. We’re watching you and praying for you…
Mirele, you’ll wonder what your first two years were like. You’ll wish you could remember. Let me remember for you right now, tenderly, on this piece of paper.
You like hot cereal in the morning, with lots of milk and sugar. Except there is no milk and sugar now, none in this whole city. But I will make your cereal anyway and you eat it with big smiles between every bite. Then you become ready for your nap, so I will rock you, after putting the rocker where the sunlight will fall in it…
God! It’s 2am already. Only two more hours with me, my love, my baby, my Mirele. I’m going to hold you now, Mirele for two hours. Your father and I are going to wake you, feed you and tell you over and over how much we love you. You’re barely two years old, but maybe, if God is good, maybe, you’ll remember it. And maybe you’ll keep this letter until you are old enough to read it…
I love you. Your father loves you. May God help us all.”
You can hear in that letter, Mr Deputy Speaker, the pain of a parent thinking about what is going to happen. When I read that letter for the first time, on the plane to Auschwitz, it took me back in a way that nothing else had done. Those Members who, like me, are lucky enough to have children will know that that bond is more special than anything. For the Nazis to take that away from so many parents and to kill so many people will always be the most unforgiveable crime the world has ever witnessed.
On that day, I learned about how we can stop holocausts and genocides of the future. The hon. Member for Chichester spoke about the Cambodian genocide, and we know about the genocides in the former Bosnia, in Darfur and in too many other places. I do not suggest that all genocides are the same. The holocaust stands on its own, not only for its sheer scale but for the political ideology that forced it through in the most appalling machine-like way. But as we look at antisemitism, racism and hatred in society here and in other places, I think it is important to discover lessons we can learn. Academics have studied the holocaust and other genocides and I pay particular tribute to Gregory Stanton, who wrote about the steps that lead to genocide.
The first step is classification of different groups—dividing them into them and us. Symbolisation, with hate symbols for the other. Discrimination—excluding groups, segregating groups, denying them rights. Dehumanisation—denying the humanity of people and equating them with vermin, animals, insects and so on. Organisation, because genocide does not happen because of just a few people; it takes a whole group of people in society, determined to carry it out and working together in militia groups.
The sixth step is polarisation, which we are seeing in social media, as the hon. Lady rightly said; propaganda is being put out now, in Britain today, to polarise society. The seventh step is preparation—the Nazis and others prepared, in cold blood. They did not commit genocide by accident; they prepared in detail. They identified the victims, separated them out and built their killing machines and camps. The eighth step is persecution—expropriation of property, displacement, putting people in ghettos and sending them to the death camps and concentration camps. The ninth step is extermination, when the killing happens and humanity is just gone. The tenth step Gregory Stanton identifies is denial, which we see now—people denying the holocaust, which is utterly shocking.
I have read out those 10 steps to the House today because when I read them and had them explained to me—the way they can operate at different levels, even here in the UK—I realised why we have to step in early. Gregory Stanton did not just try to identify the different stages that linked various genocides together, starting with the holocaust; he said what, at each stage, we have to do to prevent the genocide—to stop step 1 going to step 2, then to step 3 and so on. Governments, Parliaments and civil society need to reflect on the need for early intervention, so that no stage goes unchallenged. When Gregory Stanton was asked what he thought was the best antidote to these appalling crimes and the best way to prevent genocide, he said the answer was popular education—educate everyone as well as we can—and then develop a social and cultural tolerance for diversity. I worry that we are not working hard enough to develop that tolerance. We have to do more.
Let us remember the victims. Let us remember Mirele, her mother and her father. But let us, in remembering them, pledge ourselves to ensuring that we really understand what happened, and to fighting every step of the way so that these things never happen again.
Permitted Development and Shale Gas Exploration
Ed Davey Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
It is a great privilege to be able to speak in a debate of such importance to my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for applying to the Backbench Business Committee for it. It follows in the path of a similar debate that I held in Westminster Hall at the end of last year. That debate, too, was heavily oversubscribed. I will therefore focus my comments on one or two significant areas.
I was elected in 2010. At the point of my election, it became very clear that shale gas activity—or, at that time, just gas activity—was taking place in my constituency. I would urge caution on Labour Members before they make this whole thing very political, because it was the actions of the previous Labour Government that delivered shale gas to my constituency. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it was a huge privilege to work in the then Department of Energy and Climate Change as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who is in his place today. Much of the work that was done on putting in traffic lights and some of the regulatory framework should have been done by the Labour Government before they gave the green light to proceed with shale gas and fracking, but none of it was.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I hope he can confirm that in those years we allowed local democracy to function. I opposed people who were arguing for permitted development, and opposed the idea that this should be some sort of national infrastructure project. We put on, after vast consultation, very strict regulation with regard to seismicity, and we had his support for that. Will he continue with that support?
Mark Menzies
That is why I called the Westminster Hall debate last year and why I am on my feet today. It is absolutely critical that permitted development, which has a place in our planning system, is for, say, a small extension to a bungalow or a conservatory, not for an enormous industrial estate that will produce tens of thousands of tonnes of pollutants, have thousands of vehicle movements per year, and so on.
I thank the Minister and the Department for listening to the case that I and local people put with regard to the Roseacre Wood site in my constituency. That was a long-running case that had gone through a number of stages in the planning process, including two planning inquiries. We made the case that the site was unsuitable, primarily because it was up country lanes, and regardless of how we tried to cut it, the traffic management plan simply did not work. I am not sure where traffic management plans fit in under permitted development. A fundamental reason why a site was turned down would not be a consideration under permitted development. If the Minister is looking for a reason why this proposal does not stack up, he should refer to Roseacre Wood and the decision tree that kicked in. It was turned down on those grounds, and therefore the Government simply cannot proceed with the permitted development proposals.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, especially in respect of solar power and community energy renewables.
When I was Secretary of State and had to deal with these issues, some people in the coalition thought that shale gas was the answer to everything and would reduce energy prices. They were extremely keen to push it forward. I was not one of those people. I was helped in my far more cautious approach by colleagues such as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and others on the Conservative Benches, who realised that we had to be extremely cautious about the environmental issues and the local planning issues. One reason I am proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this debate is my concern that the controls agreed by the coalition—being very strong on local democracy and risks such as seismicity—are in danger of being removed. I was concerned that this relatively new industry had to be safely regulated, for the environment and to take account of local issues.
When we looked at seismicity in particular, we took advice from the experts. We had advice from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering about what would be the right approach to regulation on seismicity. We consulted widely. I published the report that was given to me, and I asked for people’s opinions on it. We took a precautionary approach even to the evidence.
I came to the view, and accepted the recommendation, that the traffic light system was the way to go and that we needed a precautionary approach, not least because the geologists and experts were telling us that even a small seismic event underground could damage the casing of the wells and the bore holes of the fracks. I therefore accepted that we needed to be cautious, and it was important to give that reassurance to the public. We decided that we would go ahead, but only on that explicitly cautious basis.
In the ministerial statement I gave in December 2012, setting out that cautious regulatory regime, I said that it could perhaps be looked at again in due course. However, for the benefit of the House, let me be really clear about what we were saying at that time. We wanted a significant amount of evidence—this had to be evidence based. So far we have had very few fracking experiences in this country, so we do not have anywhere near the number of data points or the amount of evidence that we would need to possibly allow anything to go forward.
Wera Hobhouse
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting to compare the Government’s planning approach to fracking with their planning approach to renewable energy?
Sir Edward Davey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government proceed to allow permitted development, that will be in sharp contrast to their planning approach to onshore wind. I had almost weekly battles with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who was trying to stop onshore wind. We won most of them, but after the 2015 election the Government made it almost impossible to build onshore wind in England and Wales. That very negative approach to renewables stands in stark contrast to what the Government appear to want to do on fracking.
I bring that to the House’s attention because those are completely the wrong priorities, not least because of the climate change crisis. If anything, I have got more sceptical about fracking over the years, because the evidence—particularly after Paris—is that we need to be even more rigorous in reducing our fossil fuel usage. Now that we have gone from a 2° target to a 1.5° target, we have to push the renewable agenda further forward.
I would say to the Minister that when we were thinking about shale gas, we were thinking about making sure it was linked to technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which are now in abeyance. Without CCS, there is much less of an argument for fracked gas. Moreover, renewables technology has increased and improved dramatically. Prices have come down much further. We have seen storage technology come on. We are not going to need the gas that people thought we would need just a few years ago.
The relaxation of regulations, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified, and I hope the House will send a clear message to Ministers. However, I would go even further. Given that we have had such progress on renewables and storage, the case for fracking gas is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. I urge the Government to rethink their priorities. Let us bank and capitalise on the amazing success of new green technologies; let us not look backwards.
Local Government Funding
Ed Davey Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
I will come on to the local government financial settlement shortly, but if the hon. Lady is so concerned about the resources that local government receives, why did she vote against a real-terms increase for the next two years for local authorities? She can perhaps reflect on that while she waits.
Returning to the reforms that councils are making, some authorities are opting for unitarisation. In Dorset, for example, the nine existing councils will be abolished to create two new unitary councils, generating annual savings of approximately £28 million. I have announced that I am minded to replace the existing five councils in Buckinghamshire with a single council for the area, which could generate savings of £18 million.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Despite all the efficiency gains that some local authorities can generate, some authorities are in genuine difficulties, as we have seen in Northamptonshire. What advice would the Secretary of State give to Members and council leaders where councils are struggling to balance their budgets and are considering section 114 notices? How should such considerations be linked to Members of Parliament so that we can work together to tackle the difficult situations that many communities are dealing with?
Sajid Javid
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present for the statement I made yesterday on Northamptonshire County Council, but the independent inspector specifically concluded that the situation was not due to a lack of funds but to the mismanagement of funds and other issues. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes a wider point that councils can face certain financial difficulties even if they are managing their finances well, and those councils should rightly make maximum use of the available flexibilities. If they want to go further, they can try to get the support of local people through a referendum. In the longer term, we need a fair funding review, to which the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) recently referred, to ensure that the system distributes funding more fairly. The recently closed consultation received some 300 representations, and will be going through them.
Homelessness
Ed Davey Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and all those who have spoken so far have made passionate speeches, showing how they care about homelessness in their constituency. I hope, therefore, that if my Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill gets a Second Reading, they will be there to support it. I share their passion, but I want to make a boring speech. I want to speak about the estimates that are before us today—this is an estimates debate. The reason is—to make a serious point—that the House does not do its job properly, and has not done so for decades, because it does not hold the Government to account for their draft budgets and how they spend taxpayers’ money. This Parliament talks about parliamentary sovereignty all the time; I wish we had some, but until this Parliament stands up to the Executive and plays its role in analysing how the money is spent, we will not have anything like parliamentary sovereignty, Brexit or no Brexit.
I make that point with respect to homelessness because there cannot be many other issues on which it is as important that the House get to grips with the money. To illustrate that point, I refer hon. Members to the estimates, which I am sure they looked at ahead of this debate, including the central Government supply estimates published last April, which are the subject of this debate. Nothing in the many tables and figures in the section on the Department for Communities and Local Government, as it was then, talks about homelessness; they are all in very broad aggregate totals that tell us nothing. This is completely unnecessary. Other Parliaments, including the New Zealand and Swedish Parliaments, are given detailed information on spending. They get to deal with the figures and so make real decisions on how the money is spent. We do not, and that is shocking.
Chris Evans
I seek the right hon. Gentleman’s advice. He was a Minister for five years. Was this his experience of the Department he ran?
Sir Edward Davey
Yes, it was indeed, and when the Cabinet debated ways to improve value for money, I made the same argument. The then Prime Minister was interested and asked the Cabinet Secretary to pursue it, but unfortunately, after several meetings, it was blocked by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I move now from the main supply estimates to the supplementary supply estimates, which—again—I am sure others have read in detail. These are a little more illuminating and come with a proper memorandum. Hon. Members might be interested to know that they reduce the amount of money for homelessness. It might be for a good reason—I do not know—but it talks about a £9 million reduction in the flexible homelessness support grant. Apparently a new procurement strategy and vehicle is being set up that means the money cannot be spent. I am sure that that £9 million could have been spent on homeless people. It also talks about removing £16 million from the Move On fund—it could not be spent in-year and so apparently has to be spent later on in this Parliament. That is another £16 million not being spent on homelessness. Perhaps the Minister, who I am sure has been briefed for this debate, can tell us why £25 million has been lost from the homelessness budget this fiscal year. If we are to get to grips with this, we have to get to grips with the money.
Jamie Stone
Does my right hon. Friend agree that something could be learned from the close scrutiny the Scottish Parliament gives to these figures? That might be instructive for this place.
Sir Edward Davey
I agree with my hon. Friend. One advantage of devolution is that we can experiment with new ways of doing things, one of which might be better scrutiny of the money.
I am a bit of a geek on this. I wrote a pamphlet about 15 years ago on it. I did some research and found that the last time the House voted down a request from the Government was 1919, which shows that the House has basically given up its role in scrutinising the Budget properly. When one asks for more information, one ends up going to the National Audit Office, which does some decent work on the figures to help the Public Accounts Committee, which is behind the report we are debating now. I refer hon. Members to the NAO report on homelessness published last September, which shows the full extent of the problem. It shows that local authorities spent £1.148 billion on homelessness in 2015-16—the last year we have figures for—of which £845 million was spent on temporary accommodation and £303 million on prevention, support and advice. There is little detail beyond those big aggregate figures, which do not tell us much about how the money was spent.
The commentary in the Auditor General’s report is instructive. Paragraph 128 states:
“Local authorities fund the cost of homelessness from a number of different sources… The Department does not know how much of each source of funding is used for each component of homelessness services. Without this information, it cannot fully understand the impact that reducing one source of funding will have on the others…the Department does not have the information it needs to predict where a cut in funding will limit a local authority’s ability to meet its duties.”
What does that mean? The Department does not know. We are not told. Who does know? Who knows where this money is being spent and whether it is being spent in the best way possible? It is time we got our Parliament up to scratch. Then we can talk about parliamentary sovereignty.
I turn to others parts of the NAO report, which we paid for—it is an expensive and detailed report and we ought to read it properly. It is provided to the House free for Members. I refer them to paragraph 24, which is headed, “Conclusions on Value for Money”. It says:
“The Department’s recent performance in reducing homelessness therefore cannot be considered value for money.”
We need to get to grips with this. The money we are spending is probably not enough and the way we are spending it is not very good. We will not tackle this problem until we sort ourselves out.
The only thing we can find is the trends, and the trends are worrying. We have been spending more in recent years on dealing with the symptoms of the problem—temporary accommodation—but less on prevention. It is great that we have the Homelessness Reduction Act—a brilliant piece of legislation—but we are spending less on prevention, which is not what Parliament wants. Homelessness is a scar on our society. We in this place are elected to do our job properly, to scrutinise the money and tackle this problem. Until we sort out our processes on things such as public expenditure scrutiny, we will never do that job properly.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. Does she agree that the fact that the Housing Act 1996 describes people as “becoming homeless intentionally” is quite outrageous and offensive? Is not that the exact point that she is making?
Fiona Onasanya
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with him. I should also put on record that I was a commercial property solicitor before coming to this place. No one becomes homeless intentionally. I know that that Act looks at whether someone has taken steps to put themselves in a particular position, but no one takes steps to make themselves homeless. Someone could lose their job, for example, and be two months behind with their mortgage, or they could get into arrears with their rent and have their accommodation repossessed. Did they deliberately not pay their rent? No, there were factors that meant they did not have the funds to do so. I absolutely agree that no one is intentionally homeless.
Being or becoming homeless is an unintended consequence of many factors, and we are not doing enough to address that. Over £7 billion of cuts have been made to housing benefit support since 2010, with 13 separate cuts to housing benefit over the past eight years, including the bedroom tax and breaking the link between housing benefit for private renters—local housing allowance—and private rents. I believe that the 169% increase in rough sleepers since 2010 is a direct result of decisions made by Ministers in this place to reduce funding for homelessness services, and of a lack of action to help private renters.
The issue of homelessness has not been adequately funded, and there has been a steep drop in investment. I understand that the Government are looking at being fiscally minded, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, and paying attention to what they are spending, but we seriously need to invest to save in this regard. This is the sixth richest country in the world, and we cannot have people sleeping on doorsteps who are unable to look after themselves and who have nowhere to call home. We cannot have people who are sleeping on sofas falling through the gaps because they are not considered homeless. That is unacceptable. We have a chance here to make a difference and to do something. We have a chance to invest in lives, because we are here to serve people. If we forget that, we have forgotten who we really are.
Supported Housing
Ed Davey Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is an underlying problem. St Mungo’s representatives came to see me this morning and spoke on behalf of a number of providers about the difficulties that still exist, despite the Government’s proposals and the fact that we have got away from LHA rates, as a first move in the direction of sanity. At least that has been clarified, but we should not forget the problems that have occurred in the past two years.
I think the report is excellent. It deals with more than just funding issues; it looks at the role that local authorities play in provision in their area; at how to get people from supported housing into more permanent mainstream housing; and at enabling people to get into work while they are in supported housing. It includes a lot of good recommendations, but I will focus on three key funding issues. I would like some clarification and some certainty from the Minister about where things are going, at least in the medium term. I hope I can also persuade her to think again about two key issues in which the Government have not quite got to the right place.
The first issue is longer-term provision. To some extent, the Government response separates sheltered and extra care housing from long-term supported housing. I accept that slightly different regulatory regimes are proposed for those two sorts of housing, but in essence they will both be funded through the welfare system, as the Government response says. Their funding arrangements look similar, if not identical, so I shall address them together.
I think the Government response is helpful. It is an awful lot better than what we started with. It is clearly right, as we heard overwhelmingly in the evidence we received, that paying for supported housing should be linked to housing benefit, or to the housing element of universal credit when it comes in. What I want from the Minister is a little more explanation and clarification of the wording. The word “control” is used several times, including a reference to
“enhanced cost controls and oversight, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer”.
Of course, everyone recognises that the Government’s job is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer, but what does that phrase actually mean? Does it mean that in the future there will be an effort to bear down on the amount of housing benefit that is paid, to reduce the amount and say, “Well, we paid you the 100% that you requested for housing benefit last year, but next year it’s only going to be 95%, because we expect you to start squeezing the costs that are applicable to this scheme”? Who exercises the controls? Will there be a system with criteria, or will things simply be done on an ad hoc basis for individual schemes?
It would be really helpful in the cases of sheltered and extra care housing, and of long-term supported housing, for which slightly different regulatory regimes are being proposed, but necessarily the words “cost control” come into both of them, if some further explanation could be given about precisely how those cost controls will operate. Who will operate them? Will it be something that is done for three or four years ahead, or will it be something on an annual basis and, if so, how? Such an explanation would be helpful, not merely for our satisfaction here. We come back to this issue of long-term investment. We want more providers to come in with proposals, to get more places and more schemes, but they will only do that if they can satisfy the people they are borrowing money from that there is a long-term future for such schemes and that the money can be paid back. So it is absolutely crucial that we get that right. I am not making a criticism of the proposal as such; instead, I am seeking clarification about how these schemes will operate. So, can we have a bit more certainty about they will operate for the providers in the future? I think we are getting there; we are on the same page, but we want to be clearer about what longer-term arrangements are actually written on the page.
I will come on to something about which I think there is a more fundamental problem, which is the issue with short-term accommodation. I think the term itself causes some difficulties; the Government certainly have difficulties with it. Paragraph 19 of the “Conclusions and recommendations” in this excellent joint report says—I am sure that the Minister has read that paragraph several times already, but I will read it for her again—that
“The Government is right to consider an alternative funding mechanism for very short-term accommodation”.
I will stop reading there, because there is an important word in that sentence. It refers to “very” short-term accommodation. Paragraph 19 continues, “given the emergency nature”—again, those words are important—
“of that provision and the inability of Universal Credit to reflect short-term changes in circumstance.”
I think that that is a given; everyone knows that there have been problems with universal credit in the first few weeks. However, I do not think that anyone thinks that the problems with universal credit are likely to last for two years, do they? Do Ministers think that? Is that why the “short-term” arrangements last for two years under the Government’s proposals—because they do not think that universal credit can be sorted out in two years? I do not know. However, if the Minister thinks so, she is even more pessimistic about universal credit than most of the rest of us are. Anyway, that is the issue.
It was very clear when the two Committees produced their joint report on this subject that they were thinking of accommodation where people literally could not get their universal credit sorted out within a matter of days or very few weeks. I think the period of around 12 weeks is probably reasonable; I think that is the period that most providers are looking at. It is “emergency” accommodation—accommodation for people who have not got a roof over their head; they live there for a very short period. I think everyone accepts that that sort of accommodation needs a different funding model. The problem is that recommendation 19 is being used by Ministers to justify having a completely different funding model for any accommodation that is provided for up to two years, and there is no justification at all in the Government’s response as to why there is that sudden extension from what had been looked at as “very short-term”, “emergency” accommodation for up to 12 weeks to accommodation that is for up to two years.
People from St Mungo’s came to see me this morning and they spoke on behalf of the Riverside Foundation, YMCA and the Salvation Army, which provide around a quarter of so-called “short-term supported housing” units in this country. They said that that extension gives an element of uncertainty to their funding that really causes them major difficulties. St Mungo’s said that 98% of the accommodation it provides will be covered by this ring-fenced grant to local authorities, about which there is absolutely no certainty at all.
I raised the concerns about the need for more clarification and certainty about the long-term funding arrangements linked to housing benefit. However, I think that most providers think there is an awful lot more certainty about those arrangements than there is about some unspecified, ring-fenced grant that can be changed at the stroke of a Chancellor’s pen at any time in the future.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is making an excellent point about an excellent report. May I give him one example of where we need to see more short-term accommodation and where we need the certainty of the financial models that he is talking about? A lot of homeless people suffering from terminal illness have a right to accommodation, but when local authorities and others get together to provide that accommodation, it is exactly the sort of accommodation that he has been talking about. That accommodation, which is so needed in many communities, will not be provided unless this problem is sorted out.
Mr Betts
Yes, I think that is absolutely right and again we are back to the point that providers of new accommodation need some certainty, because when they go to borrowers the borrowers say, “Where is the funding stream for the future?”; borrowers want to see that funding stream. That is exactly what St Mungo’s is saying—it will not be able to raise the funds under this proposal that the Government are currently putting forward.
I do not really know why there has suddenly been this extension to two years. There is no justification for it, so I will just ask the Minister, who I accept is new in her post, to have a really good think about it. I know there is still some of the consultation period left—I think it extends next Tuesday—so there is time to rethink and get this right.
I also say to the Minister that this issue is not only about funding for the future but about the nature of the funding and what it says, because if the funding is related to the welfare system—to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit—essentially it is the accommodation of an individual that is funded. That individual has a relationship with the payment for their unit of accommodation. They are entitled to that accommodation, and they make a payment from their housing benefit or their element of universal credit for the cost of that accommodation. It is a tenancy relationship between the provider and the individual.
As part of the Government’s welfare reform to give responsibility to the individual in such circumstances, I would have thought that that tenancy relationship would have appealed to Ministers. However, the Government are now saying that, with a ring-fenced grant to local authorities, it will not be the individual who receives the money to pay—through the welfare system—for the rent on their property. It will actually be the institution that gets funded. So the Government are moving from an individual system, whereby money goes with the individual as part of their tenancy, to an institutional system, where the money goes to the institution itself.
Does that move fit in with the Government’s welfare reform agenda? It is difficult to see that it does. It is also difficult to see how we are moving towards a system of personal and individual responsibility, with individuals responsible for their own accommodation, when the Government are saying, completely counter to that, “We will have a new system where we actually fund the institution, which will mean that the individual will not be given a relationship with their accommodation and the money they pay towards it.”
Ministers have to think again about this issue. On both counts, the organisations and the providers are saying, “This really gives us so much uncertainty that we’re not comfortable, and our lenders are not comfortable. It will actually stop new provision in the future.” And we go back to the issue of the individual paying rent for their property and having that rent paid through the welfare system, as opposed to a ring-fenced grant for local authorities that institutionalises the whole system in a way that cuts off the tenant-landlord relationship. That is really quite important; I do not think that that element has really been thought through, because it really is quite important.
I will raise just one other issue, as I know lots of colleagues want to speak. Again, it is an issue that I do not think Ministers have really addressed, which is the refuges for women and children. The joint report makes a very sensible recommendation about having a “national network” of refuges. Basically, however, the Government’s response was, “It should all be done at local level”.
Generally I am a localist; I think the Minister knows that. I believe that local authorities by and large are best placed to make decisions for their areas. Local councillors living in the areas they represent know what is good for those areas better than Ministers sitting behind desks in Whitehall offices.
Women’s refuges are a different issue. By and large, supported housing deals with the problems, needs and accommodation requirements of people who live in an area, and in those cases it is right that they remain in that area and are accommodated and housed there. For women fleeing domestic violence, the situation is almost exactly the opposite. If anything, they want to get out of the area where that violence has occurred to somewhere completely different so that the perpetrator does not know where they are. It is important that we see the issue on a more national scale, so that we have places for people to go that are almost certainly not in the area where the violence has happened. I read the Government’s response, and I did not understand why they turned down our recommendation, because it seemed sensible. The recommendation was completely at odds with the rest of the report, in that the provision for that sort of circumstance is different from the other kinds of supported accommodation covered by the report. Will the Minister in her new position have a think about that?
There was overwhelming evidence to the Joint Committee on women’s refuges, but the Government said, “No, we think it is all better done at the local level.” There was no clear justification for turning the recommendation down and thinking it could all be done at the local level. Have they done any impact assessment of whether that would lead to the comprehensive network of provision that everyone wants to see?
I have raised three key issues to which I hope the Minister will respond. They are important if we are to get things right. In the end, getting the funding right means getting the provision in place and maintaining it, as well as ensuring that we get the appropriate new provision for the future.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for that intervention, because clearly the two-year issue is one aspect of this matter. However, I think the wider issue is probably around the definition of “short term”, as has been mentioned. I had an interesting briefing from representatives of Rethink Mental Illness, who said that they
“warmly welcome the decision not to proceed with the LHA cap, and to place long-term supported housing funding on a sustainable footing.”
However, they went on to raise
“concerns about some of the proposals for ‘short-term’ supported housing”,
which I think is normally defined as being under two years. That seems to be the issue that worries Rethink Mental Illness and other mental health organisations. Rethink Mental Illness has issued a joint letter with nine other organisations, aiming to tie down a little the definitions of “short term” and “very short term”. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that, but we will all have to bear in mind that the consultation closes on, I think, 23 January. It will be difficult for the Government to say too much in advance of that, so I assume that the main purpose of today’s debate is for us to get our points in before the Government’s response to the consultation, which will no doubt include some of these points from charities.
Sir Edward Davey
On that key point, those in the Treasury always want to control everything and to ring-fence funds, so that nothing more can be used. However, if the funds run out, the need of the people whom we are talking about is still there. We need to get that point over to Treasury Ministers, and I am sure that the Minister would wish to do that, so this is supportive of her case to the Treasury. It seems to me that expenditure should be demand-led, not Treasury-capped and controlled. The idea that we would exclude people who are among the most vulnerable in our society because the money had run out seems to me absurd and wrong.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual passion. I will not offer a lecture to the Treasury on how they should provide and quantify the amounts of money for particular parts of the supported housing provision that the Government are looking at reshaping. At this stage, we are trying to register our concerns, as he has done, on aspects of the supported housing report that we feel are not yet reflected in the Government’s position. We are also trying to encourage the Government, when looking at the response to the consultation, in which all these points will no doubt come up, to think widely—this is the great advantage of having the Minister in her new role—about what the Minister knows from her experience, and what I and other Members will share today from our experiences, about what works best on the ground.
That brings me to my last main point, which is about domestic violence refuges. Two really good points have been made. The first, made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, is that domestic violence refuges are slightly different because in many cases the individuals want to be out of the area—not just the parish, as my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, mentioned, but quite often outside the constituency in which the violence happened. However, they will not all want to go to the same constituency, of course; they will want to move to different places, not least depending on where they have family links.
I can easily recall a woman fleeing from stalking in my constituency who wanted to be very far away, not only because of her fear of the individual who had stalked her, but because she wanted to go with her young children to where her mother was, to receive that additional family support. The issue is not just one of national funding, or having a national network, but of access, and how that works practically. If somebody fleeing domestic violence wants to move, for the sake of argument, from Gloucester to Birkenhead to take advantages of family links there, how will that work in practice? I can imagine that such access could be difficult.
I know the new Minister has experience of domestic violence refuges; I think I am right in saying that she helped to set one up in her constituency. That side of the argument is about the importance of localisation, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South mentioned. These things are very often best done on the ground by people who know how to do them. Bishop Rachel of Gloucester, in her new role, has very much championed a refuge that the diocese has effectively provided in the centre of our city. That is a really good example of a local initiative that I certainly would not want ruled out as a result of a very top-down approach, led by the man or woman in Whitehall who knows best.