General Election Television Debates

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

This will be a matter for the next Parliament, and the Government have not taken a view to that extent—and, speaking for the Government, I think it is right for me to record that. No doubt, however, having raised the debate this side of the election, if the Members of the hon. Gentleman’s party are returned after the election, they may well come back to it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in his speech that if anyone should compel the party leaders to give an account of themselves, it should be in this House by Mr Speaker, not by an unelected quango. This is, thank goodness, a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidential system, although if it was the presidential system of the United States of America, it could be that the Leader of the Opposition will be spending more time in the USA with his brother before long. Before that, however, let us give him one last chance through his spokesman here: an opportunity to appear before the nation with the other party leaders to explain why he should be Prime Minister. Our offer of this televised debate before the campaign starts still stands. Is he up for the challenge, or is he frit?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I thought he had sat down and had not allowed me in. Will he answer this question clearly for the record, because he has not done so yet: has the Prime Minister ruled out a head to head, potential Prime Minister with potential Prime Minister? Has he ruled that out, and am I correct in thinking that the debate he is offering is just one with other leaders?

[Greg Clark]

I am always happy to extend my remarks to include the hon. Lady. What we have seen—I think this has been attested to in the speeches so far—is complete chaos and confusion on the part of the broadcasters. The Prime Minister has made an offer—an offer he first made three years ago—to have a debate before the election campaign starts. The offer is there on the table; I very much hope the Leader of the Opposition takes it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

As the Minister well knows, neither he nor I can indicate what would be in either of our party’s Queen’s Speeches at any stage. We have fixed-term five-year Parliaments, so I am not going to comment on the timing. However, we welcome the opportunity to debate that important reform, and I hope that he will engage in a serious debate on it.

The Prime Minister’s politics tutor at university, Vernon Bogdanor, has welcomed our proposal, saying that

“the public are entitled to see how party leaders perform in debate, and also how the Prime Minister and alternative Prime Minister perform.”

A Prime Minister, of whatever party, should not be able to duck debates and thereby potentially cancel them for everyone. If a party representative refused to appear on BBC “Question Time” on a Thursday night, the show would go on. These debates are important for the credibility of this election. How can the Prime Minister, as leader of his party, look the British public in the eye, having been so overt in his support of debates, when he is now running away from them? Why should he have a veto on the opportunity for the public to hear from other party leaders?

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is actually slightly worse than that? The Prime Minister is saying he will debate, but he is not saying he will debate head to head. He is trying to bamboozle people by saying he will take part in that debate. He is just saying things that are not really true.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been quoted as saying that he will meet the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, and we have accepted the broadcasters’ proposals for three separate debates—

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we must stay the course in order to finish the job, and finish it fairly. He may be aware that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency has fallen by a full 40% in the last year alone, which is an extraordinary achievement.

As my hon. Friend knows, my view is that it is simply not fair or justifiable to apply council tax bands to low-value properties without adopting the same approach to high-value properties. Why should a family living in a family home in Lewisham pay the same council tax as someone living in a £10 million palace, possibly in Wimbledon? That does not make sense to me, and it should change.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My 69-year-old Atherton constituent Margaret was run over by a car, and was left bleeding in the road for 90 minutes before the ambulance turned up. The Chancellor said last week that the Government had made cuts without affecting front-line services. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, or does he regret supporting every cut that the Government have made?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What I regret enormously is the fact that every household in the hon. Lady’s constituency—indeed, every household in all our constituencies—took a hit of £3,000 because of the crash in 2008, which was caused in large part by the absolute neglect of the Labour party in government. That is what I regret. The economy has suffered a cardiac arrest the likes of which we have not seen before during the post-war period. I am very proud of the fact that this coalition Government are making painstaking, if controversial, decisions to ensure that we live within our means rather than simply burdening our children and grandchildren with this generation’s mistakes.

Youth Service Provision

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate.

I must declare an interest: I am a youth worker. At least, when I had a proper job before I came to this place I spent almost all my professional life as a youth and community worker, working with young people in communities. A few of us in this place and a few more in the other place were youth and community workers, and we are all in absolute despair at what is happening to our services. I also chair the all-party group on youth affairs, so I try to keep my feet on the ground, although the situation is moving incredibly fast at the moment. Unfortunately, it is not changing for the better; services are being destroyed up and down the country—I will talk a little more about that later.

Let me start with something the Chancellor said in his autumn statement a few minutes ago:

“We have shown in this Parliament that we can deliver spending reductions without damaging front-line public services”.

I wish he were part of this debate so he could see how those budget cuts have totally destroyed front-line services —the youth service in particular.

Let me take hon. Members back to the start of the system. There was an early youth service at the end of the 19th century, when a number of voluntary organisations were set up to work with young people—in particular, those who faced difficulties in the streets and those who worked in the mills, in service and in other places. There were cuts to those services as the years went on, particularly in the 1950s. In 1958, Lady Albemarle produced a report that became the foundation of the modern youth service. The Education Act 1944 provided a statutory basis for the youth service. If hon. Members wonder why I am talking about 1958 and 1944, it is because we always link Acts backwards, and the Education and Inspections Act 2006 contains references to the 1944 Act—I was always confused about that. The 1944 Act set out that local authorities should procure a sufficient youth service.

Sadly, under the previous Tory Government in the 90s, our youth services started disappearing at a rate of knots. I always used to think that perhaps one day I would not be a youth worker, but I never thought that there would be an end of the youth service. In the 1990s, although I still wanted to be a youth worker, there were nearly no jobs left.

The previous Labour Government strengthened the legislation. Unfortunately, some of the first words in the 2006 Act are:

“must, so far as reasonably practicable”.

That is something I hope an incoming Labour Government will sort out. I plead with the Minister to talk to local authorities about what is “reasonably practicable”. If it is reasonably practicable for a local authority to provide library services, education and other services, surely it should still be providing youth services.

The 2006 Act called on local authorities to secure for qualifying young persons in the local authority area—13 to 19-year-olds and people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25—

“sufficient educational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their well-being, and sufficient facilities for such activities; and...sufficient recreational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their well-being, and sufficient facilities for such activities”.

It states that

“ ‘sufficient educational leisure-time activities’ which are for the improvement of the well-being of qualifying young persons in the authority’s area must include sufficient educational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their personal and social development.”

That was later defined to mean youth work.

The Act set out two forms of activity. Educational leisure-time activity aids young people’s social and personal development, and includes activities delivered by youth workers. Recreational leisure-time activities can include provision by youth workers, but it also includes sport, informal physical activities and cultural activities such as music, performing arts and visual arts.

The Government did not totally abandon that commitment. In a policy document on youth services, they reiterated:

“It is…local authorities’ duty to secure, so far as reasonably practicable, equality of access for all young people to the positive, preventative and early help they need to improve their well-being. This includes youth work and other services and activities that:…Connect young people with their communities, enabling them to belong and contribute to society, including through volunteering, and supporting them to have a voice in decisions which affect their lives;…offer young people opportunities in safe environments to take part in a wide range of sports, arts, music and other activities, through which they can develop a strong sense of belonging, socialise safely with their peers, enjoy social mixing, experience spending time with older people, and develop relationships with adults they trust;…support the personal and social development of young people through which they build the capabilities they need for learning, work, and the transition to adulthood…improve young people’s physical and mental health and emotional well-being;…help those young people at risk of dropping out…raise young people’s aspirations, build their resilience, and inform their decisions—and thereby reducing teenage pregnancy, risky behaviours such as substance misuse, and involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour.”

Sadly, the Government, through their devastating cuts, have failed absolutely to enable young people to access those services.

The previous Government’s document “Resourcing excellent youth services” states:

“the purpose of the work must be predominantly that of achieving outcomes related to young people’s personal and social development (as distinct from, say, their academic or vocational learning);…the methods of the work include the extensive use of experiential learning and of small groups (as distinct from, say, a prescribed curriculum and whole-class teaching or individual casework);…the values of the work include the voluntary engagement of young people with skilled adults. This relationship transforms what is possible for young people.”

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is talking about how the youth service and youth workers have a very different role to play in supporting young people today. In schools today, there is tremendous pressure on young people. They have got to have their heads down, the curriculum is very tight and they must concentrate on academic subjects. That is all the more reason why they need somebody outside that environment to help them develop in other ways.

[Julie Hilling]

I agree. Anybody who has worked with young people knows that if their heads are not in the right place, they cannot learn. I used to manage a project for looked-after young people, who were put in small groups with qualitative professional workers to work through their issues. Sticking them in a classroom and trying to stuff their heads full of facts was not working. The facts were being kept out by the mess in their lives—they did not know what was going on in their lives and they did not have good relationships with adults. Providing that space did more than allow those young people to be themselves; it enabled them to learn, participate, take part, get ready for work and take up their role in the world. It fulfilled an important part of those young people’s development.

I shall quote from Choose Youth, an organisation that shows that the Government have done something right. They have brought together all the practitioners in the voluntary and statutory sectors in youth work—that was unknown in the past—in an organisation that seeks to defend and promote youth work. Choose Youth says:

“What is youth work and why is it important?...Youth work as a professional educational practice uniquely inspires, educates, empowers, takes the side of young people and amplifies their voice. Unlike other interventions with young people it combines these elements in a relationship that young people freely choose to make with their youth workers. From this relationship a curriculum of learning and activities is developed that build on the positive and enhance social and personal education.”

Youth work is sometimes a place, such as a centre. Sometimes it takes place on the streets, sometimes in projects—in arts or sports projects in a variety of settings. What is unique, however, is that it is, first, an informal relationship that young people can choose to be part of—they do not have to be part of it. Secondly, the relationship is based on their terms; the youth worker tries to find out what young people actually want and need, rather than what the youth worker, as an adult, thinks they want and need. There is, therefore, a voluntary relationship and the ability for young people to develop and to choose their own curriculum.

As a youth worker—I apologise to all the young people I worked with over the years for this—I never had a conversation that was truly about what they thought about “Brookside” the night before or what they did the weekend before, because all those conversations were fundamental starting points for exploring other issues. We would use soaps to talk about date rape, and we would use things that were going on to talk about drugs, sex or relationships. Yes, we would teach young people about condoms and how to have positive sexual relationships, but there was a whole mix when it came to working with young people.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am listening with interest to what my hon. Friend is saying. In terms of the horrendous examples of child sexual exploitation we have seen across the country, with more surely to come over the next few years, does she agree that there is a reason why, in every serious case review we read, it is charities that have raised the alarm? They take the time and have the space to develop relationships with young people, exactly as she is outlining. That is why cutting these organisations, which are doing such important work, is so short-sighted.

[Julie Hilling]

I was going to talk about that issue, but I will pick it up now. If we look at the reports about Rotherham and Rochdale, we see it was youth workers who took the side of young people and started to raise issues. They said, “Things are not right here. These young people need to be listened to.” Indeed, they are perhaps the only professionals who come out well from those reports.

Youth work is also about challenging attitudes. It is not necessarily about taking the side of young people and deciding they are absolutely right, but about challenging their attitudes, their racism and their sexism. It is about challenging them to think about the world so that they do not just walk into the world and accept their place, but challenge the world as well. If they see injustice, they can challenge it by working together, not by rioting on the streets. Part of the legislation is that the voice of youth is central and that young people have a right to a voice.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to link what my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said with something that my hon. Friend said earlier, based on her experience. Many of the young people involved in the trafficking were in children’s homes; my hon. Friend talked about her work with looked-after children. All too sadly, many children in care will end up in prison a few years on, costing £200,000 a year each, which is an horrendous sum. Given my hon. Friend’s experience, can she say how effective youth work has been over the years in keeping some of those young people from ending up in prison?

[Julie Hilling]

That is always hard to quantify, but the issue is important. Over the past few years, people have looked for integrated services, which is the right thing to do, but they have then tried to combine them in one role. Social workers working with young people in care have a vital role, but that adult who befriends young people and works with them on their terms, and who does not have to make sure that they are home by 9 o’clock at night, they have done their homework or they have eaten their greens, is also vital.

My hon. Friend is right that the cost of young people who enter the penal system is enormous, and I will come to the figures in a moment. We are spending about £100 per year per young person on youth work, compared with the hundreds of thousands of pounds we spend to keep people in the penal system because we could not spend a pittance on them before. It is estimated that if we spent £350 per year per young person, that would fund the proper youth service we are talking about.

Another issue the Government have led us to is working just with the young people who are most in need—those who are not in education, employment or training. Of course we need to work with those people, but the more cuts we make to the service that gathers most young people, the more people will fall to the bottom of the net and need a more specialist service to get them out. The youth service is a good vehicle for enabling all young people to have that same positive relationship.

Let us talk about some of the cuts. In 2010, Sheffield had 41 youth clubs; in 2013, that was down to 23. Since 2013, of course, there have been further cuts, and those cuts are continuing. In the north-west, Manchester disestablished its youth service. It is still putting £1.3 million into the voluntary sector, but that is now up for grabs, and it is likely to disappear. Oldham is getting rid of everything apart from one myplace centre. In Trafford, all provision is on the table to go completely, although a housing association might pick some up. In St Helens, there is a 77% cut, and it now has only 28 hours of delivery at the most.

In Lancashire, half the budget has gone, and it is now looking at further cuts. In Tameside, the budget is almost gone. In Stockport, it is gone. Sefton faces huge cuts. In Liverpool, the budget is gone. Bolton faces massive cuts. Wigan now faces an 80% cut. Cheshire West now has four professional youth workers—I am sure they know individually every one of the young people they are supposed to be working with. The one little bit of success is in Knowsley, where youth workers and young people have set up a project together and are running the services.

The picture across the country is devastating. The smallest cut is 50%. A lot of areas have cuts of 75%. Now, particularly in the period going forward, a lot of areas are cutting budgets completely. These authorities have a statutory duty to provide a service, and I will come back to that in a minute.

We are losing the professional expertise and the co-ordination across the piece. Even when there is money to go into the voluntary sector, there is nobody there to co-ordinate that spend. Indeed, I was told yesterday of a local authority that is now looking to the regional youth service unit to provide it with some infrastructure, because the local authority’s infrastructure has completely disappeared.

It is now difficult to ascertain what is left of many services. Some are youth and play, while some are just youth support services. The whole designated youth service budget has gone completely. What saved the Wigan youth service in the late ’80s was the fact that the local authority had to spend a percentage of its education budget on the youth service. We had a great influx of money, and we doubled the number of youth workers. Legislation is important, and it should be implemented.

If we ask people in a neighbourhood what they want, they say they want youth centres for young people to go to. They do not want young people hanging around on street corners with nothing to do; they want them to have positive relationships. In that respect, early-day motion 488 now has more than 100 signatures, and 38 Degrees—I agree with this 38 Degrees petition—is encouraging people to sign a petition.

One of the Minister’s predecessors did a survey of local authorities’ youth service spending. As far as I am aware, it has never come to light. Can the Minister enlighten us about what happened to it, or whether it exists? Certainly, Unison did freedom of information requests on some local authorities and discovered that at least 2,000 jobs had gone. Given that there were only 7,000 in the first place, that is an enormous percentage. Some 350 youth centres closed and 41,000 youth services places were lost. As has been mentioned, a place in the criminal justice system costs £200,000 per annum.

I quote again from the Choose Youth manifesto:

“Youth work contributes significantly to early intervention and preventative services thereby reducing the incidence of young people in need of highly targeted intensive and expensive services later on.

For example, the Audit Commission report into the benefits of sport and leisure activities in preventing anti-social behaviour by young people estimates that a young person in the criminal justice system costs the taxpayer over £200,000 by the age of 16. But one who is given support to stay out costs less than £50,000. Other comparative costs include: £1,300 per person for an electronically monitored curfew order. £35,000 per year to keep one young person in a young offender institution. £9,000 for the average resettlement package per young person after custody.”

Youth work is a cheap, efficient alternative to all those other intervention measures. The National Youth Agency used to be paid to collate a survey of spending on local authorities. It can no longer do that work because it is no longer paid to do it.

The youth service profession are qualified workers, not just people who turn up on a Friday night and decide that they will play with young people. A youth work qualification is equivalent to a teaching qualification. The qualification and training are as rigorous as those for other caring professions such as social work and teaching. Youth work is now a degree profession and youth workers are highly trained and qualified. They support volunteers in their work. For every pound spent, £8 comes back in action by volunteers. The work is cost-effective in all sorts of ways, but it is about professional service. Most of us would not want an unqualified teacher to be standing in front of a class and teaching. Most of us would not want an unqualified doctor to treat us or an unqualified nurse to deal with us. Why then should we accept unqualified youth workers working with young people?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is paying tribute to youth workers and their professionalism, in what is now a degree-entry profession. They do tremendous work, and for so little pay; it is not a well rewarded profession financially, although it is in other ways. Could my hon. Friend recommend it as a career choice in the current environment?

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I went to Huddersfield to talk to a group of students a couple of weeks ago, and asked them much the same question. They are still as dedicated and committed, and they may well get jobs, but not as youth workers, because the skills of youth workers and the methodology of youth work are wanted by many other professions. Really, however, we should hope that they can employ their core skills in working with young people.

Finally—I recognise I have gone on for rather a long time—it is a false economy to remove youth services, and to work with young people only when they are already in trouble or at risk of getting into trouble. The Minister needs to make local authorities live up to their statutory duties, and not just ignore the legislation that says there is a statutory basis for the youth service. Of course that needs strengthening and I hope that the next Labour Government will strengthen it. We have seen how easily an incoming Government can water down regulation. However, there is regulation and legislation. The Government should live up to their promise to young people and enforce the legislation to make sure that we have a sufficient youth service in every area of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I will make some progress and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

I have been Minister for Civil Society for just over two months and have seen the important and difficult work done by youth workers and so many others with young people. These individuals are making a vital contribution to realising the Government’s ambition to ensure that all young people have the opportunities needed to fulfil their potential—an ambition I am sure we all agree with.

Only last month on a visit to Stockton, I met Five Lamps, an organisation in the constituency neighbouring the hon. Gentleman’s. This award-winning social enterprise is working with young people in the town. Five Lamps works with nearly 25,000 people every year through programmes including youth services and work with those who are not in education, employment or training. It was inspiring to see how it transforms lives and raises aspirations in Stockton. Five Lamps is a fine example of the type of support that is available at the local level, and hon. Members would do well to commend such work in their own constituencies. I am a huge supporter of these types of local services. I am also committed to bringing national and local government together, along with civil society and businesses, to give young people the best possible opportunities to succeed, and I will set out the Government’s current work to achieve this.

At local level, this Government have retained the existing statutory duty for local authorities, which requires that they secure, as far as is practicable, sufficient services and activities to improve the well-being of young people, as outlined in section 507B of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Not only did we retain the duty, but we updated the guidance on it in June 2012.

Hon. Members will have seen early-day motion 488, tabled by a Labour Member—some have mentioned it —in favour of a statutory funded service with ring-fenced funding from central Government. I have considered the issues, but do not support the EDM. I believe that effective local youth services are already supported by the existing statutory duty. I also believe that local authorities should be empowered to decide how to secure services that meet the needs of young people in their communities with the resources available to them. It cannot be the role of central Government to dictate to them what services to deliver or to ring-fence funding for this purpose. I am not clear from comments by the shadow Minister whether Labour now proposes to ring-fence these budgets.

[Julie Hilling]

I do not understand why we bother to legislate in this place if we are not going to ensure that local authorities or other bodies carry out the measures in legislation that we introduce.

[Mr Wilson]

The hon. Lady has to recognise that the principles of localism cannot simply be overridden the first time anyone disagrees with a decision that is made. If we are serious about localism—I am—we have to trust and respect local choices, and if necessary provide support to encourage new ways of thinking about how services are delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend has mentioned Mencap, whose “Hear my voice” campaign is playing an important part in raising awareness of disability hate crime. In the prosecution of these cases, it is important that we widen the ambit to consider the entire experience of people with learning difficulties and lifelong conditions in the criminal justice system. Frankly, it has not been a good one, and I will do all I can to offer leadership to ensure that real change in the criminal justice system can be obtained for people with learning difficulties and disabilities.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Prosecutions for hate crimes are down, compared with the figures for 2010-11, even though the Home Office evidence and our own postbags show that incidents of hate crime— particularly disability hate crime—are increasing. What is the Solicitor-General doing to determine the cause of the drop in prosecutions, and to improve the response of the law enforcement agencies?

[The Solicitor-General]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I note first that the hon. Gentleman’s party blocked House of Lords reform when it was a manifesto commitment and party funding reform, but on the point he raises, far from blocking it, my party has put forward a proposal, unlike any other party, on how to deal with this issue. We are saying that we should create, in this House, a Grand Committee composed of MPs reflecting the votes cast in England, such that if there is a Bill that affects only England and Wales, they can say whether or not they want to exercise a veto on that Bill. That is our proposal; so far, I have heard a deafening silence from all other parties on this important debate.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T5. As individual voter registration will reduce further the number of young people registered to vote, will the Deputy Prime Minister support Labour’s policy of following Northern Ireland’s successful schools initiative, whereby local authorities automatically register young people to vote, which has dramatically increased the number of young people on the electoral register?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Perhaps I just need to repeat what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier. We have learned the lessons of what happened in Northern Ireland and have automatically transferred a huge number of people from existing databases—

[Julie Hilling]

That is not the question.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is actually an answer to the question. The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is not the question, but the question is how do we make sure that there is the maximum number of people on the register as we move to individual voter registration? We have done much more than she suggests, and much more than her Government ever did, to ensure that people are automatically transferred to the individual voter register, and I think that will prove to be very successful.

Youth Employment

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for being called in this debate, Mr Crausby—particularly as I was not here at the start of it, for which I am sorry—to talk for a few minutes about unemployment and the employment of young people.

In a recent survey by the University and College Union of 16 to 24-year-old NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—36% said that they believed that they would never get a job, and 40% that they did not feel part of society; 33% suffered from depression and less than half felt in control of how their life would turn out. Another survey by the Children’s Society said that the unhappiest people are 14 and 15-year-olds. A report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said that a lack of youth services was failing children and young people in the UK.

Young people often feel very vulnerable and are finding it difficult to not only get into work but even think about being ready for work. We know that unemployment figures for young people are down; however, we have not taken into account the number of young people who are on workfare or are sanctioned.

[Mr Newmark]

The hon. Lady is right that unemployment for young people is down. In her constituency alone, youth unemployment is down by over 40% since the previous election.

[Julie Hilling]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman continues to make that sort of intervention whenever a Labour Member is talking about the issues with unemployment. If he listens to what I am about to say, he might learn that I do not believe that the figures are totally true and accurate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) said a short while ago, young people are the group who are sanctioned most, and when they are sanctioned they disappear from the unemployment register. For instance, I have a volunteer working in my office who got so disheartened by sanctions and how he was being treated that he now does not sign on at all because he can no longer cope with the system.

We also have young people on workfare. They are not in employment—they are not getting paid for the work they are doing—but they also disappear from the unemployment figures. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) might be interested to know that in my constituency, any young people signing on for universal credit—that is what is happening for young people in my area now—do not exist in the unemployment figures, because universal credit is not currently connected into those figures. People who want to stand up and say that unemployment is down in my constituency should realise that the figure is not accurate.

I accept that there are more jobs, but one difficulty—I have asked the Secretary of State about this on a number of occasions—is that we do not know the quality of those jobs. We do not know how many involve workfare, zero-hours contracts or unpaid work, and we do not know how many are taken by people who are desperately underemployed and working just a few hours a week when they clearly want full-time jobs.

In the few minutes I have, however, I want to talk about the things we need to do on youth unemployment. One big issue employers and young people talk to me about is the lack of careers education. Where we have cut careers services down to the bare bones, young people do not necessarily get good careers education. The young people I talk to who are in apprenticeships—particularly those working for MBDA, which offers a high-level apprenticeship programme—say they were actively discouraged in their schools from taking up apprenticeships and are not given a full range of information about the jobs on offer. Clearly, therefore, we have a real issue on apprenticeship education.

Work experience should be mandatory. Three out of four employers do not work with young people at all—they do not give them work, work experience or apprenticeships. We need to expand the pool of employers who are prepared to give young people an opportunity. The great value of work experience is that it gives young people a notion of what the workplace is actually like; it encourages them to think about what exams they need to do and what they want to do with their future. Indeed, as a result of work experience, young people sometimes say, “I never want to go into the job I’m doing on work experience.” Work experience therefore often gives young people a rounded view, although I do not think that one or two weeks’ work experience in year 11 is enough; employers should interact much more with education. Some of the best employers in my constituency regularly go into schools and interact with young people; they talk to them about their future and give them a bit of hands-on practice in areas such as engineering.

Another crucial point is support. For 10 years starting in the ’80s, I worked with unemployed young people. We set up a youth co-operative for them, which gave them not only the support they needed, but education and training. Part of that was about young people setting up their own businesses. Not many of those businesses succeeded, but the young people who had attempted to set one up did then find jobs working for somebody else, because they had the experience to do so. Given that 33% of NEETs suffer from depression, we need to see how we can support young people with their education, attitudes and work-readiness. We can build confidence and self-esteem so that they can compete for the jobs that do exist.

I am concerned about the Government’s proposals to introduce fees for the training part of apprenticeships. We are trying to encourage small employers to take on apprentices—that is where the growth in apprenticeships will be—so putting barriers in the way of people taking on apprentices is the wrong thing to do.

I recently held a business event in my constituency. One of the major things employers said was that they wanted apprenticeships to be more responsive to employers, because a one-size-fits-all approach did not really work. They wanted to be much more involved in designing the training that takes place alongside apprenticeships, and to have a say in what happened on apprenticeship programmes for young people.

On the skills agenda, some of the things that have happened in education recently are taking people towards a 1950s and 1960s education agenda. Employers tell me they want young people to do technical subjects. They do not care what the subject is, but they need young people to develop their brains in different ways and to do things more with their hands so that they are ready to take up employment opportunities.

Employers also talk about life skills. They say they need young people to come to them work-ready in many ways. That means young people should have some notion of how the world works, how they fit into the world and how to behave, as well as some notion of financial education and other life skills.

My final point comes back to the issue of connecting employers to education. We need to do far more to enable employers and young people to meet each other and talk about what is going on in the world of work, so that young people can take their place in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship. I appreciate your flexibility in recognising the rather unusual circumstances of this debate, following the change of Minister part way through. I thank hon. Members for their understanding. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) has been called away to a meeting at No. 10, and I was delighted to step in and respond to this debate.

Youth employment is hugely important to Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it is to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and across the Government. We need all parts of the Government to work together on the issue and not least with MPs across the House. Many of the contributions I have heard, and those made before I arrived, have been made with the intention of solving some of the issues.

I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on securing this debate and her important focus on employment rather than unemployment. We want to focus on that because it is the outcome we want to achieve. Her Norwich for Jobs campaign has ensured that there is an improvement in the situation for young people in her constituency. We have heard from many hon. Members about the schemes they have been involved in in their constituencies. The support of constituency MPs is particularly important as, for example, are MPs who have taken on apprentices in their own offices. We have heard a good series of examples of how MPs can make a difference in their own way to the situation in their constituencies.

We heard from hon. Members about schemes and initiatives whereby business people go into schools to offer insights into the world of work and enterprise. That is particularly valuable for young people. We have heard about challenges to people from more deprived areas and backgrounds. It was striking that when I went to the health day at a private school in my constituency, the pool of individuals available included neuroscientists who happened to be the parents of one of the children there, for example. In other areas, it may be more difficult to get a wide variety of people who are personally connected to the school to come in and offer career insights. Programmes such as Inspiring the Future are important in linking people who are happy to give an hour or two of their time once a year to speak about their job to local schools that do not necessarily have those contacts. Just last Friday, I took part in an event in a school in Islington for the Inspiring Women part of that campaign to ensure that young girls have a wide variety of role models presented to them to open up their aspirations.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) raised the important point about supporting people who do not want to go to university. It is wonderful when people go to university and gain the education it offers, but it is not right for everyone and that is one reason why the Government’s support for apprenticeships has been so important in ensuring genuine options for young people, so they can choose the right path for them. I wholeheartedly agree with him that what matters is employment, not separation. It is a shame that in Scotland over the past couple of years, the Scottish Government have not been able to focus strongly on such issues because they have been distracted by the referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) made the important point that almost all young people want to work. It is important to hold on to that in the face of some negative media stories about young people and how they are presented in our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) also mentioned his experience of having an apprentice in his office. His support for the business community in the north-east and providing jobs has been second to none. He will be greatly missed following his decision to stand down from this place, as will his work in supporting jobs in Redcar and the surrounding areas. He was right to raise the issues of employability and skills, and he contrasted the huge appetite for jobs at the crematorium compared with jobs with manufacturers of oil rig equipment.

The Perkins review highlighted the challenges we face in recruiting enough skilled engineers to ensure that our economy can grow in the way we want it to. I understand why my hon. Friend entreated us to become rather more Stalinist regarding the skills we need. I am not sure that is the word I would reach for, but employers have told us that basic skills such as English and maths need to be prioritised. That is why the curriculum is being strengthened and we are ensuring that all young people up to the age of 18 must study maths and English to at least GCSE grade C.

General employability is not just about paper qualifications but perhaps more about attitudes and basic behaviour, such as going to work, turning up promptly and being reliable. Traineeships have been introduced in response to that. They offer high-quality work experience, as well as support with English and maths skills and preparation-for-work training. They help young people who are not quite ready for work to get the experience, confidence and skills they need to be ready. That programme is already growing quickly; more than 7,400 trainees have started since August.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked a variety of questions. She said, importantly, that the approach cannot be one size fits all, because every young person is different and has a different set of challenges to overcome. That is why the range of available initiatives allows people to choose a route specific to the issues they face. We have apprenticeships and wage incentives for people who are already able to work. For those who are close to the labour market, we have the sector-based work academies. There are traineeships for those who want to work but perhaps do not have the experience and qualifications, and there is work experience and training for others.

I agree with the hon. Lady that promoting work experience is important. We already have tens of thousands of work experience, work trial and sector-based work academy places, and of course the traineeships will increase that figure because they include substantial work experience placement. The links between business, employers and schools are hugely important because as well as providing career insights, they can often lead to good-quality work experience placements with local employers and may ultimately lead to work.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made some rather negative remarks about the work experience programme, referring to some of it as workfare. I fundamentally disagree. It is absolutely right, indeed vital, that young people are able to get work experience while they are still being supported by the benefits system, so that they can get into work. That was not handled right under the previous Labour Government—those claiming unemployment benefit or JSA who wanted to increase their skills and get work experience, so that they could get a job, had their benefits stopped. That created a trap that this Government’s commitment to work experience is helping young people out of.

[Julie Hilling]

I do not have a fundamental problem with work experience, but it is really important that it involves some training and is a good experience, and is not just about young people being on workfare and working for benefits to no personal advantage.

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I simply do not recognise those claims. We have been doing a huge amount to tackle child poverty. The increase in the child care tax credit in the very first Budget was a major help for low-income families with children, so the hon. Gentleman should take that back.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Gentleman said that some people said that they wanted to go a little bit faster in paying down the deficit, was he referring to the Chancellor, who had promised that it would be got rid of in this Parliament?

[Mr Davey]

Many commentators thought we should cut the deficit faster, but we have taken a very responsible approach, to ensure not only that interest rates were kept low—that has been so vital for many families and the hon. Lady’s constituents—but that employment has risen so well. I would have thought she would be welcoming that.

The problem is that the Opposition used to criticise the coalition on unemployment—they used to say that unemployment was going to go up—but when the facts showed they were wrong and that unemployment has gone down they have had to change their economic argument. The Opposition keep changing the economic argument because they keep losing the economic argument. Let us examine their recent economic argument on the cost of living. I presume that everyone in this House accepts that the key measure of the cost of living remains the inflation figures. So if the cost of living is the measure by which to judge this coalition, let us see what has been happening to inflation. Inflation is lower than when the previous Government left office and it is falling.

I have to confess to the House that the Bank of England’s inflation target is not being hit—inflation is lower than the target. In March, inflation had slowed to just 1.6%. Of course for our constituents it is real incomes and real wages that actually matter: what people have to spend after tax and after inflation. Looking at things in that way, it is true that after the 2008 recession many people saw living standards fall. But let us remind ourselves what happened: a huge £113 billion was wiped off our economy in the great financial crash of 2008, and there was a £3,000 cost to every household in the United Kingdom. To put that right, and to keep employment rising, it was arithmetically inevitable that living standards could not rise in the turnaround period for our economy, but now we really are in recovery. Now it is not just employment that is rising—it is living standards too. How has that happened? Of course, it has been because of the coalition’s long-term economic plan.

Key aspects of that plan are really beginning to help, above all the implementation of the Liberal Democrat manifesto policy to increase the tax-free allowance to £10,000 a year. Our record not just of implementing this fairest of tax cuts, but doing more than we promised is helping more than 26 million people. It has taken 3.2 million low paid out of income tax and it has cut the income tax bill of a double-earning couple on average earnings by £1,600 a year. This Liberal-Democrat-turned-coalition policy has cut the number of low-income people paying income tax more in five years than any other Government have achieved in the same period since records began.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the considered speech of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and the insightful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address, my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), on their excellent speeches yesterday.

The Queen’s Speech states that the aim of the Government is to strengthen the economy and to provide stability and security. Today we are debating, among other things, the cost of living, which is a matter of huge concern to all our constituents. That is why tackling the deficit is so important. In 2010, the deficit was at an unsustainable 11.8% of GDP. That should be compared with a maximum of 3% which, even in the eurozone, is seen as essential for long-term stability. The necessary measures that this Government have taken will, according to The Economist, reduce the deficit this year to 4.8% of GDP, which is still considerably higher than that 3% but a huge improvement none the less.

Unusually, I pay tribute to the Treasury for the efforts it has made in recovering tax from tax avoidance schemes. The amount of money coming in now has greatly increased on previous years, and that is a tribute to the work that the Chancellor and his team have done in bearing down on some of the ridiculous tax avoidance schemes that they inherited.

What would the consequences have been of not making such a reduction in the deficit? The Government would have had great difficulty in raising money on the markets and in financing borrowing. For the taxpayer, there would have been higher taxes to pay the increased borrowing charges. Let us not forget that we pay about as much interest at the moment as we spend on our entire school system, and soon it will be more. For home owners and businesses, it would have meant increased borrowing charges through higher interest rates. Tackling the deficit is therefore key and the first step in keeping the cost of living down. Any party serious about being in government has to state how it will do that and continue to bear down on the cost of living, because 4.8% is still far too high.

As earlier speakers have said, the Government have done much more to tackle the cost of living. First and most importantly, they have increased the number of jobs—or helped to increase them, because the Government themselves do not create many jobs; in fact, there are fewer people working in the public sector now than at the beginning of the Parliament. Nevertheless, the Government have created the conditions in which 1.7 million new jobs have been created, which goes to the core of addressing the cost of living crisis. They have increased the personal allowance to £10,000—it is to go up again next year—which helps to increase take-home pay and is important in tackling the crisis. They have also frozen fuel duty and supported councils to freeze council tax.

At this point, I add a note of warning about the Opposition policy of freezing energy prices. One consequence of such a freeze, as we have discovered with fuel duty and council tax, is that when we have done it once, people expect us to continue and continue with it. What happens after 20 months of frozen energy prices? What happens to that policy? Will people expect it to continue? Will they say, “You have done it for 20 months, and we need it to continue”? Council tax and fuel duty, however, are to some extent in the hands of Government—they are taxes—but energy prices are not wholly in our hands.

[Julie Hilling]

Perhaps I can answer the question for the hon. Gentleman. We will have reformed the energy market by that point, so we will have stopped the excess profit earned—or taken—by the energy companies. That is the plan; it is not only about the 20-month freeze, but about reforming the energy market.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I understand that, and I think the energy markets need reform, but to expect that that will keep energy prices frozen, or at least at a stable level, when we are subject to world energy prices is to some extent pie in the sky. But we will see.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he agree that when world prices go down, energy suppliers should reduce our bills, rather than putting them up? Fair enough, when the prices go up, we expect our bills to go up—but should we not expect them to go down as well?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

We would. In some cases, our bills have gone down, and in other cases energy companies are freezing them. Furthermore, through the ability to switch, which many people take advantage of, they can also cut their energy costs. All I am saying is that once we introduce a freeze, it is less easy than we might think to take the freeze away, because people will expect prices to remain the same, and we have been finding that with council tax and the fuel duty. It is essential that the Government look at every sustainable way to keep downward pressure on the cost of living for households.

I want to concentrate my remaining remarks on three areas, housing, health, and international affairs, which sadly have not been included as a subject for the Queen’s speech debate, although they were mentioned in the Gracious Speech itself. The Queen’s Speech talks about increasing the supply of housing, and we all agree that that is vital: we need to build more houses. The question is not simply one of numbers; it is also about the type of houses, where they are built and infrastructure.

With changing demographics, we need more housing suitable for older citizens, including extra care housing, of which I am glad to say that more is being built in my constituency. It also includes building small, energy-efficient, single-storey homes, which many of my constituents say that they would wish to move into, if possible, but there are simply not enough of those homes. I saw an excellent example of such a development, which must have been built 20 to 30 years ago, when for some reason I happened to be passing through Newark recently. Unfortunately, we do not see that sort of development now. Why? Because developers tell us that such homes are not profitable, because they take up too much land. That shows a lack of ambition and imagination. Such developments would encounter much less opposition, because they can be seen as fulfilling a real need and keeping communities together by enabling older people to stay in the communities in which they have lived for so long.

Where houses are built is, of course, a matter of great controversy, but it is exacerbated by the irresponsible submission by developers of planning applications that are quite clearly outside democratically agreed local development plans. That is certainly the case in my area. I urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whom I am glad to see in his place, strongly to resist such speculative developments, which fly in the face of properly agreed local plans.

Infrastructure is also a great concern. I worry that sometimes we look only at the narrow implications of development and perhaps suggest that problems can be addressed by, for instance, a controlled junction onto a new housing estate, rather than considering the wider knock-on effects of traffic across the whole area. In particular, once traffic lights are introduced, they are rarely removed or even modified to take account of subsequent development. We need to consider that. We tend to focus much too narrowly on the requirements of a specific development rather than those of the community as a whole.

I want briefly to speak about health. I have spoken on many occasions about the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and will continue to do so, both in order to speak up for my constituents and because I believe that what has been happening there is of national importance and has national implications. Medium-sized district general hospitals provide services that are prized by local communities. They often provide out-patient services and elective surgery, but they also provide general accident and emergency provision—not the most complex, but everyday provision—and consultant-led maternity services and paediatrics. For that to be provided and, of course, for safety reasons, there is a need for them to come together with the larger hospitals through networking, buddying or mergers, but such provision should be possible. That is why I fully support NHS England’s review of the possibility of continuing consultant-led maternity services at Stafford. I have also urged consideration of the possibility that urgent care could be available at night to supplement the 8 am to 10 pm A and E service that should be provided, although I believe that eventually a return to a 24/7 A and E will be necessary, especially given the housing developments taking place.

We are told that specialisation means that centralisation is inevitable. I disagree and I was very glad, after a conversation last week with Simon Stevens, the new head of NHS England, to find that he views district general hospitals and community hospitals as important in providing not just community services but acute services. I hope that he will succeed. Those of us who live and work in large towns and rural areas need a decent, truly national health service and not one that is increasingly sucked into the major cities.

Of course, there is the unpalatable issue of cost, and I shall not be afraid to address it in this place, as I have before. We will have to spend more on health, probably at least 2% of GDP. I have already suggested both in this place and in writing how we can do that, possibly by converting national insurance into a progressive national health insurance paid according to income and preserving an NHS free at the point of need. In my opinion, we must remove health from an increasingly sterile debate about taxation.

Finally, I want to touch on foreign affairs. I am proud to be a supporter of a coalition Government who have, with cross-party support, achieved spending of 0.7% on overseas development assistance. I am also proud to be a supporter of a Government who have introduced the Modern Slavery Bill, again with cross-party agreement.

Those things are vital, but I see four global challenges that we must confront. The first is to eradicate absolute poverty. The World Bank has set a target to get rid of it by 2030, and we as a country and a people need to do everything we can to support that. The second is to reduce income inequality. We have already spoken today about income inequality is in this country, and the World Bank has that we must concentrate on the 40% with the lowest incomes globally to reduce income inequality. I share that aspiration, as income inequality eventually leads to political instability and many other things.

Thirdly, there is climate change, which we cannot run away from and which any responsible Government must take fully into account in their policies. Fourthly, there is the whole matter of combating—not allowing—extremism. This relates to income and equality, but it is not just about income and equality as some of the most extreme people come from some of the most privileged backgrounds. We have to combat extremism everywhere and promote freedom of speech, thought and religion and the freedom to have no religion. That is the responsibility of this Government and this country. There is no magic solution to any of this, just constant, hard negotiation, peace making and engagement. We cannot do it on our own. We need to work with others to exercise our influence through the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and particularly the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, indeed, and careful consideration of measures is crucial. I practised law in the criminal justice system in Northampton for years before I entered the House, and I witnessed the criminal justice legislation repeatedly passed under the Blair Government and the subsequent Labour Government. Frankly, much of that legislation only served to grind to a halt the court process in England and Wales. It did not work, and in many cases it created further problems. It is important to get legislation right.

We want a Britain that pays its way in the world and a Britain that is more competitive. I wholeheartedly disagree with Labour Members who criticise concepts of profit and commercial endeavour. We want hard-working people and to give them peace of mind for the future, and this Queen’s Speech continues that series of policies. This Government have carried through such measures during the past four years, and will continue to do so for the next year.

For example, the deficit is down by a third. We still hear criticisms about how fast we are able to get down the deficit. As I have previously pointed out to the House, the reality is that for Labour to make such criticisms is rather like an arsonist criticising a firefighter for the time taken to put out a fire. The deficit is down by a third, and income tax has been cut for 25 million people by an average of more than £700.

[Julie Hilling]

The hon. Gentleman is praising the Government for reducing the deficit by a third—we are, of course, always pleased when the deficit reduces—but will he explain why they have not met their target of getting rid of the deficit over the term of this Parliament? I appreciate that the Parliament has a few more months to run, but it does not seem to me that they will hit the target of a 100% reduction.

[Michael Ellis]

I am pleased to hear noises from Labour Members about their wanting us to go faster in reducing the deficit. We are doing what we reasonably can, while adopting policies that will be fair across the board and across society, to make good the damage to the British economy that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. That is why we have created 1.5 million more jobs, which is an unprecedentedly large number of new jobs. They are quality jobs: in many cases, they are full-time jobs. I have heard Labour Members castigate such an achievement or try somehow to negate it by reference to the type of jobs created and the like, but these are new jobs that in many cases are giving people security and peace of mind. The huge volume of new jobs certainly beats the record of the previous Government and every Labour Government whom I can think of, going back generations. At the end of their term, unemployment was higher than the level they inherited.

[Michael Ellis]

I am told that that has always been the case under every Labour Government.

[Julie Hilling]

I really cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with the outrageous statement that the previous Labour Government caused a global economic crash that started in America. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) may have been very powerful, but I do not believe that he caused the economic crash that started in America. Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to tell the House that the global economic crash was caused by my right hon. Friend?

[Michael Ellis]

The economy that this Government inherited was 20th out of the G20 leading industrialised nations. It was at the bottom of the heap. That was the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), Tony Blair and the Labour party. That is the appalling legacy that we are seeking to improve.

Under this Government, there are 1.7 million more apprentices. We are looking to give people opportunities. Large numbers of apprenticeships have been created to do that. There are better standards and better schools for young people. Those are significant achievements of the past four years and the Queen’s Speech will follow through on them. Only by sticking to our plan will we secure a better and brighter future for Britain.

I accept, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has pointed out, that there is more to do. That is why we seek another term. In my constituency of Northampton North, the rate of unemployment is 33% lower than it was in April 2010—the month before the general election. Youth unemployment is 41% lower than it was. However, there is more to do and the rate of unemployment is still too high. Like many colleagues on the Government Benches, I organise jobs fairs on an annual basis. During the last jobs fair that I organised, more than 2,000 people came through the doors and more than 40 companies were represented, including medium, small and large companies and charities. I accept that there is more to do, but we must stick to the long-term economic plan and get it right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and all those on the Treasury Bench have been getting it right and we are seeing the results.

Her Majesty referred to the infrastructure Bill. Investing in infrastructure is a key part of the country’s long-term economic plan, because we have to think to the future, like the Victorians and many of our predecessors did. They thought of future generations. Stable long-term funding for the strategic road network is very important and is anticipated in the coming Session.

I have lobbied persistently—some might say nagged—on the issue of potholes. That might seem to many to be a micro-economic issue, but it is significant. In my constituency, and no doubt in other parts of the country, the issue of potholes is of serious and significant concern. I got together a petition to seek more assistance in that regard. I am happy to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that he would allocate a further £200 million towards—

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish that I could talk about the Gracious Speech, but in truth I do not believe there is very much to talk about, although I must say that I welcome the announcement of action on plastic bags.

My constituents cannot afford another year of complacency. They cannot afford another year of a Government who do not understand their situation and simply tinker at the edges. They cannot afford a year in which the Education Secretary proceeds with his plans to take our schools back to the 1950s, and in which the Government ignore the cost of living crisis faced by the people of Bolton West and do nothing to ensure that having a job means that people can afford to live, nothing to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts, nothing to address the widespread concerns about immigration, nothing to stop care workers being exploited, nothing to stop the privatisation of the national health service, the scandal of people being unable to see their GPs or the scandal of missed cancer and waiting-time targets, and nothing to freeze energy prices.

The Gracious Speech did not even include Bills that the Government have already produced in draft, such as the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill and the Bill to prevent smoking in cars. And what has happened to the legislation to regulate the taxi industry following the inquiry that the Government asked the Law Commission to undertake? Commentators have described this as a zombie Government, and I think that perhaps they have a good point. Government Members who spoke yesterday welcomed the next 11 months of lots and lots of general debates, but, much as I welcome the opportunity to discuss issues that are really important to the people of Bolton West, such debates are pointless if no action is taken to deal with those issues.

Members on the other side of the House talk proudly of the actions taken by their Government. They seem to think it is okay for there to be food banks in the fifth richest country in the world, and that it is okay to talk about jobs that are being created without any acknowledgement or understanding of the fact that they include unpaid jobs provided through Government schemes, jobs involving zero-hours contracts, jobs that have been transferred from the public sector, jobs that were created and then failed, and jobs in which people are self-employed. The fact that 30% of people who use the Atherton food bank in my constituency are in work provides evidence of the quality of some of those jobs. It shows that the quality of a job is important, rather than merely having a job.

Government Members make claims that they cannot back up with reliable evidence. Five million workers—one if five of us who are lucky enough to have a job—are paid less than the living wage. That is an increase of 400,000 in the last year alone. The situation is not just bad for those people, but bad for the rest of us. It costs the Exchequer £3.23 billion a year in in-work benefits and tax losses to support employers who do not pay their employees a living wage. Low pay is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the taxpayer as well. However, the Government have no plans to improve the national minimum wage.

One group of workers who are caught by both zero-hours contracts and abuses of the minimum wage are care workers. People who are doing one of the most precious jobs in our country, and whom we entrust to look after our elderly and disabled loved ones, are treated appallingly. Studies show that between 160,000 and 220,000 care workers are unlawfully paid less than the minimum wage.

[Nia Griffith]

When we talk about raising the minimum wage, we often hear scaremongering stories about jobs being offshored. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as care workers’ jobs cannot be offshored and will continue to be done here, there is no danger in raising their wages?

[Julie Hilling]

A great deal of nonsense is talked about raising the minimum wage. When we consider the cost to the people who are employed and the cost to the Exchequer, it is clear that we cannot continue to subsidise employers who could pay their employees a living wage.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to express concern about carers, many of whom are women. Would not many of them benefit the most from Labour’s commitment to provide extra child care assistance so that their children can be looked after, as opposed to the Government’s promise of jam tomorrow in autumn 2015?

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Most carers are women, and most of them are now older women because of that very problem that people cannot afford to pay for care.

An investigation of 80 care providers established that nearly half of them were not complying with minimum wage regulations. A fifth of the adult social care work force are on zero-hours contracts. Many are not paid for travel time, and, unsurprisingly, there is a 30% turnover of care workers who work in people’s homes. This is not just bad for them; it is also bad for the people they care for. Imagine a situation in which someone does not know who will come into their home four times a day to get them up, to feed them and to put them to bed, and who does not know who will be washing their most private parts. Imagine the strain of their having to tell different people every day how to care for them, the strain on carers when their cared-for person is unable to speak up for themselves, or the worry for people of not knowing when carers will turn up and the panic when they think they might have been forgotten.

Then there are the mistakes that occur. Members will know that I speak from experience. My mum was given both her morning and evening tablets at the same time the other day because the carer accidentally gave her her evening tablets and then thought it would be a good idea to give her her morning ones as well. Another carer just gave her her evening ones instead of her morning ones, and, even worse, a new carer took my mother for her shower, wrapped her in a towel and left her to walk alone from the bathroom to the bedroom with the towel wrapped around her, Of course, my mother fell and has a head injury, and an arm injury that is still troubling her now several weeks later. I speak from experience and I know that this is exactly what is happening to hundreds of thousands of people every day when they cannot rely on the care service. Imagine the distress, too, of a cared-for person, day in, day out, having a parade of different carers.

Low pay, insecure work and zero-hours contracts are not just bad for the employee; they are bad for all of us. I fear that yet again my words are falling on the deaf ears of those who simply want to tell us that everything in the world is fine. Well, it may be fine in their world, but it is not fine in the world of the majority of my constituents in Bolton West.

Simply telling my constituents that things are getting better does not solve the problem. This Gracious Speech does not solve the problem that a third of private rented homes are non-decent homes. It will not build the affordable homes or the social homes for people and their children. It will not provide secure tenancies or affordable child care or raise the national minimum wage. It will not guarantee a job for the long-term unemployed. It will not freeze energy prices. It will not stop workers being undercut by the unscrupulous use of migrant workers. It will not make it easier for people to see their GP. It will not stop the privatisation of the health service, and it will not tackle the issues of dog welfare and dog control that put my constituents at risk; and, worst of all, it is not going to make work pay.

I hope that in 12 months’ time I will be welcoming all the things that I said this Gracious Speech will not do, and that I will be sitting on the Government Benches welcoming the next Queen’s Speech. Truly Britain deserves better than this.

Public Bodies (Diversity)

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the things that targets, and indeed aspirations, do is make people take action to meet them? Advertising in certain places often is not enough. This is about actively training people, educating people, and seeking people to fill those roles, rather than passively waiting for them to come forward.

[Mr Hurd]

I have some sympathy with that view, but I would not underestimate the strength of the new dynamics that we have introduced. There is a clear message from the top that this matters, and there is independent regulation of the competitive process. I have already described some of the things that we have done which we think will make it easier to reach out to people, and to remove barriers and obstacles. We have also made the process more transparent. In my experience as a Minister, the transparency factor is much more powerful than some arbitrary target with no transparency in regard to progress towards it The system knows that this matters and that it is being scrutinised—debates such as this are helpful in that respect—and we will be judged against progress towards the number for which we are aiming, whether it is set as an aspiration or a target.

I do not want to ignore the important issue of BME representation. I will be frank, and say that we are disappointed by the slip-back in the numbers. In their public appointments diversity strategy, published this year, the Government said:

“This is not just about gender; diversity is about encouraging applications from candidates with the widest range of backgrounds.”

It is regrettable that last year the number of successful BME candidates fell from an average of about 7.9% of appointments and reappointments since 2001-02 to 5.5% last year. We are disappointed about that, because it matters to us. We are hopeful that this will prove to be an anomalous year, and that the work that the Cabinet Office and the Commissioner for Public Appointments have been doing to increase diversity in public appointments will reap rewards in the next set of published figures, which will be transparent and will be monitored by the House and outside.

The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates the competition for many of these posts. He also has a statutory responsibility to promote diversity and equality of opportunity in the procedures for making public appointments. He is actively concerned about the issues that have been raised today and he has already engaged in activity to try to improve the position. For example, he has run a series of workshops for different under-represented groups to identify the challenges to increasing diversity in appointments and will be coming up with practical suggestions to help Departments break down these barriers in the future. I am looking forward to the outcomes of this work and undertake to share them, as far as I can, with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, knowing and respecting, as I do, her strong interest in this area.

The public sector needs world-class leadership if it is to continue delivering the services that people rely on, and that means having diversity on the boards of public bodies—people with clarity of vision, who can make decisions, and rise above process to get things done. It needs innovators and people who understand the communities we are trying to serve. It needs people who can open up the system to new ways of doing things, who are prepared to take risks without being reckless, and who are willing to take responsibility and to learn and grow.

I do not think there has ever been a time in the public sector when this need to open up the doors to fresh thinking and people who bring different perspectives and insights and different knowledge has been more important. There are already great examples of diverse leaders making a significant contribution on public boards, but we are very aware that there is much more we can do and that is why diversity is genuinely at the heart of our public appointments strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I absolutely welcome the inquiry that my hon. Friend is leading and will certainly encourage a lot of evidence to be given. We have to be open about the problems that exist. Otherwise, there is no chance whatsoever of solving them. The first stage in finding solutions is being honest about the problems.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

We are strong believers in the value of high-quality youth services. We will shortly publish a report on what local authorities are doing to comply with their statutory duty, along with our plans to support those who want to deliver high-quality services in an innovative way.

[Julie Hilling]

As the Minister says, local authorities have a duty to secure sufficient educational leisure-time activity for the improvement of well-being and the personal and social development of young people, but the average cut to youth services has been 27%, with some local authorities cutting their youth service budgets completely. What measures is he taking to ensure that local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities, and how is he measuring the impact of the cuts on the well-being of young people?

[Mr Hurd]

The statutory duty exists. We are concerned about the vulnerability of youth services, as is the hon. Lady. It is a mixed picture: boroughs such as the London borough of Hillingdon in my constituency, for example, are investing more in youth services now because they fixed the roof when the sun was shining, but there are cuts. We are finding out an accurate picture of what is happening, because we did not have one, and we will shortly publish the offer we can make to local authorities that want to commission services in an innovative way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the options available to victims of crime who wish to complain about the performance of public prosecutors.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the options available to victims of crime who wish to complain about the performance of public prosecutors.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Since the Crown Prosecution Service launched its new victims’ right to review scheme on 5 June 2013, victims have the right to request a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute in qualifying cases. The CPS feedback and complaints policy has also been revised to reflect the appointment of the independent assessor of complaints for the CPS. The VRR scheme was the subject of a consultation, concluded on 5 September 2013, and the CPS is considering the responses to the consultation with a view as to how best to operate the VRR scheme in the future.

[Julie Hilling]

There have been 600 requests from victims of crime to review prosecutors’ decisions to drop their case since the victims’ right to review was introduced six months ago. Given that level of demand, will the Government consider looking at widening the right to review to include decisions to caution instead of charge and decisions to alter substantially the original charge?

[The Attorney-General]

It might be worth while seeing first how the current changes, which are significant, operate in practice. The hon. Lady referred to the figure, which is 662, of which the determination was that the original decision was incorrect in, I think, 18 cases. There have also been cases referred to the independent assessor, where six have been upheld and three partly upheld. I am utterly pragmatic about this; I wish to see victims’ rights at the heart of the criminal justice system, but there are significant changes and we need first to see how well the system is operating and, in particular, how it will operate once the CPS responds in February to its consultation.