Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—TfL assets (constraints on developments)—
“(1) Tfl, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which:
(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,
(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or
(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.
(2) Before TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, enters into a contract involving the development of land for other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers, it must carry out a public consultation seeking views on the impact of so doing.
(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) must include consultation with:
(a) local communities likely to be affected
(b) the Greater London Authority
(c) London boroughs
(d) the City of London
(e) relevant trade unions.”
Amendment 21, page 6, in schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add
“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public heath of such use.”
Amendment 22, in page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 24, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 25, in page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, after “machines”, insert
“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”
Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, leave out from the first “stations” to the end of the sub-paragraph.
Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).
Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).
Amendment 29, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).
John McDonnell
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with particular regard to donations from trade unions to my constituency party. We are now in a long campaign period and although these donations are to my constituency party and are not personal donations, I wish to declare them. They will pay for leaflets in the election campaign bearing my photograph—that will probably cost me votes! I thought I had better declare those interests tonight.
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of myself and colleagues who drafted amendments to the Bill, I would like to thank and congratulate the Clerk on the advice he provided to us throughout. He took our original ideas and my own poor drafts and turned them into the amendments that have been selected today.
I will happily curtail this debate right now if the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), representing the Bill’s promoters, can inform us whether Transport for London is willing to accept all the amendments. If it is, we will not need to spend any further time on the issue this evening. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is willing to advise us of TfL’s position.
Mr Slaughter
These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No, I know that the hon. Gentleman has not said anything. Let us take it as read that nobody in this Chamber will declare in which election camp they are. Can we now move on, as the hon. Gentleman is struggling to do, to the main point of his proposed new clause 1?
John McDonnell
I am very, very grateful for that protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me make my final general point about this group of amendments, because the next group contains some technical details in which we will need to involve ourselves. Decisions made by Transport for London may, if this Bill is enacted, result in sites being lost to private developers that could, at a later stage, be judged essential for future transport improvements. That is the view expressed to me by people working on the front line at London transport—I am talking about RMT and other union representatives. The cost of retrieving those sites, even through compulsory purchase powers and arrangements, would then fall on the fare payers, the council tax payers, London businesses and, eventually, the general taxpayers. If this Bill goes through unamended, it will not just create enormous financial risk but put at risk the long-term development of our transport infrastructure and reduce the flexibility of Transport for London to improve services in the long term.
Let me turn now to the detail of the individual clauses. I wish to indicate now that, at some stage, I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North is concerned about a whole batch of amendments, and I believe that the House should also take a view on amendment 29.
In the context of the potential enormity of the scale of charging on TfL subsidiary assets—that is, the mortgaging of these assets—and the extent of the partnerships, limited or otherwise, it is important that Transport for London and, indeed, the Mayor are absolutely open about their intentions to enter into ventures for the development of these assets. That was clearly put to us time and again by the petitioners and others.
New clause 1 contains a come-clean list and tries to ensure that people are fully informed of the Mayor’s intentions. It requires Transport for London to publish a list of non-operational assets that it holds—I will come back to the definition of non-operational because it is a slippery one that could be used in many forms in the future if we do not tie it down very tightly—or that are in the hands of a subsidiary, which it regards as eligible for development, and to band them by value.
John McDonnell
I disagree. I agree about the importance of new clause 1 requiring a list of assets, but I inserted the identification of their value by band because I am worried about the scale of the overall risk if, for example, as in the Bill, all or any of these assets can be used against borrowing—can be charged or mortgaged to secure borrowing. The scale of that risk is enormous. If we look at the scale of the loss of grant, which is the funding gap that Transport for London and the Mayor are trying to deal with, that will give us an idea of the scale of the use of TfL’s assets for borrowing purposes and development deal purposes, and the risk that Londoners could then face. It is enormous.
I have looked at Transport for London’s annual report and accounts. They are not easy reading. For 2013 the total amount of grant aid from central Government, excluding Crossrail, for general and capital grants was £3.2 billion. On page 140 of the annual report and accounts for 2013-14, table 9 shows the entitlement of grant income which identifies the non-ring-fenced grant from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, which is £632.8 million. Non-ring-fenced grant to fund capital from the Department for Transport is £1,578.4 million. So when the Minister talks about reducing the Department for Transport grant to Transport for London to zero, the magnitude of the sum that the Mayor and Transport for London want to raise from these deals with private developers or to borrow against these assets becomes clear. It is staggering. It is enormous—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a debate that is the subject of the second set of amendments, which is borrowing. I understand that the two arguments are linked, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he more he does that, the more it reflects on the second group.
John McDonnell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because Transport for London is using sites to enter into a relationship with developers from which it can get an income stream, and linking that to a mortgage to cover borrowing as well, the two activities are integrally linked. I understand what Madam Deputy Speaker is saying and I will try to separate my remarks about them, but that is difficult because the same clauses cover both.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I simply caution him that although one debate reflects on another, that may lead to repetition, which we want to avoid later in the evening, so please stay focused on the first group of amendments.
John McDonnell
Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by it, of course.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Just one moment, Minister. That is not a point of order for me. Let us be clear that we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments in the group.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
I rise to respond to the very long and detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Points of Order
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I am sure that the hon. Lady will have notified the hon. Member to whom she is referring. As she knows—difficult as it is to chair the Chamber—the Chair is not responsible for what Members say outside this place or for interpreting the spirit in which any comment may have been made. For that I am grateful, given the point that the hon. Lady has made.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not finished, Mr McDonnell.
I was going to suggest that perhaps such matters are better sorted out between Members over a cup of tea, but I understand that we now have another point of order. I hope that your point of order is further to this point of order, Mr McDonnell.
John McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for notifying me that she intended to raise this matter today? I thank her for raising it as it allows me the opportunity to put the matter straight. Various allegations have been made. Let me make it clear: I have never called for any harm to be done to any Member of this House or anyone else. I have reported statements that were made at a public meeting in the Wirral constituency. I did not agree with them, but I reported them.
I have no doubt that the hon. Lady is sincere in this, but she should be aware that what we witnessed last week was a choreographed exercise between the Daily Mail and Conservative central office to take a remark I made on the Sunday and publish it on the Thursday in order to detract from the speech made by the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Lady is concerned, as I am, about women’s issues, she should join me in voting against the closure of women’s refuges and the charges—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that proves my point. Remarks made outside the Chamber should be settled between Members: it is not a matter for this House—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not finished speaking yet, Mr McDonnell. As far as I am concerned, that closes the matter. The two Members should sort it out themselves: it is not a matter for me.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to say that I am happy with the recommendation to have a cup of tea.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made an offer, but whether the hon. Lady wants to take it up must be between them. We must move on because it is not for the Chair to referee between Members outside the Chamber.
Finances of the House of Commons
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
The proposal was for the privatisation of the three main entrances and all the security aspects of running them—basically, the search facility. I think that the Met had come to the conclusion themselves that disaggregating the security service in that way would make it very difficult to manage the whole arrangements. Where we have seen those sorts of disaggregations of security services, we have seen breakdowns in communication, leading to reduced security, putting people at risk. In a heightened period of security—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking specifically about one section of those who were in the House to help facilitate it. He was answering an intervention, but I remind all hon. Members that we do not discuss security issues on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman started out in order, but was tempted down a more complex route about the security of the House. I know that he wants to return to his substantive point.
John McDonnell
It is very easy to be tempted in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Let me return to the point. It is important for a decision to be made now so that staff can know what their futures will be. I suggest that the Committee should ensure that the security arrangements remain with the Metropolitan police unless they do not wish that, in which case staff should be employed in-house. That would enable us to maximise the security arrangements of the House during the coming potentially difficult period.
Water Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a defence of the water industry, he can stand up to make a speech—he may not do so in an intervention.
John McDonnell
Former Ministers need an element of retraining, so may I say to the hon. Gentleman that he can intervene on me as often as wants, but perhaps he could be a bit briefer?
The issue is this: we are not talking about advocating a return to the previous model of nationalisation here; we are talking about the long-term future of the water industry, which is why this debate is important. My view is that privatisation and competition has not worked, but there are other models that we should explore. The Welsh model of a not-for-profit organisation ploughing the money that comes back into the infrastructure and into quality of service is the one we should now be exploring.
High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A large number of Members wish to participate in the debate. May I ask people to keep their comments a little more clipped so that we can facilitate as many people as possible? I cannot impose a time limit as we are on Report, but Members can watch the clock and appreciate that five to 10 minutes would be a good proxy as regards the length of their speeches.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I shall try to be brief. I have tabled amendment 23 on the link between the network and Heathrow. Some hon. Members will understand that I have raised the issue on behalf of my constituents, as is my right, in each debate we have had on High Speed 2.
Let me briefly give the context. My background is in supporting rail expansion and investment. I represent a constituency with a railway estate and a large number of railway workers and, in addition, I chair the RMT trade union group in Parliament. We have been strongly behind the development of increased capacity and investment, so when the idea of high-speed rail was first proposed it was welcomed in my constituency for a number of reasons. One was that if we could get railway journeys below four hours, that would take pressure off Heathrow airport and reduce the need for short-haul flights into Heathrow. That assisted in our campaign against the expansion of Heathrow.
When the route was published, every Member south of Birmingham could assess its impact on their constituency, except me, because the link to Heathrow was not included. The route of the link to Old Oak Common was published, but then we were told that there would be a direct link at some stage, the options would be published, there would be a consultation, a preferred option would be considered, compensation arrangements for those affected would be discussed and then this House would make a considered decision.
There are real concerns about the environmental impact where the network hits the north of my borough. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) have valiantly argued the case for their constituents and achieved some tunnelling, but a lot more needs to be done. Other facilities that serve the whole borough will be affected, such as the Hillingdon outdoor activities centre, which will need to be relocated.
I am also concerned that my constituents now have no idea what impact the route will have on them because, following the introduction of the Davies commission, the whole timetable and consultation process for the link to Heathrow has been deferred until after the next general election, which means more years of blight for my constituents. That affects all of them, because nine different options for linking to Heathrow are being discussed, which means everyone’s home or business is under threat. That is no way to run a railway or consult on such a massive project. We were promised a logical process with a tight time scale. We were told that as the main network was decided, the routes would be published, there would be consultation on a preferred route, and a decision would be made relatively speedily, which would at least have given us some certainty. That has all gone now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said that we do not want to put off any decision on high-speed rail until after the Davies commission reports. The solution, then, is simply to ensure that the commission reports earlier. The fact that it is due to report after the next general election is a political fudge to get everybody off the hook. In the coming six weeks the commission will report on a range of options, but there will be no final report until after the general election. Why is that length of time needed? All the experts, and indeed a number of Government Members, have been clear that the deadline could be brought forward so that we can have certainty about the Government’s preferred option before the next general election.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, he did not imply it. He did not raise the issue of the hon. Gentleman’s integrity in any way. There seems to be a dispute about what was actually said, and I think that that is different.
John McDonnell
Let me assure the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) that I would never call him a liar. What I am trying to say is this. The organisation has previously made it very clear that the House will be the determinant of the Bill. I believe that John Wadham has been a good and effective civil servant over the years, and that he will implement whatever comes out of the House as effectively as possible, but I also believe that he and his colleagues are simply trying to survive in whatever way they can, and will speak accordingly.
Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
As extremely entertaining as the hon. Gentleman’s speech is, may I suggest that it is an example of the filibustering that, in the eyes of the general public, demeans the House? May I suggest that he addresses the Bill instead of using this mechanism in this way to embarrass himself and degrade the proceedings of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That might be the hon. Gentleman’s opinion and the opinion of people outside the House, but the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) is in order. If he was not, I would prevent him from speaking. I appreciate that that is the view of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and that he has now put it on the record, but the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green will be in order if he wishes to advance this argument.
CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate. I think that it has been incredibly constructive, and a credit to the House.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) displayed her experience of these matters, but I do not agree with her. She criticised the CPI, but argued that it was about the best we have. Not even the Government accept that—they are undertaking a review of the CPI in order to install the housing costs that we have argued should be included in it. Within two years, or perhaps one, they will produce their report, and the system will change again. In the meantime, however, people will lose out as a result of the removal of the RPI link. I believe that although the hon. Lady was clear in her defence of the CPI for the moment, she acknowledged the need for change at a later date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) hit the nail on the head: this is a matter of trust. People were told that if they contributed to a pension scheme, they would receive a certain defined benefit. It is no good the Minister’s saying that they should have looked at the scheme rules, because in leaflet after leaflet and in scheme after scheme, they were told that they would be protected by the RPI. It is almost like a dodgy car salesman saying “You didn’t look at the hire purchase agreement in sufficient detail.” My hon. Friend mentioned Maxwell, and that resonates in this context.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the calculations that would need to be verified. As was explained earlier, according to one calculation someone with a £10,000 pension would lose out, because he or she would not even gain as a result of the other measures.
There are two issues. We expect the changes in the state pension to improve matters, but that improvement should not be at the cost of people’s employment pensions. It is not acceptable to wrap the two together as if they would be of some benefit to people with employment pensions, because those people will lose out whatever happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) rightly pointed out, the long-term prospect is that some people will give up on their pension schemes and will not contribute, and as a result the viability of some pension schemes will be at risk.
Today’s debate smacks of the debate that took place many years ago about the link with earnings. People now regret the breaking of that link, because it led to the erosion of the state pension over the years. Unless the Government’s decision is reversed, the same despair and anger will be expressed in 20 years’ time.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke eloquently about the need for sustainability, and he was exactly right. We must ensure that pension schemes are sustainable. Most contributory schemes are, and we must ensure that state-funded schemes are as well. That means ensuring that contributions are made, both through tax—a fair taxation system means tackling evasion and avoidance, so that there is a sufficient amount in the Exchequer—and from scheme members themselves. The unions have made it clear that if the costs increase because of the increasing longevity of their members, they will be willing to pay more, but not to subsidise the Treasury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) presented his assessment of the Government’s decision in his usual honest and extremely thoughtful manner. He said it was about placing the burden of the deficit and the economic crisis on the pensioner rather than on the tax avoider and tax evader, and I entirely agree with him.
The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was entertaining as always, and irrelevant as always. [Interruption.] I do not wish to be too cruel to him, but the fact is that we are not debating the Labour party’s pension fund. That is a debate for another day and, possibly, another Back Bencher’s application.
We are debating a serious matter. As we have pointed out time and again, firefighters will lose between £25,000 and £50,000 as a result of these changes, and the Forces Pension Society has emphasised that some former military personnel who were injured in action will lose up to £200,000. As the Minister said, the Secretary of State has the right to set any indexation level in law, but I think there is a moral obligation to abide by the commitment given over decades that the link should be with RPI, because the link with CPI will undermine the pensions that people are paid.
The issue of retrospection was raised. People feel that they are having their pensions cut retrospectively.
There will be a debate about what is the appropriate index. My view is that CPI is not the right index. I urge the Government to introduce the reforms to CPI as rapidly as possible. Pensioners face the threat of losing significant sums of money. They must not do so.
The judgment in the courts was very clear. The objective of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is supposed to be speaking for only a few minutes, but he has now been speaking for about eight minutes. I will therefore be very grateful if he completes his remarks.
John McDonnell
This is an important debate, but I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The judges made their view very clear. The Government’s motivation is to do with deficit reduction and cuts, not which inflation measure should be adopted. The Government are placing the burden of the cuts on pensioners. Pensioners will never forgive them for that.
Question put.
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 53, page 52, line 21, leave out clause 69.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 39, page 52, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1) Section 138(1)(b) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (discretionary payments out of Social Fund) may be repealed, if the Secretary of State—
(a) publishes a detailed proposal for a replacement scheme, or schemes, based on wide consultation with relevant stakeholders;
(b) ensures that such a scheme, or schemes, will provide financial protection for applicants in an emergency or crisis, with the eligibility criteria for applicants specified in regulations;
(c) demonstrates the feasibility of such a scheme, or schemes, through a pilot or pathfinder process; and
(d) demonstrates how an independent appeals mechanism will be implemented.’.
Amendment 40, page 52, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) In consequence of the provision in subsection (1), the office of the social fund commissioner may be abolished.’.
Amendment 54, page 128, line 28, leave out Schedule 8.
John McDonnell
Amendment 53 relates to the abolition of the social fund and addresses a number of the concerns that Members raised on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Government propose to abolish key elements of the social fund—the community care grants and the crisis loans—and to replace them with support through local authorities. The social fund, particularly the crisis loan, is critical to many Members in representing their constituents. That is the case not only in my constituency but across the country. These mechanisms support people in desperate need and at key times in their lives, and they are safety nets when people are facing essential expenditure that they cannot meet. My concern is that many organisations have made representations to the Government, Committee members and Members of the House urging that the social fund should not be abolished without robust and effective alternatives put in its place. The proposal should certainly be fully explored and tested before any change is made.
Social funds have been critical. The numbers of recipients of social funds and of applications demonstrate their importance. In 2009-10, there were 640,000 applications for community care grants, 3.64 million for crisis loans and 1.69 million for budgeting loans. Some 263,000 CCGs were awarded, 2.7 million crisis loans were awarded, and 1.2 million budgeting loans were awarded, so the expenditure was significant. They have a significant impact on individuals’ lives and in tackling poverty across the country. Some £139 million was spent on CCGs, £109 million net was spent on crisis loans, and £482 million gross on budgeting loans. This is therefore a large-scale activity that is vital to the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society. Even at this level of expenditure, however, the Public Accounts Committee concluded, having investigated CCGs, that only 32% of legitimate demand was being met.
I am extremely pleased that the Department for Work and Pensions is retaining budgeting loans and advance loans for alignment payments. However, I and many Members and voluntary organisations working in this field are unclear about what will replace the crisis loans and the CCGs. I am gravely concerned about the proposals to transfer responsibility to local authorities, which will be expected to design their own schemes for emergency support. Those responsibilities are being transferred at a time when local authority budgets are being cut. My understanding is that the funding will not be ring-fenced. In their consultation, the Government suggested that local authorities could also meet some of the demands with payments in kind—food parcels and second-hand furniture were mentioned as examples. I am also concerned that without clear guidance councils might be able unilaterally to introduce and force new conditions on those applying for emergency support.
I tabled the amendment because of the real danger that we will now be faced with numerous schemes being developed by local authorities, and that vulnerable people will lose this essential support. I am concerned that if the funding to local authorities is not ring-fenced, it will be diverted to other priorities.
Let me give the example of what happened to the playbuilder grant in my area. I chair the local play association, which I also helped to set up. When the ring fence was lifted, the Government initially sought to withdraw elements of the second year of the scheme. I am grateful that the Secretary of State for Education reinstated them and returned significant amounts to local authorities, which was a real breakthrough. However, because the money was not ring-fenced, much of it unfortunately appears to have been diverted into other areas of council expenditure, rather than going to improve play for children. That is just one example, from the most recent period, of funds that were not ring-fenced being allocated to local authorities and then spent for purposes other than those that the Government had intended. The Minister has agreed that allocations will be based on social fund spending, which will be regularly reviewed and the data updated. However, my concern is that if money is not ring-fenced in the first stages, it will be creamed off in the early years to be spent elsewhere.
Education Bill
Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the programme motion and the flow of debate, we have failed to reach the final batch of amendments, which deal with the education work force. About 13,000 workers will have their employee organisations abolished as a result of this legislation and will be insecure in their future employment. Tens of thousands of others will also be affected by the Bill. This batch of amendments was designed to deal with those issues and give those education workers some form of security for the future.
Now that we have failed to reach those amendments, may I through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask Mr Speaker to bring together the party leaders to discuss again the preparation of programme motions so that we do not again fail to reach important amendments—I accept that we did under previous Governments—that affect so many of our constituents and members of our communities. It is also critical that the rights of Back Benchers who do not serve on Public Bill Committees are protected, because this is the only opportunity we have to move and debate amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is frustrated by his inability to participate in debate on the amendments that were not reached, but the timetable motion was agreed by the House, and is completely outside any responsibility of the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his points on the record, and he may wish to catch my eye briefly during the Third Reading debate—if we reach it.