Summer Adjournment

Graham Allen Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I played a part in the creation of the Backbench Business Committee in its early days. I am very proud of that and I hope you are, too. I am equally proud that it has restored the ability of Back-Bench Members of all parties to raise issues of concern to their constituents that other people may often think go unremarked. Even more importantly, when Members of Parliament are berated and abused regularly for failing to do their duty or for not doing what they should do, members of the public watching or reading these debates can see the absolute variety of work that Members of Parliament do which is unsung but vital in their constituency.

This debate is therefore very important, particularly for someone who represents one of the five most deprived constituencies in the UK, where there are very low incomes. This is not a competition, but Members in those constituencies have a high number of cases, and those cases deserve to be brought into the cold light of day so that people understand how many others live. I say that without any side, but it may be more difficult for some to understand the impact on individuals and on families of economic crises and of the swathe of policies and politics we discuss in here; it is much harder to ignore that when one represents a constituency that has very great difficulties if we get it wrong in this House.

I want to talk about a number of constituency cases, but one thing I ought to get on the record first—I do this without delving back into an issue decided in the recent referendum—is why people vote the way they do. I can hazard a guess about how some of my constituents voted. Of course they were concerned about the European Union and many were concerned about immigration, but many also used the vote in the referendum, as they rightly use votes in general elections and local elections, almost as a cry for help; they were almost saying, “We have problems. You need to look at us. You can no longer ignore us.” People do that in different ways. I am not saying that that influenced the outcome of the recent referendum, but I am saying that we here, and the people in and around constituencies like mine—people in the city of Nottingham, in my case—ignore that cry for help at our peril if we continue to feel that people can be marginalised or alienated from our politics and our politicians. That will not apply to many Members in here now; by definition, they are assiduous constituency Members by the very fact that they are here for this debate. I hope very much that we all take that lesson to heart; there is a divide in our society and in our country, and it is incumbent on all of us to do something about it.

I wish quickly to raise three cases to demonstrate the breadth of the things that Members of Parliament deal with and as an excuse to thank people who have been involved, as we all know, in helping us on our casework and helping us to be good Members of Parliament. Like everyone, I want to thank my staff, both in Westminster and in the constituency; across the House, these people make us the Members of Parliament that we are. I want to place that very much on the record.

I wish to highlight one particular case. My constituency staff worked incredibly hard to help a young man called Max Buxton, who has a severe hearing impairment. He was on an apprenticeship, and his employer made glowing comments about Max’s energy and dedication at work, but, in order to progress, Max had to climb the apprenticeship ladder. To do that, he had to pass an English qualification. Unfortunately for Max and for many other young men and women, their first language is British sign language, and it is very difficult for them to understand English, particularly written English. At my request, my staff raised this matter over and again with the relevant Ministry. I will not go into all the details of the case, but, after many months, it fell to me to do something that has changed the rules around qualification for climbing that apprenticeship ladder. After a visit to the Minister recently, he said that he would look at, and indeed change, the rules around British sign language so that it is equivalent to the English qualification.

That is wonderful news for Max Buxton and for colleagues in other constituencies who have similar problems, and that is the way that we work. When you—if I may use that expression, Madam Speaker—and colleagues around the House win a case for a constituent, they are also winning it for many other constituents, particularly when we help Governments of all colours to see the light and change the rules.

By working closely with people from another constituency—it happened to be Hull—I helped children in my own constituency to take up the free dental check that is there for all children. It was something that we had tried to do locally, but found that we could not do it as well as we wanted to, so we used an example of a practice called Teeth Team. Chris Groombridge and his team came to help us, and are still helping us. The moral of this story and this brief intervention is that if we continue to work together in this House, across parties, on the big issues and on the small, we can change our society and the lives of our constituents for the better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Allen Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his post. I am delighted to see that the shadow Front Bench is almost up to full complement.

We obviously face a number of challenges in terms of the new situation, but there are also a number of opportunities. As I have made clear repeatedly today, the Government are determined to ensure that, whatever the consequences of the Brexit vote, we will enable the northern cities to prosper and work together. That remains a Government priority.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

11. If he will commission research on the potential long-term savings to the public purse of greater investment in cross-departmental schemes to promote early intervention; and if he will make a statement.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government recognise the benefits of early intervention to ensure that all children and young people receive the best possible start in life. The Government worked with the hon. Gentleman and others to establish the Early Intervention Foundation. We continue to provide funding to the foundation to develop and share the evidence base in this area. The Government have also invested £770 million in the troubled families programme, which aims to achieve sustained positive outcomes for 400,000 families with multiple complex problems by 2020.

[Mr Allen]

I welcome the new Treasury Front Benchers to their duties. I hope that they will take the opportunity over the summer to reorient the Treasury’s thinking away from late intervention, firefighting and paying excessively to put things right, and consider an early intervention philosophy that allows the Treasury to invest early and make a lot of money. They should look at Big Society Capital and its terms of reference, and consider the possibility of improving the market for social investment bonds. Will the Chief Secretary meet me and colleagues from all parties to discuss those issues?

[Mr Gauke]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues. To be fair to the Government, we introduced social impact bonds and the troubled families programme, which seems to be working. There are good signs in terms of improved school attendance and reduced youth crime and antisocial behaviour. We do recognise the benefits of early intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with him at greater length over the weeks ahead.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Graham Allen Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to conclude the National Security checking of the Iraq Inquiry report as soon as possible in order to allow publication of that report as soon as possible after 18 April 2016, and no later than two weeks after that date, in line with the undertaking on time taken for such checking by the Prime Minister in his letter to Sir John Chilcot of 29 October 2015.

As an aside, Mr Speaker, I never cease to be impressed by your short-term memory.

The second Iraq war was started to liberate the Iraqi people. Instead, it shattered their country. It was intended to stabilise the middle east. Instead, it destabilised the middle east. It was intended to remove a threat of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Instead, it exacerbated and massively increased a threat of terrorism that does exist. It was supposedly fought in defence of our values, but it has led to the erosion of civil liberties at home and the use of torture abroad. Because we were misled on the matter, Parliament voted for the war by 412 to 149. So there were very good reasons for setting up the inquiry in the first place.

The war led to the deaths of 4,800 allied soldiers, 179 of them British. The lowest estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties was 134,000, but plausible estimates put the number up to four times higher. The war immediately created 3.4 million refugees, and half of them fled the country. It cost the British taxpayer £9.6 billion, and it cost the American taxpayer $1,100 billion. It has done untold damage to the reputation of the west throughout the middle east and, indeed, among Muslim populations at home and abroad. Initiated to protect the west from terrorism, it has, in fact, destroyed the integrity of the Iraqi state and triggered a persistent civil war that has created the conditions for perhaps the worst terrorist threat yet to the west: ISIL or ISIS. The war has done huge harm to the self-confidence and unity of the west, in effect neutering our foreign policy. The war was, with hindsight, the greatest foreign policy failure of this generation, and I say that as someone who was misled into voting for it.

It has been more than six and a half years since Gordon Brown launched the Iraq inquiry and more than five years since it heard its last evidence. It has been more than a year since this House, in a similar debate, called for the Government to publish the Iraq inquiry report as soon as possible, and yet that report has still not been published. It is no surprise that one of the most pre-eminent politicians of our era, the highly respected and very civilised ex-Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, branded the delays a scandal. He is right. They are a disgrace.

In 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now Prime Minister, was scornful about the suggestion that the report would not be published before the 2010 election. In 2009, Sir John Chilcot told families that he would complete the inquiry in a year if he could, but that it would definitely not take more than two years. In fact, the evidence taking did not conclude until 2 February 2011. Nevertheless, at that time—more than five years ago—Sir John Chilcot said:

“It is going to take some months to deliver the report itself.”

It has been 62 months and counting.

Then the inquiry started the classification process. Under the inquiry protocols, there are nine different categories of reason for turning down the classification—for preventing Sir John not from seeing the information, but from publishing it. What the inquiry can publish is determined by a series of protocols that have criteria so broad that a veto on application can be applied virtually at Whitehall’s discretion.

Compare that with the Scott inquiry into the Iraqi super-gun affair. It also covered issues of incredible sensitivity in terms of national security, international relations, intelligence agency involvement, judicial propriety and ministerial decision making—the whole gamut. Sir Richard Scott was allowed to decide himself what he would release into the public domain, unfettered by Whitehall, so that whole tranche of time—that couple of years—would have been unnecessary. By contrast, Sir John Chilcot, a former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office who chaired an incredibly sensitive inquiry into intercept—some Members of the House may remember that—and who is considered a responsible keeper of the Government’s secrets, is tied up in protocols subject to the whim of Whitehall.

There have been long negotiations between the inquiry and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, and his predecessors over the disclosure of some material, most notably correspondence between ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and George W. Bush. There is no point whatsoever in the inquiry if it cannot publish the documents that show how the decision to go to war was arrived at. That is, after all, the point of half the inquiry. Chilcot wrote in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary:

“The question when and how the prime minister made commitments to the US about the UK’s involvement in military action in Iraq and subsequent decisions on the UK’s continuing involvement, is central to its considerations”.

The negotiations between Chilcot and Jeremy Heywood concluded only in May 2014, when it was announced that an agreement had been reached. The process was clearly frustrating for Sir John. He queried why it was that

“individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former prime minister to review the issues, cannot”.

He was of course referring to Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell’s respective diaries, which quoted such information, again without Whitehall veto.

Then came the excruciatingly long process of Maxwellisation. This is meant to be a process of notifying any people criticised in the report so they can correct factual errors and be ready to respond to those criticisms when they become public. It is not intended to allow protected negotiation between the commission and teams of expensive lawyers—incidentally, those expensive lawyers are paid for by the taxpayer—who negotiate ad nauseam, at any cost, to protect their client’s reputation, even over and above the national interest. That is what is happening.

We know that finally, after all that, the Iraq inquiry is now due to submit its report to the Government next week. The next stage will be security clearance before publication. The Prime Minister stated last October that he fully expected security clearance to take less than two weeks, the time taken by the equally enormous Saville inquiry. Let us remember that the Saville inquiry took decades to come to its conclusion, but it was cleared in two weeks. I cannot believe that clearance will take any longer than that, given, as we already know, that every single piece of this report has already been negotiated with Whitehall, presumably on the basis of security considerations.

Given that, and the Prime Minister’s declaration that he is as exasperated as anyone by the delays to publication, the public ought to expect the report to be published in the first week of May. That should be the reasonable conclusion, but that is not the case. There are now reports that the publication of the report will be postponed until after the EU referendum at the end of June. This is frankly outrageous. It is for this reason that I, together with right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in this House, have called for this debate. We demand that the Government publish the report as soon as security clearance is complete, and certainly no more than two weeks after its receipt.

While this inquiry has lumbered on, there have been at least three significant foreign policy decisions that could have been dramatically different had we had the benefit of the Iraq inquiry’s findings. The decision to intervene in Libya was intended to prevent a massacre, but since then, partly because we changed the aim to regime change, the country has descended into civil war and miserable, fractured chaos. On the question of regime change, when the Prime Minister first asked this House to support military action against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013, the House turned him down. Had the House not blocked military intervention, we could have ended up as military supporters of our now sworn enemies, IS. In Iraq, the UK is of course involved in the ongoing civil war that has raged since the invasion in 2003.

There are lessons to learn from the Iraq war about our foreign policy, our political decisions to go to war and our military operations. The longer we leave it, the less useful these lessons will be, and the more likely it is that we will make the same mistakes. When decisions such as those that were made in Libya, Syria and Iraq are made without knowledge of the facts, mistakes are made and sometimes people die as a result. Therefore, it is not hyperbole to say that the delay to the Iraq inquiry could cost lives because bad decisions may be made. I would go further and say that it probably has cost lives because bad decisions were made. Indeed, many of the revelations in the report will come too late to be useful in relation to decisions that have already been taken. This is the irrecoverable harm that has been caused by the delays—the unconscionable delays—in this inquiry.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Iraq war was the most appalling miscalculation and the most idiotic way of conducting foreign policy in living memory. As he is looking to the future, does he accept that the fracture within Islam that the war exacerbated and the Pandora’s box that was then opened of violence and extremism within Islam, both in the middle east and internationally, are sadly the gift of the Iraq war that will keep on giving, and that there may be decades’ worth of interventions from extreme Islamic elements across the globe?

[Mr Davis]

I do not think it is a question of “may be”; I think there will be the continued disruption of international affairs and the continued threat of terrorism. Europol’s assessment that there are 5,000 jihadists in Europe implies an arrival rate of 1,000 a year, and the rate is going up, not down. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

That brings us to a significant point. When the individual Prime Ministers involved in each of the decisions I mentioned made their decision, I am sure that in their own mind they were doing the right thing—they were trying to save lives, to save a civilisation or to intervene to prevent further terrorism. The trouble is that every single one of them made simplistic decisions, without detailed understanding. The complexity of the issues they were reaching into was beyond their knowledge. It is correcting, enhancing and improving that knowledge that the inquiry report is all about.

I am no pacifist, but I find myself horrified at the thoughtless, aggressive and unnecessary interventions by the west in areas that it does not understand. I did not like the Gaddafi regime; I did not like the Saddam Hussein regime; I do not particularly like the Bashar Assad regime, but ripping them out has led to something even worse. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is therefore absolutely right in his analysis, which demonstrates why this report and its speed of preparation are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I will come back to this issue in the latter part of my speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I have a very dear common friend who thinks that Mr Blair should be at The Hague, so there is a range of opinion on this, but to come to that conclusion today would be to pre-empt the report. I do not intend to do that, but I do intend to turn to the issue of accountability in a minute.

[Mr Graham Allen]

Just to get the balance correct, if we go back to the time of the vote, a majority of the non-payroll vote in the Labour party—122 Members, and I was proud to be one of the organisers—actually rebelled against their own Government. Had the Conservative party supported us we would not have gone to war. Those are historical matters, but it is important to place on the record that the biggest ever parliamentary rebellion within a governing party was by the Labour party on the issue of taking us to war. Many of us at the time realised that it would be a disaster, but none of us realised what an appalling disaster it would be—one that would carry on for decades and influence us domestically as well as in the middle east.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point well, but one of the issues that the report will face up to, one hopes, is the veracity of what was told to the House that day. That will be one of the key issues, which is why the argument between Sir John Chilcot and Whitehall is very important. Reading between the lines of his letters, that argument was very much about what decisions were taken before the House made its decision and after—what was told to the House, whether it was accurate, whether it was based on impartial briefings and whether, indeed, the politics of the issue coloured the views of important components of the state. I am not going to attempt to answer those questions today, but I would be incredibly disappointed if the commission’s report did not actually answer them in plain English. That is why I would not be drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, who is a very great friend of mine. The report has to answer those questions; what the tabloid and other press do with the report the day after publication is not for me.

I will press on, briefly, with the lessons to learn not just about the war but about how we should conduct these inquiries. The Government now intend to review the Maxwellisation process, in which those who have been criticised in a report are given the chance to respond. That is to be welcomed, as Maxwellisation has been responsible for half the delays here. It is clear that strict time controls are needed for future inquiries. It cannot be right that those who are to be criticised can delay publication for their own interests, so I hope that strict time controls will arise as a result.

There is no reason for further delay. It has been suggested that the delay between the report being security cleared and its publication is because it needs to be proof-read and typeset. That would be unacceptable if true. The report is already in electronic format. It has already been repeatedly checked for accuracy, and will be checked again by the security services. It will have been read by more people than some newspapers. The fact is that the report has been pored over by many people for five years. We are in the 21st century, not the era of hot lead typesetting. Someone said to me this morning that I might have summarised the rather long motion rather more crisply by saying, “This House instructs Sir John Chilcot simply to press ‘send’.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I agree with every word from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and I warmly congratulate him on obtaining this debate. This issue disturbs all of us who were in the House at that time more than any other decision taken this generation. Members who were in that debate and who, in their view now and with hindsight, voted the wrong way, deeply regret that, and regard their parliamentary careers as failures because they allowed themselves to be bribed, bullied and bamboozled into believing a fiction that came from the Front Bench. That was not just the Prime Minister; this was the whole establishment, and three parliamentary Select Committees —the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Intelligence and Security Committees —and the military supported the idea. The Conservative party was more gung-ho than the Labour party, and we must look at this issue because the repercussions of that decision continue today.

The suffering continues, and the mother of the 200th soldier to die in Afghanistan, Hazel Hunt, has set up a foundation and runs a successful charity. It deals with the suffering of the thousands of soldiers who have been maimed in mind or body as a result of that terrible mistake.

We also need to get the Iraq inquiry over with so we can have another inquiry. Another terrible mistake was made in 2006. The decision to go into Helmand province was made in the belief that not a shot would be fired. At that time, we had been in Afghanistan for five years and only six of our soldiers had died in that conflict. As a result of the terrible error of invading Helmand in 2006, 450 of our soldiers died.

The important point is this—and this is not being wise after the event. In March 2003, I sent a letter to Tony Blair saying that going into Iraq in support of Bush’s war would mean that we would drive a wedge between the Christian western world and the Muslim world. There would be a sense of antagonism and injustice from the Muslims in my local mosque to the Muslims in the far corners of the world. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right. ISIS is the daughter of our decision to go to Iraq. We must look at that with great seriousness.

At the time, the Public Administration Committee made a number of strong recommendations. Some were followed, but the main one was that the inquiry should not be held in secret. The Committee made another recommendation that the inquiry should have a large parliamentary element to it. In fact, it recommended that there should be two inquiries: one into the reason for going to war and one into the repercussions. Never in our wildest nightmares did anyone believe that the loved ones of those who had fallen would have to suffer a period of seven years of not knowing whether their loved ones were sent to a battle that was based on the vanity of politicians and not on the real interests of our country. The agony goes on.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that with modern printing and publishing techniques it is possible to write a book, email it to the printers and get it back two or three days later. The process is virtually instantaneous. The old system of setting up things in type was immensely laborious and time-consuming. There is no excuse for delaying this any further—not for a single day. The loved ones deserve closure. They have waited far too long. It is only in the political interests of those responsible—the guilty ones—that it continues.

[Mr Graham Allen]

Does my hon. Friend accept that publication is necessary to purge our own party of the fault line that occurred around the time of the Iraq war and which continues to this day? It also besmirches the reputation of an otherwise very fine Prime Minister, who, until we admit the mistake of going to Iraq and opening this Pandora’s box, will forever be known as the person who took us to war on the coat-tails of George W. Bush against so many of his colleagues in the House at the time. The mistake needs to be corrected. That would be good for all of us on the Labour Benches, if nowhere else.

[Paul Flynn]

As someone brought up with a religious background, I realise fully the advantage and beneficial nature of confession.

It is absolutely crucial that we understand the mindset that drove us into war. That mindset is one we have heard recently in other debates in relation to going into Libya or Syria. The myth that infects English MPs—rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish MPs—is the idea that the UK, our country, must punch above its weight militarily. That always means spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. People, and especially troops, want to feel that this place is not on auto-pilot. They want to know that it is living, functioning, thinking and reacting to lessons. As was said, to commit troops to a morass and refuse to learn lessons is an absolute abdication of the House’s responsibility.

[Mr Graham Allen]

To pick up on the point made by my right hon. Friend, if I may call him that, the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), once we have committed troops to action, should not the default position of the House be that there will be an inquiry, either in the midst of the action or once it is concluded? These are very serious matters; people die and there are very serious foreign policy issues involved. Should that not be the case, rather than the Government saying, “Oh, we might take a decision to have an inquiry if we think it is really necessary”? This House—the legislature—should have a default position that there is automatically an inquiry when we have committed people to war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He probably knows that I am a great admirer of his thoughts and ideas. He makes a very good point about this perverse incentive that a Government can have to keep a war going to avoid an inquiry. Hopefully, that is not a reality, but given the machinations of politics, we can never know. There may be a desire to get over another couple of weeks or another month, or to kick the can down the road that little bit further. The can was certainly kicked down the road a decade ago. A pivotal thing changed between 2006 and 2009—the Prime Minister of the day changed, from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown. People can draw their own conclusions from that, but I do think that was significant. I will wait for the inquiry to see just how significant it was.

As hon. Members have said, we cannot have this Parliament running away from the reality of what it committed other people to doing. Ultimately, the Iraq war cost 179 UK lives. As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, that does not take into account those who were wounded in body or mind, or the knock-on effects on families, loved ones, and those dealing with people wounded in body or mind. The war has taken quite a toll on people in the UK, and it has cost the lives of 4,800 allied soldiers. Sadly, those figures, terrible as they are, are dwarfed by those for civilian casualties in Iraq. The lowest estimate is 134,000, but the number is possibly four times higher than that. The war also created 3.5 million refugees. For goodness’ sake, there are lessons that we must learn about what we got ourselves involved in, and what we might do again if we do not have the courage to face up to what was done.

[Mr Graham Allen]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous to give way again. He talks about the figures when peace was declared; what a disastrous and unprepared peace that was. Will he take into account that there have probably been at least as many casualties again since then, because of the opening up of the rift between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, which allowed opportunities for an internecine warfare that is spreading into international guerrilla warfare? If he includes those numbers, will he not find an absolutely enormous death toll, running into the millions, and to who knows how many in the future?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I agree with all he said. To that, I add the other fallout from the Iraq war, which, we must remember, was demonstrated against by more than a million people on the streets of the UK. If a million people were demonstrating, we can be sure that many, many more—several factors more—were in support of them. I add to that the creation of Daesh or ISIL in the camps of Iraq. There was a myth at the time that America went into Iraq because al-Qaeda was there; that was part of the myth-making in America around regime change. The reality was that al-Qaeda was not there until the Americans went in, and then the Americans created something far worse in those camps. The responsibility for what was done there—the loss of lives, the costs and the terror created—hangs very darkly over the Iraq war. That is something from which we must learn. We must ensure that we get this report published fairly soon, because time is of the essence. Time is the big factor here. Kicking the can down the road even further is not acceptable.

On 29 October 2015, the Prime Minister seemed to be very unequivocal on clearance taking two weeks, which is the point of this debate today. He said:

“In relation to National Security checking, the Government will aim to complete the process as quickly as possible. As you know, National Security checking for the Savile Inquiry took two weeks to complete. It would certainly be our plan and expectation to take no longer than this, and we will look to complete the process more quickly.”

We need to do that for the families who are expecting closure. This inquiry should have started many years earlier.

In the debate of 31 October 2006, to which I referred, there was already frustration that it had taken so long to get the matter in front of this House of Commons. We used an Opposition day debate, but in those times, Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Opposition day debates were few and far between. Thankfully, it is not like that today. This was before the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, which we should thank today.

The Economy

Graham Allen Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

We should increase the amount invested. So far, so little has been invested, it is not having the impact it should have.

On investment in training, research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the budget for sixth-form and further education colleges could fall by at least £1.6 billion under the Government’s spending plans. This is the equivalent of four in 10 sixth-form and further education colleges being closed. Local councils, often the engines for investment-led growth in their communities, are having their budgets cut to ribbons, and even statutory services are now at risk. All this confirms that there is no long-term economic plan. It is a short-term quick fix from a Chancellor who cannot think beyond the Conservative leadership election.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

This is the first occasion on which I need to disagree with my hon. Friend. I think there is a long-term economic plan: to drive down the amount of money spent by Government as a share of GDP to 1920s levels. Is that not the real agenda, and a not very hidden one at that?

[John McDonnell]

The Chancellor’s agenda is to shrink the state and privatise most of what is left.

Instead, Labour would seek to use Government powers to invest to deliver world-class infrastructure across the whole country. The northern powerhouse will only become a reality when it is matched by real spending commitments. We would build on our country’s history of science, technology and innovation to deliver real increases in funding for research and development, seeking to match the commitments made by our neighbours; and we would work alongside the private sector to ensure that our businesses, rather than hoarding cash to the tune of at least £400 billion, would be seeking out opportunities to invest in the future. That is the role of a strategic state.

Tax Credits

Graham Allen Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field]

I very much agree. I know that the Exchequer Secretary also has an interest in improving Treasury data so that we can better understand tax and benefit changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s plea will not fall on deaf ears.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that we need to have something that is saleable to the people who are benefiting from tax credits? Language such as marginal rates of return, thresholds and differentials can completely confuse not only the beneficiaries but small employers. Will he make it clear in negotiations with the Treasury that we must try to make this saleable and to keep the concept simple, so that people who genuinely need tax credits can claim them, because there is still massive underpayment?

[Frank Field]

There is indeed. That leads me neatly on to what the proposals for reform might be. I wish briefly to touch on four.

First, I make a plea to the Government to recognise just how quickly this whole debate is changing and to take advantage of that. Tax credit payments are here for the long run. When we began this debate back in 2010, there was enthusiastic talk about, in almost no time, a new benefit—universal credit—that would sweep away means tests and deliver a seamless service to our constituents. To be truthful but gentle about universal credit, its progress is very modest. I do not disagree with the Secretary of State in looking back at previous instances of trying to smash reform through whatever the costs, but at some stage somebody in Government has to look at how slow the progress of roll-out has been and question whether a full flowering will ever see the light of day. This raises questions about how tax credits might be reshaped, given that universal credit is not for the chop and is here for the longer term. It will not, in the lifetime of this Parliament or even the next, make tax credits redundant.

We have begun to have debates about this with the public. When I recorded a programme this morning, every time I said a word that people thought the public would not understand, we had to stop and start filming again. I could not say how long it took to film. We have our own language, which is a shorthand that is not understood by people outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Field]

There would of course be a tendency for any Chancellor to say, “I’m going to make the Lords agree to my new SI.” If it was an SI that this House cheered on its way down to the other place, that might be wise. If it is an SI on which there was still deep disagreement, particularly among Conservative Members, I think it would be very unwise not to bring forward the proposal in primary legislation.

[Mr Graham Allen]

Is there not room for a little bit of forethought and pre-emption? We are only six months into a five-year Parliament, and this is the first of many changes that may happen. Will my right hon. Friend stress that Parliament could be seen as a partner in this process? Rather than having a crisis-management approach to social policy, can we not involve the Work and Pensions Committee, the Treasury Committee and colleagues in both Houses? The Government can set the object, but we could be allowed to say something to help them on their way. We know that there has been a general election and that they are entitled to get their laws through, but they should use Parliament as a partner, rather than have this constant crisis management.

[Frank Field]

I could not agree more. In my speech opening this debate, I am in a sense saying that this is a glorious opportunity for the Chancellor to get it right: both to change his image and to become a much more serious reformer on the tax and benefit front. I am sure that he did not want to land himself in this position, but now he has, I hope that he will be optimistic not only about the partnerships he can build, in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, but about the opportunity it gives him in beginning to take into account the effect of a national minimum wage on the welfare debate. I sometimes wonder whether he has quite realised just how significant change is and could be.

If hon. Members will allow me, I will turn to the fourth suggestion for reform. I have put it forward, largely to get a debate going, and I now wish to attack it. The suggestion was to take the Chancellor seriously when he said that reforms should be done at nil cost. I wanted to show that it would be possible to raise the thresholds—the point at which people begin to lose tax credits—to the national minimum wage at nil cost, but that would require an even greater penalty in the loss in tax credits for people above that level.

There is not a great deal of support for that idea, but I put it forward merely to stress this point. When we had a huge great uprising of Back Benchers from both sides of the House over the abolition of the 10p rate, the Government were adamant that they were not going to listen, but then, on the night before the big concessions, huge sums of money were found at the Treasury to go everywhere but to help those on the 10p rate. It is now clear that the Chancellor will put some extra money into the whole operation. If we suppose that he wants to go down the nil cost route, the extra money ought to go to protecting those who will lose, rather than to those not claiming tax credits—including all hon. Members, who are not affected—who would benefit if he raises the tax threshold further or increases the national insurance threshold.

I will make my last point quickly, not because I do not want to develop it further, but because I am conscious of the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate. If we are saying that the Government should give up £4.5 billion from savings toward the reduction of the deficit, we are required to say where that money might come from. I wish to suggest two areas. I have lifted the first from the Treasury. It is now briefing the media that one possible way of finding the extra resources for a delay and a staged introduction—that is certainly what Conservative Back Benchers are asking for as a bare minimum—of this reform, if that is what we can call it, would be to have a smaller budget surplus by 2020. I just put that forward, because it certainly seems to be a possibility for the Treasury.

My second proposal relates to pension tax relief. It is very interesting that the Chancellor has asked for views on how we might reform it. Huge sums of money are involved. I am not advocating that we should abolish it overnight. I do not think that we should treat people higher up the income scale in the same horrible way that the Government were proposing to treat those on tax credits. When Governments start changing incentives, people need to have time. If, however, we abolished it overnight, we are talking about an extra £34 billion. If we made the tax concession 15% for everybody, the figure would be more than £15 billion, and if we made it 20%, it would be £10 billion. These are mega-sums of money.

I raise that issue because I do not believe that the Government’s consultation on pension tax relief is up to speed with their pension reforms. The reason pension tax relief has been built up over a century is that previous Governments gave up the ghost of ever introducing a state pension that would take people off means tests. Hence, we had to bribe people to save more so that they would not be subjected to the horrors of poverty in old age. The Government are now introducing a basic state pension for the first time ever. That is an achievement. [Interruption.] I will certainly make way on the Bench for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). Shall I give him my notes so that he can finish my speech? I have never seen that before. I had always thought that if a Member was on their feet they were meant to be speaking, but never mind.

Sometimes Governments are very slow to look at how one really radical reform will have a knock-on effect on other parts of their programme. I do not think that this Government have taken into account the resources they are beginning to unlock now that the vast majority of people are going to be given a pension that will take them off means-tested assistance. Therefore, the reasons for bribing people to save in particular ways fall away, and that begins to unlock huge sums of money. I have not made proposals without also suggesting where the money might come from.

I want to end with what the tax credit changes will mean to our constituents if we are not successful today in convincing the Government to rethink radically their proposals. Having talked to my constituents and to others on television programmes, I cannot but be incredibly conscious of their fear at what the changes will do to them. People we should be saluting and cheering are sick with worry about how they are going to make ends meet and about whether they are going to lose their homes and whether they are going to be able to pay the interest on their mortgages, not to mention how they are going to protect their children properly.

Although it is important that we sometimes use technical language as shorthand, I am sure that we will never, ever forget what this debate is about. It is about some of our most vulnerable constituents, whose efforts in work we should be saluting. We should not be handing out this sentence, which terrifies them. For that reason, I hope the House will come to one mind and pass our motion and that we will get a very clear response from those on the Treasury Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

This has been a strange debate. It is as if we have managed to collect in the Chamber all the sensible people from all the parties, and to have a serious debate on some of these issues. It is unnerving to step out of the comfort zone of yelling at each other, and instead to hear sensible contributions from across the House, including the speech by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) that we have just heard.

Perhaps the lesson for us all is that this is how we should have done it in the first place, before the Chancellor made his announcement. He could have set out broad principles, as he is entitled to do, and said: “We need to reduce the welfare budget because we made a commitment in our manifesto. We would like to consider these issues. We need to find £12 billion, so how might we best do that?” By using the wit of Members from across the Chamber—including those who are appointed to Select Committees and work incredibly hard on our behalf—I am sure we could have come up with something less painful, crude and crass, while also saving the Chancellor some grief. However, we did not do things that way; we are doing it the other way round, so let us hope that we can reach a sensible result by listening to Parliament.

I also hope that we will listen to people out there. This is a classic debate, and we must listen to those who will be impacted on and influenced by these changes. Often, those people are not necessarily very articulate or in touch with their Member of Parliament, but I want to speak up for them, particularly those in my constituency. Dinner ladies, check-out and administrative staff, nursing and teaching assistants and manual workers all need us—whatever our political persuasion—to stick up for them right now.

We should all be in it together, but it often feels that we are not. I looked for the number of people in my constituency who will benefit from changes to inheritance tax, and after a lot of searching I came up with a large zero. Unfortunately, it did not take long to find the number of people in my constituency who will not be benefiting from the changes to tax credit, because 12,300 children will be affected. That is important because I am the Member of Parliament for the second most deprived area in the United Kingdom in terms of child poverty in low-income families, which is a matter of great concern. We are not “all in it together”, because those kids are not in it with those whose families have higher incomes and should be shouldering a fair share— nothing more—of the tax burden in our country. Colleagues who know their food banks will unfortunately know that this measure is a food bank recruitment scheme on behalf of the Government, and we must be careful about how we tread forward with it.

No one was ready for this change. Some of us believed the Prime Minister when he was on television before the general election and said that there would be no changes to the tax credit system. It is the same Prime Minister who, sadly, was in this House a week ago and said he was “delighted” that the cuts had been voted through the previous evening. That indicates a contempt for institutions other than government—I know I labour this point, but listening to Parliament and to people outside does not mean that someone gets diverted from their principles; it means that they can better enable those principles by listening to those who might be able to help in a slightly better way.

These cuts will have a broader impact on families. Four out of five families in my constituency receive tax credits because of the low-income nature of my area—my constituency is among the 20 most deprived—and we can do a job for them. We will not necessarily overturn what the Chancellor thinks, but Members of the House can do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has done and consider tapers, thresholds, transitions, and the time needed to allow people to adjust to a massive change in their life. We must look consistently at that family element, and review and analyse the impact of the changes in future years, so that we can mitigate the worst cases.

I am delighted that we have not heard the word “scroungers” in this debate, or heard people being described as having a free ride on the state or the system. As it happens, two-thirds of people in my constituency who are in receipt of tax credits are at work. They are being subsidised by the rest of us to be at work, and low-paying employers are being subsidised.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Perhaps one reason the debate has not been disfigured by such terms is that the people my hon. Friend is talking about are the friends, families and neighbours we stand alongside in supermarket queues and on the side of the rugby pitch on a Sunday morning. These are people we know. This is not a matter of “them and us”. They are us and that is why, as we stand alongside them at the rugby and in supermarkets, we must stand alongside them here, too. They need us.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We, and some of the media, think this is a big issue right now, but you would be amazed how many people do not know that this is going to hit them, and they will not know until that letter drops and it actually happens. A wise old bird—Joe Ashton, who used to be the MP for Bassetlaw—taught me this lesson: passing a Bill will not influence anybody’s real life until whenever—in this case, I believe, next April—it takes effect. Then there will be a shock. Then there will be a tidal wave of people saying, “My god, what are you doing to us? Why did you allow this to happen? We don’t care which way you voted, why are you allowing it to happen?” That is why between now and then we have to bend our backs to ensure that we mitigate the worst consequences.

The national living wage is a bit like English votes for English laws: it is such a smart slogan that one could perhaps run an election on it. Does the reality, however, have the substance and the detail that people need in their lives? Saying that we are going to have a national living wage sounds fantastic, but if it does not actually mean that incomes will be at least as good as they were before, it is a fraud.

[Liz McInnes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s national living wage is not the actual living wage, which is set by the Living Wage Foundation? The actual living wage is far higher than the Government’s national living wage. To call it a living wage is a misnomer.

[Mr Allen]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Living Wage Foundation has already blown that myth straight out of the water and said it is not actually what everybody else seems to think of as being the living wage. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and our own House of Commons Library have both said that the so-called national living wage does not make good what people will lose. Both those highly authoritative, independent organisations say it will only cover about a quarter of the loss that families will incur. On top of that are a lot of other factors. Difficulties relating to the introduction of universal credit are compounding the situation for people on low incomes.

For my constituency, all this shows that society is not addressing deprivation in the way it should. In the past five years, the indices of deprivation have indicated that in my constituency 5.9% more people are in the category of being deprived than they were five years ago. I ask the Chancellor to try to understand that it is not always about Tatton or Witney. The 20 most deprived constituencies—such as Nottingham North, Liverpool Walton, Birmingham Hodge Hill, Manchester Central and so on—are where our people live. That is where people need their representatives to stick up for them. That is where the free market politically does not work. Inviting people over for a weekend of shooting, riding or whatever—that is not where I live, and it is not the way our people will get the message over and have their voices heard. It is by sensible people, from all parties, putting the case forward.

[Guto Bebb]

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are small businesses in constituencies such as mine, where we do not go shooting and are not involved in that type of behaviour, which appreciate that the Treasury is allowing them time to adapt to a new living wage? The concern we have about the tax credit issue is that the time allowed for small businesses to adapt was not necessarily made available to the recipients of tax credits.

[Mr Allen]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was not trying to characterise all his constituents as people who hunt, shoot and fish; on the contrary.

We must work together and make our points collectively so that the Government will listen, which they should have been doing before. I represent places such as Bilborough, Aspley, Broxtowe, Bulwell, Basford and Bestwood. These are areas not known to anyone in the Chamber, but they are where real people live—every Member will have the same sorts of places in their constituencies—and they are the people who will be hit hard by these changes. It will not be about the little debate I had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead earlier about the technical knowledge. Let us work together, put our shoulders to the wheel and make the best of a bad job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Allen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The Government have rightly put in place protections for the budget for the national health service and for schools. We have also made a strong commitment to reaching the 0.7% objective on international aid, which I think most Members would agree is absolutely the right thing to do. Of course we will consider submissions from all Departments throughout the spending round process, but in the end every Department will have to bear its fair share of the reductions.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Q15. What steps his Department has taken to promote the growth of a municipal bond market in the UK.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

Under the prudential system, local authorities are able to borrow for capital projects, providing they can afford the borrowing costs. Local authorities can choose the source of these funds and they are free to use municipal bonds where they wish to do so.

[Mr Allen]

I thank the Minister for his warm welcome for my second report about the financing of early intervention, entitled “Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings”. One of the report’s recommendations was to free up local authorities to issue early intervention social impact bonds in order to fund early intervention in the localities. Will he meet me to discuss how we can take this forward?

[Greg Clark]

I certainly will meet the hon. Gentleman, who has been a pioneer in these matters. I have been very taken with his report’s recommendations. He points to some initiatives taking place in the US to have social impact bonds, and the authorities in London are keen on this, too. I am sure that he will want to continue his campaign; he will find a receptive counterpart in me.

Early Intervention

Graham Allen Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Early intervention not only requires no new net public expenditure, it is also the biggest deficit reduction programme that we have. If we implement it properly, it will produce results beyond the Chancellor’s wildest dreams. We need to change our default public expenditure culture, which is one of late intervention, to one of early intervention. Late intervention is expensive and not very effective. Early intervention, by contrast, is inexpensive and highly effective.

I shall give the House an example. Delivering the intensive health visiting service of the family nurse partnership to 115 teen mums and their babies in my constituency costs about the same as putting three 16-year-olds in a secure unit for a year—an average of two of whom, incidentally, will reoffend. Family nurse partnership services delivered in the first years of life can reduce the number of arrests at the age of 15 by 80%. So dealing with several hundred individuals and doing so effectively costs roughly the same amount as failing to deal effectively with three young people, 16-year-olds, later on in life.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman and I are in huge agreement on this subject. Does he agree that more than 80% of long-term prison inmates suffer from problems that stem back to early infant attachment?

[Mr Allen]

Indeed, and the costs are absolutely enormous and continuing. They continue through the generations, whereas one effective early intervention costs only for the one occasion, does not need to be repeated and proves to be very effective.

I make many recommendations in my recent report for Her Majesty’s Government, “Early intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings”. The ones I would particularly like to talk about tonight involve the Treasury. I ask the Minister for her first thoughts on these recommendations. I am very grateful for the assistance I received from the Chancellor, the whole Treasury team and, indeed, Treasury officials—and, above all, from the Minister herself. She helped me in various ways—although the faults in the report are entirely my own—to make the second report a practical and pragmatic programme of work rather than a flight of fancy.

There are no magic bullets. This is all about a practical, long-running and consistent effort to try to bring social and emotional capability to our babies, children and young people, which will repay us over and over again throughout the life cycle, as we avoid the costs associated with drink and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, a lifetime on welfare benefits, educational underachievement, and so on and so forth. That benefit can come from just a little bit of early investment.

The key relevant recommendations to the Treasury concern the comprehensive spending review; rebalancing central Government spending from late to early intervention; a Whitehall task and finish group, which I shall talk about; a serious proposal for departmental payments, introducing a payment-by-results system effectively across Whitehall; liberating our local authorities so that they can be our partners in pursuing early intervention policies; and using the 2012 Budget to incentivise early intervention investment. I propose to look at each of those in turn.

First, I have suggested that the Treasury consider theming the next CSR around early intervention. The usual cross-departmental effort that goes in ahead of every CSR should be directed at early intervention across all Departments. That includes the research programme and the evaluation, which should be used to assess what is being spent on early intervention by Departments, thus providing a baseline from which we can judge the costs, benefits and potential savings to taxpayers from early intervention policies and programmes.

This CSR preparation should also include commissioning long-range surveys, studies and longitudinal programmes so that we can add daily to the evidence base for early intervention and its role in saving massive amounts of taxpayers’ money from being captured by the long-term costs of failure. Above all, doing this in the CSR will symbolise the Government’s approach and the switch in philosophy to give strong signals to Departments throughout Whitehall and indeed in local areas. We will thus be demonstrating that we are moving from talking the talk to walking the walk.

I want to put on the record that it is evident from the discussions I have had with all parties and with all party leaders, including the Prime Minister, that there is a very strong desire to move—incrementally, admittedly—across this divide between our typical, traditional late intervention policies and early intervention. This is not just to save money; it will also help to make good many of the social failures that arise because we do not tackle problems early enough and let them get rooted before we start to invest money in them—often too little, too late.

The second issue is the rebalancing of funding in Departments. It is easy to demand big switches of financing from one place to another, but that is a pipe dream that we did not entertain in the report. What we did consider was the fact that we have spent billions of pounds, decade after decade, often with only marginal impacts on, in particular, the social and emotional capabilities of babies, children and young people, especially those in poorer areas and constituencies such as mine. We discussed how we might push back the spending and personnel juggernaut of late intervention, and start to invest, gently and incrementally, in early intervention.

A great deal of evidence was given to my inquiry. One of our proposals is a gentle shift—within departmental budgets, and involving no extra money—from late to early intervention. Following discussions with Departments, I propose—modestly, I hope—not a top-slicing of budgets to a pooled early intervention fund run by one Department or another, but a slow, incremental migration of funding, within existing budgets, from late to early intervention. I proposed that it should amount to just 1% a year, which is incredibly modest. It would be possible to move such spending slowly and relatively easily, and no additional spending by Departments would be required.

In education, for instance, an obvious way of using an existing function, organisation or budget head would be through the early intervention grant itself, which currently amounts to £2.2 billion. That would be a good home for the start of a transition from late to early intervention. Similarly, £55 billion is spent on children and children’s services in the United Kingdom. A minor adjustment, in percentage terms, made incrementally on an annual basis could begin to shift us from the costs of failure to investment in the success of our babies, children and young people.

The Department of Health, the Home Department and the Ministry of Justice already have machinery for such an incremental change. They run prevention programmes of various sorts, all of which could be steadily and progressively geared up. Such a reorientation of internal spending could also provide some of the resources needed to pay investors for the outcome-based contracts to which I referred in my report, and about which I shall say more later. It could be described as payment by results.

I also propose the establishment of a task and finish group. This may sound an internal, dry subject, but in preparing my report I discovered that although tremendous work is going on throughout Whitehall in different Departments, it is not always joined up; it does not always connect. People do not always know what the next Department is doing, for one reason or another. That is not a criticism of anyone working in those Departments or on those programmes—on the contrary, I was very impressed by the way in which all Departments set about their work—but it is a criticism of the fact that no Governments have co-ordinated such action to the level that I would like to see, a level that would add value if people all worked together.

I have suggested that the existing Cabinet Social Justice Committee should be given more teeth, and that it should have a task and finish group—perhaps with an independent chair, but that is a matter for Government to decide—which could offer an independent eye, and promote Government change via the Committee. Through consistency, long-termism and progress-chasing, it could achieve, through Whitehall, some of the important objectives and milestones that the Government may choose to set in the early intervention strategy that I proposed in my report.

Such a group should, as a matter of course, report to all party leaders to maintain what I hope is the helpful benchmark that has been set of establishing this as a non-party issue. I am delighted to pay tribute to those Members of all parties who have taken this issue so seriously, and the fact that the three main party leaders have kindly said good things about both the first and second reports underlines my belief that this is a non-party issue. Indeed, they have supplied quotes, expressing embarrassingly kind sentiments about the philosophy of early intervention, for the back page of each of the reports. What we now need to do is make a practical proposition, and I hope we can put into effect my recommendation of establishing an effective task and finish group.

Another Treasury-oriented recommendation is our proposal about the Treasury, Departments and local areas introducing a proper payments-by-results system, so that benefits can accrue to central and local government for investing in the right package of policies and getting external investors interested in this field. Central Government need to play a role in co-commissioning, or co-paying for, the outcomes set by local areas. Her Majesty’s Treasury and other Departments would therefore need to work at putting in place methods of accounting to ensure that future payments based on successful local outcomes are honoured. It is obviously a matter of great concern that local authorities feel, rightly or wrongly, that if they are successful they will be penalised by the withdrawal of other grants or financial assistance. When drawing up the contracts and talking to local authorities about this issue, we need to make it clear that their payments will be honoured when they reach the endgame of the payment-by-results exercise.

In my report I have outlined a number of areas where local authorities have an important role to play. I do not have time to go into them now, but one that would bear examination is the possibility of looking again at issuing a capitalisation directive to councils that will perhaps allow up to £500 million of early intervention spending to be capitalised, provided that it is funded through the local bond market. If one accepts, as the Government and the main political parties now seem to, that early intervention represents an essential investment in human capital for future generations, there is a strong case for allowing local authorities to finance that by using money in the same way as they would to finance a bridge or a building.

The final recommendation that the Treasury may want to think about now that my report is in the public domain is to do with the 2012 Budget and whether the Treasury can assess properly the possibilities of incentivising early intervention investment. It was clear from my review that tax incentives would be a popular and effective way of incentivising early intervention and social investment more generally. The possibility of creating a market in social investment and social finance is a prize indeed, and if we manage to create a social finance market within, perhaps, 10 years, that will be a measure of our success.

Of course everyone would like to have an incentive. I did not see it as my role to provide a set of demands to which Government had to say yes or no. However, I would like there to be a serious exercise before the Budget, so that the Government examine all possible ways of sucking into early intervention investment philanthropic, ethical business and retail investors and wholesale investors. That would be extremely helpful. I will say no more than let us learn from the creativity in other countries, such as tax credits in the Netherlands and Australia, and money to contribute to social impact bond payments in the USA. The US President has introduced rule changes so that money can be committed over longer periods than is commonplace in public contracts.

In conclusion, the Treasury often says, rightly, that having less money can drive us all to be more creative and to challenge the old ways and the old rules. One of the threads in the report is that this should apply equally to Government thinking, and to Treasury thinking in particular. Money is scarce, so ideas on how better to spend existing public funds should be encouraged and new sources of funding should be incentivised. Due diligence, which is commonplace in the private sector, should now be used at all levels of government to question the comparative costs of wasteful, late intervention versus early intervention alternatives. Levels of savings to be achieved should be an integral part of all public investment calculations. Short-term cuts that jeopardise massive long-term returns should, of course, be avoided. Rules and methods of working established in a different era, in a different public expenditure environment, need to be reviewed.

If we can do that, and if our friends in the Treasury can take some of these proposals seriously—as I know they would, as they made a strong contribution to my review—we will be on the verge of changing the spending culture in our country, moving from wasteful, expensive spending when problems are deep-seated to pre-emptive and preventive spending to help babies, children and young people develop the social and emotional capability that will see them realising their potential in the same way as we want to see our children realising theirs. This is an important field. In many ways, it is a slow burner, not one that heralds dramatic change. This is a field in which there must be a serious commitment to change public policy on behalf of all parties. If we do that, not only will the benefits to those children be immense, but the repayments to the taxpayer will be massive.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

There are a number of Adjournment debates that I might have a chance to respond to as a Treasury Minister, but of all of them, this is probably the one in which I would be most keen to participate. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done a great deal of work in an area that for many years was debated on moral grounds—“What’s the right thing to do?” That was absolutely right, but his contribution has been to say why it is in everybody’s interest to address these issues and, in particular, to focus on early intervention. That work will have longevity in this place and beyond. Indeed, I think that I speak for Members across the House when I pay tribute to the work that he has done, not just in contributing to this Government’s policy, but in the years prior to that.

The hon. Gentleman talked about some of the recommendations in the recent, second—and final—report on his review of early intervention. As he knows, we are still looking at those recommendations. I shall not pre-empt the conclusion, but I want to emphasise one thing. He said that he hoped that Ministers would take those recommendations seriously, and I can absolutely assure him that we do. In the time left, I shall try to respond to as many of his points as possible, but I have no doubt that in the weeks, months and perhaps even years to come, we will continue to debate these issues both inside this Chamber and outside it.

I agree that the case for investment in preventive services is clear. As the hon. Gentleman set out in his speech and in his review of early intervention, there is a clear argument. That argument shows that the more that we can do in government and the more that those working with children can do to intervene earlier, the more likely children are both to reach their full potential, as he said, and to develop well both socially and emotionally. Not only are the costs of not doing so significant for them as developing people, but there are financial costs for the rest of society, as he pointed out, including in local communities. So the costs of not tackling these issues are significant and they do contribute to an ongoing negative cycle.

The hon. Gentleman discussed just some of the examples in this area. Let us consider that of children on the edge of care. A three-year study of multi-systemic therapy at the Brandon centre in Camden, which he is probably aware of, has shown that cost savings ranged between £1,200 and £8,900 per family intervention, in addition to there being a reduced risk of offending and family conflict. Data from 10 of those multi-systemic therapy pilots for children on the edge of care or custody indicate that, by the end of the intervention, custody or care was avoided for 90% of children who had been at risk of those outcomes. Of course, children who avoid care are more likely to succeed academically, and are therefore more likely to earn more and lead more fulfilling lives. That is just one example of how powerful early intervention approaches can be.

I want to discuss public spending, because the hon. Gentleman talked about the next spending review being based on the theme of early intervention and said that, in preparation for this, the balance of central Government spending should be shifted by 1% per year from late to early intervention. One of the things that I want to say to him is that in the year and a bit that I have spent as a Treasury Minister I have found that the key to this is something that may seem boring but actually becomes incredibly important. He talked about the need for an evidence base, and I think that he has created that with the work that he has done, as has some of the work carried out in other countries. One of the challenges for the Government is to ensure that we have a good internal evidence base on where our money is being spent.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the children and families taskforce that was set up by the Prime Minister, which informed some of our spending review. One of the exercises involved looking at where the portfolio mix of spend currently is, for example, on early years provision. That was not perhaps as easy a task for us as it ought to have been. One of the key things that the Treasury is now doing is progressing what seemed like mundane “accountantesque” projects, such as putting in place a chart of accounts and upgrading the Combined Online Information System—COINS—database so that it is actually one that we can use to analyse data. The “themes” that the hon. Gentleman describes are part of a broader challenge the Government face in understanding where the money is going; we need to understand our normal items of spend and the aim of them. That will give us a chance better to join up the oversight across spending as it happens in different Departments.

I talked about the Prime Minister’s children and families taskforce and in the 2010 spending review we did allocate significant resources to support early intervention. The hon. Gentleman talked about the value of the family nurse partnership programme. We are recruiting 4,200 health visitors and expanding that programme. Of course we have also established the early intervention grant. In doing so, we intend to signal the importance of this agenda that we all care about so much. We have committed to maintain a network of Sure Start children’s centres and, as he knows, to expand the free early education entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds. We are also putting in place other measures such as the fairness premium. I hope that we will be able, perhaps in a more sophisticated way, to understand where Government spending is going in relation to early intervention and some of the complex aspects of early intervention. I hope that the projects that we now have running across government should give us a much better chance of doing that as we approach the next spending review. As the hon. Gentleman proposes, we will continue to push on that within the Treasury and across government to make sure that we do understand the costs and benefits of different policies and programmes, both individually and collectively.

One thing that he referred to less in his speech, but which is important, is coming out of the work on early years and that is the need to continue investment. Once initial investments are made, they should be followed up with the individual.

I know that I am going to run out of time, but I want to mention community budgeting and the need to consider budgets from the perspective of the individual who receives the services rather than constantly considering them in silos. We want to address that.

The hon. Gentleman talked briefly about tax measures and he is right to flag up that we should not lose sight of the fact that much of the early intervention agenda has involved money transfers. For us, one challenge is considering how that money is invested, whether we have alternatives and how some of the services and programmes he talks about stack up in terms of value for money for the public and those who receive them when set against some of the more traditional methods we have used, such as income transfers between families, the Government and individuals.

The agenda is very exciting and I know that the Government will have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s second report. I look forward to taking forward some of his suggestions and developing them.

[Mr Allen]

Does the hon. Lady realise that she might have three more minutes and that the debate does not need to stop at 6.30pm? I know she has further notes prepared.

[Justine Greening]

I did not realise that. I am delighted because it means I will be able to get through a few more of the comments I wanted to make.

As I mentioned briefly, the agenda is not just about money but about the quality of public services delivered on the ground. The hon. Gentleman talked about joined-up government and we must focus more on that. Community budgeting will help as will stopping ring-fencing at local authority level, but there are broader challenges in how we knit together national and local government policy at that local level. The work he is doing could feed into some of those thoughts.

Just the other week, on 11 July, we published our “Open Public Services” White Paper, which set out the Government’s vision for excellent services. The principles that we have set out of choice, decentralisation, diversity, fair access and accountability will start to open up local authorities’ ability to deliver services more innovatively. The contribution to this agenda made by the charities and organisations we all come across—perhaps the hon. Gentleman more than other Members—will be better able to be made with a more open approach to public service delivery than we have perhaps had in the past.

I also want to talk briefly about a couple of other aspects. The hon. Gentleman talked about the independent foundation he wants to set up and we very much welcome that as it can play an important role in this whole process. He also mentioned the use of innovative financing mechanisms and he was absolutely right. Again, that is one of those boring but important aspects of the agenda. We need to unlock Government financing so that it does not hinder the right projects. He also mentioned payment by results, which is one thing on which we are keen to push ahead across government.

I can see that I have now run out of time—

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Allen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Government will establish an independent commission to look at public sector pension provision. We will make an announcement on that in due course.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

T3. Has the Chancellor yet had a chance to have a one-to-one with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss the thing that would most affect the structural nature of the deficit: early intervention with our babies, children and young people to ensure that we do not accumulate massive costs of failure that need to be met much later? If he has not done that, will he undertake to do so, please?

[Mr Osborne]

I have had several conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on this issue and on the broader issues of welfare reform. I broadly agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—he made it forcefully in the last Parliament—that support for children in the early years can yield real results later on. We will bear that in mind as we conduct our spending review.

Government Spending Cuts

Graham Allen Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like more colleagues to get in, but we do need shorter questions and indeed shorter answers.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary will know, as we all do, that these cuts are the easiest ones—they are the first tranche—yet they are still very hurtful in constituencies such as mine. Addressing the structural nature of the deficit will be even harder. He is a member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on early intervention, so will he seek to address some of the problems of the structural deficit by ensuring that we invest in babies, children and young people, so that they do not later require billions of pounds of remedial treatment for drug addiction, teenage pregnancy and a lack of aspiration in education and work, and so that we can build the type of society that most of us in the Chamber want to see?

[Mr Laws]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a serious and important point, and he is absolutely right that as we take tough decisions and come towards the spending review at the end of the year, we will have to try to maintain the services that we particularly value and that protect individuals in society who are on very low incomes. We need to protect investments that have the potential to pay off in the future, and I promise him that I will examine carefully the matters that he mentions. If he wants to meet to discuss them at some stage, I would welcome the opportunity.