Timpson Review of School Exclusion

Debate between James Heappey and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The right hon. Lady raises two different issues that have some relationship to each other, but are not the same subject. She is absolutely right that we have to have the right support to provide a tailored and fully enabling education for all children; our 2014 reforms were possibly the most important for a generation in that regard. Education, health and care plans are an important step forward. More money is being spent on high needs than used to be, but she is absolutely right that we need to continue to strive to do better.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Headteachers across the Wells constituency have shared with me their concerns that although our local PRUs are excellent, they are increasingly being funded by contributions from the local schools to plug gaps left by reductions in the county council’s budget. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will be speaking to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that vital units such as PRUs are funded properly across all interested agencies?

[Damian Hinds]

As I said earlier, the cost per place at an alternative provision setting is considerably higher than at a mainstream setting. That cost comes out of high-needs budgets, on which there have been considerable strains—from alternative provision, and in a bigger way from special schools and SEN provision. That is one reason why we were able to find an additional £250 million over two years to help ease some of the strains on local authority budgets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Heappey and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

3. What comparative assessment he has made of the trends in the levels of wage growth and inflation.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that real average weekly earnings were up 2.4%, year on year, in the three months to October; wage growth has outstripped inflation for 13 consecutive months—the longest period of real wage growth since before the recession; and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts wages to grow faster than inflation over each of the next five years.

[James Heappey]

I welcome the Minister’s reply. Does he agree that the key to delivering further wage growth, particularly in rural areas such as Somerset, is improving productivity, infrastructure and the skills base, all of which underpin the Chancellor’s long-term economic plan for the south-west?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Last year, the hourly pay of the average Somerset employee grew well in excess of CPI inflation, and of course the south-west has a particularly strong employment rate. To keep on driving real wage growth, however, we must have productivity gains, hence the focus on the “Fixing the Foundations” strategy for skills and infrastructure and on making sure we have an attractive tax regime that encourages investment and brings jobs to that region and the country as a whole.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Heappey and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The exemption from the climate change levy has been one part of the support the taxpayer provides to renewable energy; the total package of that support amounts to some £5.1 billon this financial year. The climate change levy exemption was an indirect incentive for renewable energy. There is no denying it has had some success in the past, but by the early 2020s the total amount of renewable energy supplied will be greater than the total demand for electricity from all climate change levy-eligible businesses. The value of the exemption for generators would therefore be negligible by the early 2020s. For that reason, it would not have been a major factor in the long-term decision making of generators.

There were four reasons for removing the exemption.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his earlier remarks. Many people in Somerset have expressed their concerns about the direction the Government are taking on this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and I would welcome the opportunity to meet the Minister at a convenient time to raise those concerns, discuss with him the concern in Somerset that this is perhaps a challenge to renewable energy generation in the county and assuage some of those concerns.

[Damian Hinds]

I hope I can put my hon. Friend’s mind at rest, to some degree, in the course of the next few minutes, but I will of course also be very happy to meet him and colleagues. I am always happy to meet colleagues to discuss these important matters.

There were four important reasons for ending the climate change levy exemption. The first was that it represented poor value for money, with one third of the benefit going to overseas operators—bringing no benefit to UK climate or renewables targets—and of course much of that generation will also have been receiving subsidy and incentive at home. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) asked where these estimates come from, and I can tell her that they come from evidence provided to the Government by Ofgem—I am sure she will understand that the detail is commercially sensitive. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed out that if one third of the value goes abroad, by definition two thirds stays at home. I cannot deny that that is mathematically correct, but of course that still represents a heavy leakage rate and it is the one third leakage that makes this exemption poor value for money. Just to be clear, EU law would not allow us to restrict the exemption or preferential treatment to the UK only. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I thought the hon. Member for Wirral South was trying to get in, but she wants me to move on to explain the second reason.

As I say, the exemption was an indirect incentive, and more efficient and effective policies have been put in place through the renewables obligation and contracts for difference schemes. They are worth more, they are direct and they are explicitly grandfathered, carrying more investor worth than a tax break. The third reason was the need to protect climate change levy revenue. The independent OBR forecasts show that without a change, climate change levy revenue would fall from £800 million to £200 million by 2020, and removing the exemption is worth some £3.9 billion over the course of this Parliament.

The fourth reason was to retain the incentive for energy efficiency across all energy use, while, as a side effect, simplifying the administration of the climate change levy, which will continue to add about 5% to 7% to business energy bills. Thus, we are encouraging energy efficiency.