Future of the UK Constitution and Devolution

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Bim Afolami]

This is how that could work. First, alongside what I was saying about local leaders, a standardised system of local government—whether people live in unitary authorities or a mayoralty, and whether they live in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland—would by necessity spread representation all over the United Kingdom. That is how we build in a lot of regional balance. Secondly, we could change the system by ensuring that, in the weight of the total number, there was always at least a significant minority—if not at least 50%—represented in that sort of way, rather than this being just about appointments. Ultimately, lifetime appointments cannot be made on a regional basis; even if we tried to, people are free to move around. However, if by necessity, in an ex officio capacity, the Mayor of Newcastle had a right while they were Mayor to speak in the second Chamber, it would have that regional balance.

This matters because not only would it improve democratic accountability and increase economic growth, as well as helping investors understand who to go to, but it would help to spread good practice and ideas. Constitutions matter because of what they practically do to the governance of the country. We currently have ad hoc relationships that depend on the political colour of the Government and, for example, of mayoralties, and whether particular individuals are perceived to be effective. To some degree, that is always the case. However, where we find good practice happening, we need to highlight it and have a vehicle for it to be aired in a public forum. Parliament, if nothing else, is a vehicle for the public airing of issues and debate. Linking local governance with the review of the second Chamber in that way would be effective.

I will add a bit more detail about why, economically, it makes a big difference if we get more standardised control of how our local government works, and how it links in with central Government. I like data—it is important. If we look at the data for most of the 20th century, inequality in GDP terms between the regions of the United Kingdom was quite low by European standards. However, by 2010, we had started to perform quite badly in comparison with our European partners, and we have continued to perform badly in that vein. I happen to think that that is more about the strength of London than it is about the weakness of certain parts of the country, but we can have a debate about that.

The consequence of that high degree of regional inequality has been twofold. First, it has caused political problems. In certain parts of the country, people feel left behind and that, economically, they have not been given a fair shake. There are calls to reform the Green Book and the Treasury. There are all sorts of political shenanigans and things that Opposition Members will appreciate, as we do on this side of the House. Secondly, that regional inequality has contributed significantly to our national productivity problem, which is well documented. It is out of the scope of this debate to go into that in detail, but if there are big portions of the country performing economically poorly—even if London and the south-east are doing well—the country’s economy overall is not going to improve as much as it needs to.

How does effective devolution help the national productivity problem? Some people might argue that it is about tax, education or skills policy passed in Westminster. Effective devolution, standardised and regularised in the way that I am describing, will help. There are two broad reasons economists give for productivity and regional inequality. The first is poor transport infrastructure in huge swathes of our country. The second is poor policy on innovation clusters, particularly in areas of high skill and around universities. Compared with the UK, other countries are just doing better in those two areas, although the economic debate is broad. If we had more effective power for local leaders, more of a voice to spread good practice, a clearer understanding of who was responsible for what and when, and a more effective fiscal package for each of those local areas, I submit that we would perform better in both those areas.

It is impossible for any centre of government in Whitehall and Westminster to focus appropriately on every single need of every single part of the country, because we make broader national and international policy. We cannot deal effectively with everywhere; that is the role of local leaders. Helping them do that better, whether that means transport infrastructure, skills or innovation clusters around top universities and areas of learning, is what we need to do, and to do that effectively we need to talk about money. It is easy for me to talk about powers and how things should be better and more effective. We have to talk about not just the money available for local authorities and leaders to spend, but what they are accountable for raising. I will be candid with the House. One of the difficulties politically that I and many party colleagues have felt at times is that certain local leaders seek to blame Westminster for all that goes wrong, yet take the credit for everything that goes right. I know it will be a shock that any politician would think of doing something like that.

In this country, we are incredibly centralised fiscally. About 12% of taxes are spent and raised locally, the lowest proportion in the G7 by some stretch. The next is Italy at about 17%, then Germany at about 30%, Canada at about 50% and the United States at somewhere between 40% and 50%, depending on how it is calculated. We are an outlier. I do not want to stray beyond the subject of the debate into Treasury policy, as we have the Budget for that—I know the Minister will be itching to weigh in on the Treasury, and will hold himself back—but when we think about raising more revenue, we should do that as closely as possible to people in the places where that money is spent.

We should politically enable local areas to raise more money, because people would know what they were responsible for and how they were responsible for it in a more standardised way. By raising more money locally, they would be responsible and accountable for it, and there would be a higher degree of trust that the money would be spent well. If that money is not spent well, local people will vote for somebody else. That is how democracy works.

I finish by saying that yes, we need the powers to be regularised. Yes, local leaders across the whole United Kingdom need to be linked in much more closely with Westminster. I have not touched on the powers of the devolved Parliaments, because I am not convinced that a huge shift in power required at devolved level is necessary. When we think of England, we should ensure that what we do mirrors existing models. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) described how local government in Scotland interacts with Holyrood. That is the sort of model we could bring in more broadly, on a UK-wide basis, but the money really matters.

Enabling local areas and local leaders to raise and spend more of their own money, whether through property taxes, local income tax or a reformed version of business rates, rather than always relying on Westminster to raise all the money and dole it out, would be an effective way to build our democratic Union, as well as helping our understanding of how we are governed and our economy.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I shall move to wind-ups from the Opposition spokespeople at about 3.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. In the next six or seven minutes, I hope to set out a contra-view of the Union. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on bringing forward the debate. Colleagues will know that this is a subject close to my heart to which I have given considerable thought; they may think differently at the end of my speech, but I hope they will find it interesting none the less.

Let us take the old joke of a visitor coming to a rural area and asking for directions. The farmer, or whoever it is leaning on the gate, says, “Well, if I were you I would not start from here.” Sometimes, when we approach a subject such as this, there is that sense of that if we disregard where we are at and start from some idealistic blank page, or some other framework that does not exist in reality—if we believe hard enough and screw our eyes up tight enough—we can imagine that it is that way and start from there and a bright new dawn awaits us. I just do not think that is where we are at.

I am afraid that when I hear words such as “regularising”, I immediately think of words such as “cookie cutter”, “wait your turn” and “stand in place”, because that big stamp that is coming along will get you as well and turn you into something—into a moveable piece that fits with the rest of the puzzle created somewhere else. I find instinctively that that does not fit with me. Members will not hear a defence of the status quo from me. This is not an exercise in party political point scoring—which Members have avoided so far, and I commend them for that—but about exploring what the Union means, what its future holds and what role devolution might have to play in that.

I hold an organic view of a Union that has started and developed inevitably from things such as our location in the world; the temperate climate we enjoy, our maritime nature and identity have all contributed to the nation that we are. We cannot and should not ignore that, and we would not wish to. The system of law we have is, again, an important part of our identity. Identity—there we are. How has our reputation, for good or ill, developed around the world? The values we hold, the Judeo-Christian principles that have been at the heart of so much of who we are as a nation—these things have shaped us. Inevitably, that has dictated and shaped the relationships we have formed around the globe.

When Bill Gates came here a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to ask him why he came to the UK Government. He said, very simply, “Because of your network of relationships around the globe.” He recognised that history and the depth of contact and relationships we have across the globe and the influence that came with them. From that, then, comes the economy. We are the fifth or perhaps the sixth-largest economy in the world, and part of that is because of that network of relationships. Part of that, too, is driven by the internal relationships we have forged and the transport links, which have already been mentioned, across all parts of our United Kingdom.

We then need to think about the future. In understanding ourselves as a Union, what are we moving towards? That is an absolutely salient and current question. I again commend my hon. Friend for bringing forward exactly the question that we face now: what are we, now we are post-Brexit Britain? If we are no longer on a trajectory into a federalist, liberal, social democracy within the EU, where are we heading? Some would say we are going back to the days of empire and colonial oppression —that kind of thing. I do not think it is, but what are we heading to? That is the Union I think of, and it is absolutely correct to think about what the future holds.

Time does not allow me to develop my points in the way I would wish, but I want to make a couple of key points. I contrast the covenant that holds us together with the contract that is presented in the form of devolution. The covenants that hold us together are those relationships built on shared dreams, shared ventures, shared losses and shared institutions that we have built on the values we hold together. All those things speak to me of covenants, and a vested interest in what every other part of the Union is thinking, feeling, experiencing and hoping.

I contrast that with what we did by devolution. Let me be clear that I fully support the democratic establishment of devolved Assemblies and Parliaments across the UK—there is no disagreement from me on what has been established democratically. The biggest damage that has been done to our Union was not in the creation of those institutions, but in convincing us that the relationship is now not covenantal but contractual—that it is a transactional relationship that says, “You now do these bits. You now make the decisions on these policy areas, and we will give you some money for it.”

Trying to turn that covenant into a contract and a series of transactions does not work, just as it would not for my own marriage: “Right, Robin, on a Monday, you do the bins, and on a Wednesday, I will wash the dishes.” It is the same for our Union. Phrases like “regularising” and the focus on a technocratic design chill me a bit, because they do not capture the essence of who I think we are.

When we start to look at how the contract operates on points such as accountability, we start to find flaws. I support subsidiarity—decisions should be made as close to the local point of impact as possible—but we must not imagine that what we have done is perfect or should be replicable. There are deep problems, which I do not have time to develop today.

Let me finish with one analogy. We are all familiar with new housing estates. Very often, there is a green space in the middle of them. When the houses go up, and the green space is marked out, brown lines cutting across that green space, faint at first, start to appear very quickly. There is actually a phrase for them—they are called desire lines. Those desire lines do not reflect the footpaths that are in place.

I am sure hon. Members know what I am talking about. Residents have decided that the shortest way from A to B is to walk across the green. That is absolutely a metaphor for what we need to learn and how we need to think about the mistakes we have made and the lessons we need to learn about our institutions and how we think about our Union. There is a temptation to say, “We can create a beautiful place. We can put down straight lines, and maybe even curved lines, that reflect what people want,” but we would soon find that people’s actual desires —their organic response to their environment; the thrust of where their ambitions, hopes, dreams, relationships and ties take them—cuts across that place, and creates desire lines, not always where we designed for them.

I urge caution in imagining that technocratic cleverness could take us to a better Union. I urge the proper consideration of the organic model we have, which has grown the covenant that holds us together, and of the bright future ahead.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call Samantha Dixon.

Government Contracts: Covid-19

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.

I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and that they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room.

If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks on [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Holloway]

But this is one of the main planks, and it just does not stack up. Do you really think Matt Hancock is going to give a £103 million contract to somebody because they were once a parliamentary candidate and they edged in in a picture with Boris? It is absurd, and it is one of your main planks.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members not as “you”, but by constituency.

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Member has made my case for me. If there is nothing to see here, let us have an inquiry. Members of the public have signed this petition in their thousands because they do not have confidence in these contracts, and they want there to be an inquiry. If everything is above board and all was fine, we will find that out through the inquiry, but it is public concern that has brought us here today. There are questions to be answered, there is a pattern of cronyism that the public are seeing, and that is why an inquiry would be the right response.

It is not good enough for Ministers to say, “We needed these items urgently back in March”—no question there—“so stop complaining about how we did it.” Of course we needed them. Of course systems had to be used to get our NHS staff all the safety equipment they needed then and there, but all checks and balances did not need to go out of the window. Ministers should still check their family connections, and they should still register interests. The best companies should not be overlooked in favour of Tory party donors. These emergency systems should not still be in place so long after they were needed.

Last year, 126,000 people signed this petition, and yet we are still uncovering more issues like those they were concerned about. They are right to feel ignored, and a public inquiry would listen to their concerns. Only a few weeks ago, it emerged that the Home Secretary lobbied the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of a healthcare firm trying to get a Government contract. She wrote to him expressing disappointment that the Government had not bought face masks from a company that had links to someone she knew. That glaring and flagrant breach of the ministerial code needs to be investigated.

Then, of course, there are the hundreds of millions of pounds handed to Serco to run the national Test and Trace system. Some £37 billion was earmarked, and it is reported that £277 million has been signed by now. Why is there the discrepancy here? What were those contracts for? Where did they go to? Will we get money back for the contracts that were not delivered?

The Local Government Association found last year that local contact tracing systems have a 97.1% success rate at finding close contacts and advising them to self-isolate. That is considerably better than a centralised system, so although rushing to go to the private sector would in many cases have been the right thing to do, was it always the right thing to do? Incidentally, only last week, Serco upgraded its profit forecast by £15 million thanks to its Test and Trace work.

It is not just Opposition MPs making these points. Transparency International has identified 73 contracts worth more than £3.7 billion—equivalent to 20% of the covid-19 contracts signed between February and November 2020—that raised one or more flags for possible corruption. It concluded that there was a systematic bias towards those with connections to the party of Government in Westminster. It found that 72% of the covid-related contracts awarded in the sample period

“were reported after the 30 day legal deadline, £7.4 billion of which was reported over 100 days after the contract award.”

In comparison, it took the Ukrainian Government on average less than a day to publish information on 103,000 covid-19 contracts after they were awarded during the same period.

On that point, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at least owes us a statement to Parliament setting out where the UK has not complied with its legal transparency obligations, how they are being rectified and how these issues will be prevented in the future. When the Minister comes to respond, she will no doubt tell us that the Government and markets faced unprecedented global demand for PPE, and that in a short space of time the Government procured billions of items of PPE. That just does not wash anymore, which is why the public wanted this debate. The months preceding the first lockdown are a sorry tale of complacency and missed opportunities, leading to the scramble for PPE. There should never have been a shortage in the first place.

We need an inquiry to answer questions about what happened and to make strong recommendations about what to put in place in the future. It should assess the performance of companies that went through the emergency contracting procedures, such as Ayanda, Randox and PestFix, which other Members mentioned. It should speak to the companies affected and to the CEO of the UK Fashion and Textile Association, which represents 2,500 companies and first engaged with the Government on 18 March 2020. He said that the domestic procurement operation had been slow to grind into gear and failed to tap into industry expertise. Companies waiting to deliver the much-needed PPE were overlooked.

An inquiry must look into why the Government sidelined companies such as Arco, which had extensive experience of providing health-grade PPE prior to the pandemic. It provided PPE during Ebola, swine flu, avian flu and foot and mouth, but it secured only £14 million-worth of contracts over the past year during the pandemic. It could have fulfilled far more, and it is at a loss as to why it did not get into the VIP lane.

It will no doubt be argued in a moment that the VIP lane was a perfectly reasonable, rational solution to the mass of offers to supply equipment at the start of the pandemic. However, the opposite was true. We have seen evidence presented in recent High Court hearings showing emails in which civil servants raised the alarm that they were drowning in VIP requests from political connections that did not have the correct certification or did not pass due diligence. For us as outsiders, it does not seem that the VIP lane worked. It should not be used in any future emergency contracting and should not be used in a future crisis, but an inquiry would tell us more and give us those recommendations.

As the Good Law Project puts it:

“This is the cost of cronyism—good administration suffers, efficient buying of PPE suffers.”

I, Members here, the British public and the petitioners want answers from the Minister on four key questions. Will there be a rapid-fire inquiry and will the covid contracts be part of the major covid inquiry? Secondly, what is her Department doing to claw back the cash from companies that provided the Government with millions of items of unsafe, unusable PPE at a time of unprecedented national crisis? What options do the Government have in the contracts—we cannot see them—in terms of clawback? It is important that we know.

Thirdly, will the Government finally, as the Opposition have been demanding for months, deliver full transparency on the VIP lane, including publishing the names of the companies awarded the contracts via the channel and who made referrals to it? Were there any conflicts of interest to be identified and addressed? It is important to know, otherwise the information will just keep dripping out bit by bit and we will find out partially what is going on. If there is nothing to see here, open up the light and let us know.

Finally, will the Minister commit her Department to auditing in detail all the contracts that have raised red flags and to publishing the outcomes of the audit? Given that her Department is formally responsible for improving transparency and ensuring better procurement across Government, we expect the Cabinet Office to take responsibility for what happened, to learn the lessons so that this never happens again, and to ensure that, if there is a future crisis, we have the best contracting facilities for the best companies to deliver what we need immediately. That is what the British public want to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

I would like to ask for the Minister’s view on whether there is a perceived or actual impropriety in the way some of the contracts have been handled. I will read you the information that has just come out from the Good Law Project:

“Uniserve Limited is a logistics firm controlled by Iain Liddell. Prior to the pandemic, the firm had no experience in supplying PPE, yet the firm landed a staggering £300m+ in PPE contracts from the DHSC and an eye-watering £572m deal to provide freight services for the supply of PPE. The company shares the same address as Cabinet Minister Julia Lopez MP and is based in her constituency.”

Does that not give you a sense that there might be something in this? The whole issue around conflict of interest is not whether it is real, but whether a member of the public might assume that there is a concern.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be shorter and that “you” refers to the Chair.

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s raising that contract, because it has been a challenge to me as a Minister. As I said earlier, I began this role only in June 2020. I had not been allocated a private office, and I had not been given a portfolio. Then I found myself in a procurement role, and questions are being asked about the company from which I rent a constituency office. As I say, I was not actually in post at the time that that was being decided. The challenge is that questions have been raised that I cannot fully address, because I do not have all the information. I was not party to the contract, so it is a considerable challenge. It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also raised.

Veterans’ Mental Health

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to Combat Stress for the work that it does. For many years—over 100 years—mental health in this country was not taken seriously, and almost alone Combat Stress held a candle for some of our most injured service people. There is no doubt that veterans’ care is changing. Although £10 million on its own looks like a small contribution, we are actually putting over £200 million into veterans’ mental health over the next 10 years. There is a very clear, defined and important role for people such as those at Combat Stress, who have a specialist, important contribution to make in the area of complex PTSD and things like that. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about this further offline, but there should be no misunderstanding at this stage. Combat Stress is going through a change, but we must all change to adapt to the challenge that is in front of us. Combat Stress has a special place in this nation’s heart, and a full and important role to play in future.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there should be more initiatives like the veterans’ hub in Wigan? This is a dedicated building, supported by the MOD and Wigan Council, that has a one-stop shop providing access to employment, healthcare and a range of charities so that veterans and their families can get the help they need when they need it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that she has done to campaign for families. It was thanks to her, I think, that we put family hubs in the manifesto, so she should be in no doubt that we are working with local authorities to champion and deliver family hubs.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q3. Finally, it appears that some action is being taken against Northern Rail. Will the Prime Minister commit to stripping it of its franchise and to devolving the power and money to the regions, so that local people have the power over their local transport and never have to suffer the appalling catalogue of delays, overcrowding, cancellations and disruptions that have gone on far too long?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I share her outrage, and I understand what she says. We are developing contingency plans for a replacement for Northern Rail. We are also looking at the whole way that the franchising system operates, and she will have seen Keith Williams’s very valuable report on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that we are delivering the biggest rail investment programme since the Victorian era. He says we are spending millions on our railways, but actually we will be spending nearly £48 billion on modernising and renewing our railways, which will deliver better journeys and fewer disruptions. He is right, however, that it is absolutely vital that Network Rail delivers its projects on time. I am told that Northern’s new rolling stock is currently planned to serve lines from June and July next year, but I know he has been campaigning excellently on this issue, and I encourage him to continue to do so.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q9. I am privileged to have two award-wining sixth-form colleges in my constituency, but with no increase in funding since 2010, Winstanley College has cut German A-level from the syllabus and St John Rigby has drastically reduced pastoral support. Does the Prime Minister believe, like the Chancellor, that these are just little extras, or does she agree that it is time to raise the funding rate?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady looks at what we have been doing for education funding overall, she will see that we have been putting extra money into funding—[Interruption.] Members say, “Not in FE”, but we have invested nearly £7 billion in further education this year to ensure that there is an educational training place for every 16 to 19-year-old who wants one. We are also transforming technical education through T-levels, and £500 million will go into those once they are fully rolled out. By 2020, the funding to support adult participation in further education is planned to be higher than at any time in England’s history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I always love going to Redditch, and even more so if I can go with my hon. Friend. I pass on my congratulations to Mr Holdcroft and all the restaurants that hold “snack and chat” events. As for the idea of a McSurgery in a McDonald’s, I’m lovin’ it.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T5. Many people in my constituency have filled out one form for the whole household to register to vote, as happened under the old system. Their registrations are being processed, but will they be counted in the figures?

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Lady will know that anybody who is not on the register as a result of the individual electoral registration exercise will have been approached on nine separate occasions to try to get them to register individually. Everybody now has the chance to register individually under IER on the rolling register in time for the elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss these issues. I believe this Government have done right by the south-west, not least with the announcement the Transport Secretary has made of an additional 57,000 seats on South West Trains every week from December and 1,400 extra car parking spaces at train stations across the region. We can have this strong transport investment, not just in the south-west, but right across our country, only because we have a long-term economic plan that is delivering the growth this country needs.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Has the Prime Minister not put himself on a fixed-term contract? Is he not now concerned that it will be a zero-hours contract after 8 May?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very simple what I have said. I answered a very clear question, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will have to answer some clear questions. It is very simple: two terms, 10 years and one kitchen.

Youth Service Provision

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing the debate and on his opening speech. He is right to situate what has happened to youth services in the context of what has happened to support for and the focus on young people over the past few years. Support has collapsed in some areas where it is most needed. He mentioned the education maintenance allowance and the careers service among other things. The speeches and interventions made by my hon. Friends show how strongly Labour feels about youth services and demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that all young people have access to a high-quality, open-access and appropriately funded youth service.

We believe that it is important to set that benchmark because of what we have seen happening in recent years, with huge pressures being placed on local authority budgets, but we are not prescriptive about how it should be delivered locally, or what it should look like. However, where we are clear and where we perhaps differ from this Government—unless the Minister is going to say something very exciting in his closing speech—is in our belief the Government have a clear role in ensuring that that offer to young people is made clear to local government and is delivered in every community around the country. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said. The difficulty is that what we have seen over the years is that some local authorities absolutely get this issue and understand it, but not all. The key question for national Government is what to do when that commitment is not being delivered in some local areas where people simply do not get it.

My own local authority, Wigan, has had real challenges with this. We have had the third worst budget cuts in the entire country, but the fact that there are three MPs in Westminster Hall today who represent parts of that borough—my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), and myself—shows that there is a strong commitment from us as elected politicians to try to protect those services.

One of the exciting things that has happened in Wigan in the past few years is the youth zone that we have managed to set up. It is an example of some of the things that Members have talked about today. It is a way of doing things differently, because it is a partnership between the OnSide charity, the local authority, local entrepreneurs and businesses, the community, and, most important of course, young people themselves, who have been involved from the outset in campaigning for this service, designing it and now running it, as well as using it. It is not the beginning and end of the whole story in terms of the youth services that we need in our borough, but it is a real achievement at a time when the local authority budget in particular and the community are under such strain.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the free bus service that runs from my area, which is an outlying area of the borough? The authorities recognised that young people from the outlying areas of the borough were not using that service, and they have done something immediately to try to solve that problem.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that, and it is one of the reasons why I congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North for situating this debate in the wider context of what is happening to young people. Transport costs are the key thing that young people always raise with me and, I am sure, many other Members, and it is important that we think about that when we consider services for young people.

There are some other startling examples of local authorities doing something really exciting. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole is right to acknowledge the impact that the cuts have had but also to say that this is not just about funding. For example, I think that many Members will be aware of a project in Lambeth that I have heard about and seen for myself. Lambeth took the huge amounts that it was spending on young people through various budgets and put it into a trust, which anyone in the community over the age of 12 could join. It was weighted towards young people, so that they retained control, and it gave the community the power to take real decisions about how services were commissioned and delivered and what they looked like. My understanding is that that project has been a remarkable success. It points to a key feature of successful youth services; the most successful ones are those that involve young people in commissioning, designing and delivering them, where possible.

However, we know from our experience of looking at youth services that what works in Lambeth does not necessarily work in Liverpool. That is why I have said that there needs to be a clear minimum offer from this Government. Labour is clearly committed to that, but not to prescription about on how it should be delivered. Labour Members have previously said that we are open to strengthening the statutory duty to provide youth services, and I have listened carefully to the contributions by hon. Members on that point, but I think we must recognise that, on its own, a statutory duty is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West said, we already have a statutory duty, limited though it is, and it is not being fulfilled around the country. Labour is very attracted by the possibility of introducing a duty to ensure that young people are involved from the outset in designing and commissioning youth services, and we wonder whether the Minister might share that aspiration; if he does, perhaps he will say something about it today.

There is also a clear need to ensure that young people can hold the people who make these decisions to account. That is one of the reasons why Labour is committed to introducing votes at 16. I hope that the Minister will listen to that argument and consider carefully how young people can hold their elected politicians to account for their decisions if they do not have the vote.

I should also mention briefly concerns about the work force. I want to be fair to the Minister, so I will say that some of the problems in the youth service work force predate the coalition. In 2008, a survey by the National Youth Agency found that a third of councils were not investing at all in the professional development of youth workers. That was really worrying then, but I dread to think what the figure is now, several years after the huge cuts that we have had. Can the Minister tell us? There is a real risk that we will run down the quality of our services and then turn around and say to young people that those services are not worth saving in any case.

There is no question that the last four years have been absolutely horrendous for this sector, and I do not want to lose sight of that. We have lost good, skilled staff, and many more are under significant strain, dealing with low pay, job insecurity and the prospect of redundancies. This really matters, because as my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Stockton North said, behind the loss of all those youth workers—2,000 of them during the last few years—is a story of broken relationships. I once worked with a young person who had grown up in and out of care. He was 18 when I first came across him and he told me that the only consistent adult in his life since he was 11 had been his youth worker. When we lose good, skilled staff, we break that link and that bond, and the damage is irreparable.

Regarding the National Citizen Service, I say to the Minister that although I support many of the things that my hon. Friends have said, and I myself have also had a parmo with some of the young people from Redcar who have taken part in NCS, it is no substitute for long-term, ongoing youth services provided all year round. It is a short-term intervention and it is very expensive. If we come to power in May next year, we are not planning to make the same mistake that this Government did with the v scheme, and simply tear something up because another party has established it, but we are very concerned about the cost of NCS. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North drew a parallel between the amount of money that the German Federal Government spend on year-round youth work and the money that this Government spend on short-term interventions.

The other thing to say is that young people spend 85% of their time out of school, yet each year local authorities spend 55 times more on formal education than they do on providing services for young people outside the school day. We need to get a bit of a grip on this, because when this Government agreed to protect ring-fencing for school funding they did not do the same for additional activities. They abolished ring-fenced grants for—

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Yes. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a personal interest, as he is hoping to move on from this place to city hall, although he might face a tough fight in doing so. We are committed totally to moving power from here to the city halls and town halls of the country. At the moment, we are negotiating a £2 billion a year transfer of funds from the centre to every city and county across the country, including London, to put control of these resources in the hands of local people rather than officials in Whitehall.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Individual electoral registration will help to enhance the accuracy of the electoral register by verifying applications against Government records. We will also use data matching to ensure the completeness of the register during the transition to the new system by confirming the vast majority of existing electors. Five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain are sharing £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising registration. The introduction of online registration will be of particular help to groups such as overseas voters, students and young people.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

If the Electoral Commission recommends in its report due in 2015 that the move should not go ahead because too many voters have dropped off the register, will the Minister listen to its advice?

[Greg Clark]

With respect, the hon. Lady is bringing together two different points. The Electoral Commission has already said that individual voter registration should proceed, stating:

“We have independently assessed how ready the plans are for this change…and have concluded that it can proceed.”

The decision on whether to close the transition is a decision for the next Government and the Electoral Commission has said that it will provide advice during the next Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right; we had to take tough decisions, but growth is there, unemployment is falling, the number of people in work is rising and we have 400,000 more businesses in this country. If we had listened to the shadow Chancellor, who said that we were in for a “lost decade” of growth, we would have higher debts and higher interest rates—it would be the same old outcome under the same old Labour.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q5. In a recent uSwitch survey, 75% of people said that they switched their heating off on one or more occasions last winter. Does the Prime Minister expect that number to go up or down this winter due to his inability to stand up to the energy companies?

[The Prime Minister]

Fuel poverty went up under Labour. This Government have maintained the winter fuel payments; we have increased the cold weather payments; and we have increased the benefits that the poorest families get in our country. That is the action that we have taken, and we can afford to do that only because we have taken tough and sensible decisions on the economy.