House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking to reduce the sums spent from the public purse on repeated appeals in immigration tribunals.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to reduce the sums spent from the public purse on repeated appeals in immigration tribunals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
As announced in our response to the consultation “Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, published on 21 June, we are removing most immigration cases, including appeals, from the scope of legal aid. We are also removing legal aid for certain repeat judicial reviews in immigration and asylum cases, subject to certain exceptions. We expect those measures to save more than £20 million a year. The Government have also consulted on introducing fees for appeals to the immigration and asylum chamber of the tribunal.
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of my constituents are becoming increasingly exasperated at the fact that some solicitors seem to exploit changes in circumstances and decisions, such as those on article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, simply to string out cases for as long as possible. What is he doing to ensure that legal aid is spent appropriately? What conversations has he had with the Immigration Minister on the reform of the immigration decision process?
Mr Djanogly
I can confirm that we are removing legal aid from most immigration cases. That will mean that the taxpayer is no longer funding those cases, which we think are relatively low priority. My hon. Friend has also spoken about cross-departmental co-operation, and we have had a number of discussions with the Home Office about our legal aid proposals, which go in the same direction as its proposals—for example, on making changes to the rules on how relatives of migrants are allowed to come into the UK. That close working will continue.
Gordon Henderson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition Government inherited an immigration appeals process that is slow, unwieldy and routinely abused by applicants and their legal advisers? Does he further agree that the system needs a root-and-branch overhaul to make it fit for function?
Mr Djanogly
A number of the consultations did address this issue, including those with the judges, so we are acting to contain an avenue for abuse which my hon. Friend identifies. The Government intend to remove legal aid for immigration and asylum judicial reviews, where there has been an appeal or judicial review to a tribunal or court on the same issue or a substantially similar issue within a period of one year, as well as for judicial reviews challenging removal directions, subject to certain exceptions.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
As we are talking about immigration appeals and judicial reviews, what message does it send out to the law-abiding member of the public when someone such as Phillip Machemedze, that appalling Zimbabwean who was responsible for torturing, killing and doing dreadful things in Zimbabwe, is told by a judge that he cannot be sent back because he might be tortured or his human rights might be affected? Surely immigration and asylum is about people who have behaved well and are running away from tyranny, and not about people who are part of that tyranny.
Mr Djanogly
Where human rights are concerned and where someone risks being terrorised in their country of origin—I am not saying that it is right or wrong that they should go back—it is right that they receive legal aid to defend their interests.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on steps to remove foreign national prisoners.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
Home Office and Ministry of Justice Ministers have frequently discussed the issue of foreign national prisoners, and our officials are in regular contact. The removal of foreign national prisoners and offenders awaiting deportation is a mutual priority.
Mr Spellar
The Department says that it wants to reduce the prison population. I am dealing with a case where a long prison sentence was rightly given, the tariff has been reached and the UK Border Agency is trying to deport the man, but the Minister is letting the Parole Board block this. What benefit is there to the British taxpayer or the safety of the British public in keeping him here? Can we have some joined-up government on this?
Nick Herbert
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is the kind of thing we want to address, and I understand that it is being addressed in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. We wish to improve our performance on the removal of prisoners. I should point that out that more than 5,000 foreign national prisoners were removed last year. We intend to continue to take every possible step both to reduce the foreign national prisoner population and to remove prisoners from this country.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the problems with removing convicted foreign prisoners is an interpretation put by the courts on their rights, such as their right to a family life—they are absolute, rather than conditional. What steps are the Government taking to recognise in law that people have rights which can be qualified by their own bad behaviour?
Nick Herbert
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern and that of the House about this issue and about whether it is appropriate in such circumstances that the removal of offenders is being blocked. I hope that the commission we have announced on the Human Rights Act 1998 will pay the closest possible attention to the operation of the human rights legislation in such cases, because it is in the public interest that we remove foreign national prisoners who have forfeited their right to remain in this country.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Can the Minister say how many British nationals are held in foreign prisons, whether he expects them to be repatriated and, if so, what provision has been made in the prison estate to accommodate them?
Nick Herbert
I understand from my hon. Friend the prisons Minister that the number is about 2,000. The EU prisoner transfer agreement will come into force in December and will alleviate the position as regards the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails. The principle should be that if someone has committed a serious crime in this country, they cannot expect to remain at the end of their sentence. We seek the removal of prisoners in such circumstances.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is laudable that the total number of foreign nationals in prison has gone down since Labour left office from 11,000 to 10,000, but does the Minister agree that that is 10,000 too many? Is it not time we sent the whole lot of them home?
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to make greater progress and that is why we have set out provisions in the sentencing Bill on, for example, conditional cautions, which will be available as an alternative disposal to remove foreign national prisoners in some circumstances if they agree not to return for a period of time. The question of whether foreign national prisoners could serve their sentences abroad relies on the consent of other countries. We are attempting to negotiate more agreements, but even if we no longer need the consent of the offender, we cannot remove them without the consent of the country that receives them.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
3. If he will take steps to ensure that judges and magistrates are informed of incidents of reoffending of each offender they have sentenced.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
We have begun work to improve access to local criminal justice statistics. For example, criminal justice and sentencing statistics are now broken down to court level and are available online. In terms of individuals, pre-sentence reports provide the court with details of a defendant’s offending history and compliance with any previous sentences.
Mr Hollobone
That is not quite what I am after. Although it is important to have judicial independence, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Department that each judge and each magistrate should be given an annual report card on the effectiveness of their sentencing decisions. If they have given out a string of sentences and the convicts have reoffended regularly, that judge or magistrate will know that something is wrong with their approach.
Mr Clarke
As I said, we have begun work, and that is certainly an interesting suggestion. A massive amount of data would be involved in providing every judge and magistrate with full information about everybody they had ever sentenced, but I agree that we should consider the feasibility of doing so. I gather that someone in Seattle advocates that and has given interesting evidence to the Select Committee on Justice.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is considerable evidence that judges do not know enough about what happens once they sentence prisoners and those sentences have been disposed of. Will the Justice Secretary do what he can to increase the experience obtained by judges of those disposals and will he ask the Sentencing Council to advise, with a particular focus on what works in preventing offending and reoffending?
Mr Clarke
The Sentencing Council is already under a duty to provide information about the effectiveness of sentencing practice and I am sure that it supplements that advice and information in every possible way. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), we will certainly consider the feasibility of doing such a thing, as it would be valuable, but we are talking about a vast number of cases and not every judge will find it possible to find out exactly what happened in later years to everybody who appeared before him.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
4. What steps he plans to take to protect the public from persons convicted of violent offences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
We have made it clear that we are committed to retaining the statutory multi-agency public protection arrangements, known as MAPPA. Within MAPPA, the police, prison and probation services are required to work together to manage known violent and other dangerous offenders and so protect the public, including previous victims.
Andrew George
I hope that the Minister agrees that the primary purpose of custodial sentencing must be public protection. Does he accept that the greater use of mandatory sentencing runs the risk of judges not being able to use their discretion to ensure that the public are protected in the long run?
Mr Blunt
The only element of mandatory sentencing we are contemplating relates to knife crime, so that it is absolutely clear that this House sends a very clear message on that. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will think it appropriate that people spend six months in prison when they threaten people with a knife.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
5. What representations he has received on his proposals to transfer functions from the chief coroner.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
12. Which organisations his Department consulted on its decision not to establish the office of chief coroner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I have discussed our proposals with a number of interested parties, including peers, MPs and civil society groups such as Inquest and the Royal British Legion. We have, where possible, sought to take into account those discussions in developing the proposals announced on 14 June to transfer a number of the functions of the chief coroner while retaining the office on the statute book. We believe that represents the fastest and most efficient way of delivering reform of the coronial system, although we accept that some stakeholders would prefer us to proceed with full implementation of the office of the chief coroner.
Mrs Moon
I am still concerned about how, without the office of the chief coroner, we are going to ensure that there is greater consistency in the recording of verdicts, because having that consistency would mean that information was available that provided research capability and informed service development, so that we could prevent future deaths.
Mr Djanogly
I have had a number of discussions with the hon. Lady on a number of matters appertaining to coroners and chief coroners and I know that she takes a great interest in this area. The new arrangements we announced on 14 June, coupled with the draft charter for the coroner service, which we published for consultation on 19 May, will deliver proper oversight of the non-judicial aspects of the coroner system and will help to drive up standards of service across England and Wales. The national charter, with its uniform expectations of what those coming into contact with the system should expect, will be key in helping to ensure a greater level of consistency. At the same time, a new ministerial board will be able to consider national statistics gathered from across the coroner service and to consider what action could be taken to address any shortcomings.
Chris Evans
I wonder whether the Minister has spoken to Cardiac Risk in the Young, which believes that replacing the chief coroner’s office with a ministerial board will not deliver the improvements necessary for the 21st century.
Mr Djanogly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the absolute priority as far as we were concerned was to put the reforms in the legislation into practice but in a way that was not going to incur the cost that I am afraid we cannot afford at the current time. That is what I believe our proposals will do.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Following the Secretary of State’s most recent announcement in June, Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, has said:
“Ensuring there’s a functioning Chief Coroner is the least we can do to honour the ultimate sacrifice made by our Armed Forces and to ease the pain those left behind will always feel.”
Helen Shaw, co-director of Inquest, has said that instead of having a chief coroner,
“the government proposes to dismantle the office of the Chief Coroner and add yet another layer to the current, fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership is absent.”
How many organisations that, unlike the ministerial team, actually know what they are talking about will the Secretary of State ignore? As he is in the mood to do U-turns, will he do the right thing and leave the chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill?
Mr Djanogly
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the RBL manifesto he will see that we are meeting most of its requests for reform without having a chief coroner. If we were simply leaving the office on the statute book and not implementing any changes, I would agree with that claim. However, regulations about training for coroners, including for service personnel cases, will be possible for the first time under our proposals. We will be implementing powers to transfer cases more easily within England and Wales—and for the first time to Scotland—when required for cases involving the deaths of service personnel abroad. Those are real and significant improvements to the system that will directly improve the experience of service personnel families who come into contact with the coroner system.
Mr Speaker
One of the difficulties with these long answers is that Ministers are reading out great screeds that have been written for them. On the whole, it is better to keep that for the long winter evenings.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
6. What progress has been made on the proposals in his Department’s rehabilitation revolution Green Paper.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Government published our response to the Green Paper last week and I made a statement to the House about it. We have also introduced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to give effect to proposals that require primary legislation. We will debate the Second Reading of that Bill tomorrow.
Tony Baldry
We need to encourage charities and social enterprises to invest in helping offenders and ex-offenders with their rehabilitation. In addition to payment by results, could my right hon. and learned Friend consider introducing Lord Chancellor’s awards for those charities, non-governmental organisations and social enterprises that are among the best at helping to support rehabilitation and prevent reoffending?
Mr Clarke
We all wish to give support to the many people who, through voluntary or charitable activity, try to help society as a whole by tackling the reoffending and rehabilitation problems of ex-offenders, so I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion. I would love to give Lord Chancellor’s awards to a large number of worthy people, but unfortunately, the financial crisis that the Government have inherited does not enable me to give an instant response to his idea.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Surely the Secretary of State has gone backwards. He has done a U-turn on early guilty pleas; he is reviewing his review on indeterminate imprisonment for public protection; and he has made massive cuts to probation services. I have had letters from probation services, and in Gloucestershire the cut is 7.9%, in West Yorkshire, it is 9.8%, and in Kent, it is a staggering 13.6% this year. How can we have a rehabilitation revolution if there are no community resources?
Mr Clarke
As the hon. Lady knows, we are debating the Bill tomorrow, which is enormous—I apologise for that—and has huge implications, but we are having to reform fundamentally a criminal justice system that does not help society as it should, because it does not cut reoffending. We are having to reform on a very wide scale a legal aid and civil justice system that encourages unnecessary litigation and is not particularly user-friendly. We have taken over a mess, and we are going in for massive reform of it. We may have changed quite a lot of proposals in light of consultation, but the underlying need for a balanced package of radical reform is certainly there, and we will tackle it.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
According to the Ministry of Justice, the number of people released from prison after serving an indeterminate sentence was 206 at the end of last year. The number who have reoffended since they were released is just 11—a reoffending rate of 5%. The Lord Chancellor says that what is most important to him in the criminal justice system is reoffending rates, so why on earth does he want to scrap the single part of the criminal justice system that is best at reducing reoffending?
Mr Clarke
About 200 people have been released, but 6,000 are in prison serving indeterminate sentences, and we are adding about 80 a month. They are released only when they can demonstrate to the Parole Board that they are a minimal risk to society—that is the present test—but in a prison cell they find it almost impossible to satisfy that test, so they are in a Catch-22 situation. We need long, determinate sentences for serious criminals; that is the way that the criminal justice system works. The experiment introduced by the previous Government has most undoubtedly failed; we will have one in 10 of the prison population serving indefinite sentences if we do not find a better alternative soon.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the thrust of the Green Paper, and ask the Lord Chancellor or his officials to meet User Voice, a group that consists of ex-offenders who are very keen to work with the Ministry of Justice, and to work with current offenders to stop them taking a path of crime?
Mr Clarke
I am sure that I can arrange for one of the team to have a meeting with that interesting organisation. A large number of ex-offenders—not too many, but some—do very valuable work in stopping other people making the mistakes that they made. The social impact bond financing the payment-by-results contract that we have with Peterborough prison is largely delivered by an organisation called St Giles Trust, which has an excellent record of using ex-offenders as mentors. Anything that we can do to encourage that, where there are suitable ex-offenders who really are able to give valuable advice, would certainly be welcomed.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
A national inquiry, “Community or Custody?”, commissioned by Make Justice Work, has highlighted the success that effective alternatives to custody can have in tackling reoffending and diverting petty criminals from a life of crime. Does the Secretary of State expect his proposals to lead to a reduction in the number of offenders serving short-term prison sentences for non-violent offences and a rise in the number of those involved in tough community sentence programmes?
Mr Clarke
We need the right sentence for the individual circumstances of each offender. I have never suggested that we get rid of all short-term sentences of imprisonment because sometimes magistrates and others have absolutely no alternative, but we are interested in strengthening community punishments and giving more confidence to magistrates and the public that those can have a genuine effect. We are proposing to strengthen the community payback scheme, which is unpaid work. Improving the extent to which tagging and curfews are available is one part of trying to make sure that, where they are likely to work, non-custodial community sentences are employed with some confidence by the courts concerned.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on group action litigation against multinational corporations of his proposals for reform to civil litigation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government introduced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 21 June. The Bill contains provisions to take forward a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. I believe that strong claims, including those against multinational corporations, could still be brought under conditional fee agreements, or CFAs. The Government are also proposing the use of damages-based agreements, or DBAs, in all civil litigation, which might be particularly suited to funding group action litigation.
Yvonne Fovargue
An array of human rights experts, including several non-governmental organisations, human rights lawyers and the UN special representative on business and human rights, have all criticised the Government’s reforms of civil litigation. On what basis can the Minister assure the House that his proposals to reform civil litigation will not impact negatively on access to justice for victims of human rights abuse?
Mr Djanogly
I have been in correspondence with many of the people whom the hon. Lady mentions, and I repeat that the Government believe that it will still be possible to bring claims against multinational companies once our reforms are implemented.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to change incentives for claiming compensation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government introduced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 21 June. The Bill contains provisions to take forward a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. These changes will encourage claimants to take an interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf, and will deter frivolous or unmeritorious claims from progressing to court.
John Howell
Does the Minister believe that implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals will clamp down on bloated compensation payments, given that in the past some solicitors have profited from cherry-picking claims and are claiming high success fees from defendants, particularly public authorities?
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend is right to raise the position of public-funded authorities such as the NHS Litigation Authority and local councils, which currently have to pay substantial additional legal costs to conditional fee agreement claimants. We believe that our proposals will ameliorate that position.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
But will the Minister acknowledge that what is in the Bill that comes before the House tomorrow implements only part of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations; that, critically, the Minister has failed in that legislation to tackle at all the scandal of referral fees paid all the way along the chain, from the informant who passes on individuals’ details up the line to insurance companies, where it is then also paid by the insurance companies; and that this scandal will continue, notwithstanding any changes to be introduced in the structure of ownership of solicitors firms, until he and his colleagues implement in full Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations, which are to abandon and outlaw referral fees altogether?
Mr Djanogly
It was Labour who brought in the ability to recover success fees and ATE—after the event—insurance premiums in 1999. This became the key mechanism of the rotten compensation culture, of which referral fees are a symptom. Claimant costs represented 56% of damages in 1999, but by 2010 they represented 142% of damages—and yes, we are looking at referral fees in the context of the reforms as a whole.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Why does the Minister not merely look at referral fees, but give us a clear commitment that that outrage will be removed under the Bill?
Mr Djanogly
The Legal Services Board reported on that only a matter of weeks ago. We are looking at its recommendations, which go much further than a ban and, in particular, deal with transparency, which was what the Select Committee on Transport focused on. We will look carefully at all these issues.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
9. What consideration he has given to those responses to his Department’s consultation on legal aid that raised concerns about his Department’s definition of domestic violence.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
13. What his policy is on the provision of legal aid support for victims of domestic violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We published the Government’s response to the consultation on 21 June. Legal aid will remain available for applications for protective injunctions, as at present. However, for disputes about children or finance following the breakdown of a relationship, legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence where there is objective evidence of the need for protection.
Caroline Nokes
Will the Minister give an assurance that, in cases where domestic violence has been a factor in family breakdown, all other associated costs incurred in bringing about a resolution will be covered by legal aid?
Mr Djanogly
For family matters, including disputes about finance or children arising from the breakdown of a relationship, legal aid will be available for victims of domestic violence where there is evidence of a need for protection. Of course, we will also provide civil legal aid for victims of domestic violence to apply for protective injunctions, such as non-molestation orders.
Alun Cairns
It is reassuring that victims of domestic violence will remain eligible for legal aid under the changes, but the evidence is not always clear, because many victims will not report domestic violence to the police. What sort of evidence is the Minister expecting to see in order for people to qualify for legal aid?
Mr Djanogly
We listened to the concerns expressed in the consultation that our criteria for evidence of domestic violence were too narrow and we have expanded them. The key issue is that the triggers must be objective.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In the light of the ongoing debate on this matter, does the Minister share the concerns expressed by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee about the dilution of the quality of Crown representation in all these cases, or does he take the view of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which states that there is a lack of transparency in how the fees are calculated for taking on such cases?
Mr Djanogly
We are certainly concerned about the transparency of fees and how they are calculated. We are looking at this very carefully as part of our overall reform of legal aid, particularly for the Legal Services Commission.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Women are often at risk of domestic violence when relationships break down, even when there is no previous history of it. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, attempts to end a relationship are strongly linked to partner homicide and a higher risk of physical violence and sexual assault. Now no legal aid is proposed for divorce or child custody cases, and the definition of domestic violence is still very narrow and requires a history of complaints. How will the Minister ensure the safety of women now that they have to negotiate face to face with potentially violent partners?
Mr Djanogly
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the present system. At the moment, perpetrators rarely receive legal aid; it is the victims of domestic violence who receive it. That means that in the current system the victims face the perpetrators of the crime. The reality is that on a day-to-day basis the judiciary are having to deal with this and have set procedures that they go through to make the process as good as possible for the victims.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
10. What the reason is for the time taken to implement agreements on the compensation of victims of terrorism overseas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
We are examining this issue in tandem with the domestic criminal injuries scheme and will publish our proposals on victims in the coming weeks.
Lindsay Roy
I thank the Minister for his response. Has he made an assessment of how other countries, such as France and Australia, have been able to implement promptly the agreements on compensation for such victims outwith their natural boundaries?
Mr Blunt
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the House decided when we passed the Crime and Security Act 2010 that it was likely that the forward-looking scheme would relate to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We are coming forward with proposals on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and are taking these things in tandem.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Minister give the House an assurance that any such ex gratia payments will regard Foreign Office advice as having been followed at the time of the terrorism incident?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend is correct to say that that was a factor alluded to during the passage of the 2010 Act. For the precise details of the scheme she is talking about, which would apply retrospectively, I am afraid that she will have to wait until we come forward with our proposals in due course.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that, whatever scheme he brings forward, it will operate from January 2010, as proposed by the Act that I took through the House on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office 18 months ago?
Mr Blunt
What is in the Act is that date, as I understand it, and the forward-looking scheme will operate from there. If it is not on the face of the Act, it was the clear statement of the Government at the time, and the policy of the then Opposition was to support it, so I can confirm that it would be our intention for any forward-looking scheme to deal with victims from that time.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
14. Which organisations his Department has consulted on future procedures for remanding defendants in custody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
More than 1,200 individuals and organisations contributed to the consultation on the Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”. Numerous criminal justice organisations commented on the remand proposals in the Green Paper, both in relation to restricting the availability of remand in custody and to new arrangements for defendants under 18. The latter were also discussed in a series of consultation events that the Youth Justice Board undertook following publication.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
We believe that victims and witnesses should be at the heart of our justice system, and that they are crucial to its effective functioning. Victims groups have expressed alarm about the proposals in clause 73 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and there is a concern that judges will be forced to prejudge cases prematurely, which could lead to the remanding on bail of people—offenders—who might interfere with witnesses, and could reoffend or fail to attend court. The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses is against the plans as well. Does the Minister understand that the proposal could deter witnesses and victims from coming forward?
Mr Blunt
No. What the shadow Secretary of State needs to understand is that if there is any doubt about the issue, it will be up to the judge or the magistrate to make the appropriate decision on remand. The only factor that will be considered is whether imprisonment is at all likely in a particular case. If those other factors are in play, they will come into effect. We have listened during the consultation, and even if those other factors are not present, it will still be possible to remand in custody people in domestic violence cases.
Sadiq Khan
It is not just the shadow Justice Secretary who does not understand the proposals: the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges is “wholly opposed” to them, and the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the Magistrates’ Association, the senior presiding judge of England and Wales and the vice-president of the Queen’s bench division have all responded to the consultation and are against them. The Minister has given no evidence to the House to justify the change other than the cost savings, involving 1,400 prison places and £40 million, so will he take this opportunity to explain why he is limiting judges’ and magistrates’ discretion?
Mr Blunt
Because we need to restrict the availability of custodial sentences on remand when there is no real prospect of the defendant being sentenced to imprisonment if convicted—[Interruption.] Thousands of people who are remanded in custody and then convicted do not receive a custodial sentence—and in the case of those whom magistrates remand, the numbers are very significant indeed.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
15. What recent representations he has received on the breach of court orders by those entitled to assert parliamentary privilege.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
We have received correspondence from a number of hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, raising issues relating to privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions. In some instances this has included reference to statements made in Parliament concerning the identity of individuals who have obtained injunctions.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that answer. He will share my concerns, and those expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, at the recent breaches of court orders by Members of this House, and indeed Members of the other place. The rule of law and the separation of powers require that we observe the self-denying ordinances to which we are subject, so may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend intends to have any discussions with the Speakers of both Houses on the subject, and if so, what the nature of those discussions will be?
Mr Clarke
This is obviously a point of concern. I agree that essentially it should be a matter for both Houses of Parliament, and Members of both Houses, to address themselves. As a parliamentarian as well as a member of the Government, I defend absolutely the rules of parliamentary privilege, but we have to consider whether it is a proper use of parliamentary privilege to defy court orders. I hope that the matter will be urgently addressed, as we all have to come to some conclusions on it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
16. What recent representations he has received on his proposal to reduce sentences for certain offences for offenders who enter an early guilty plea.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The proposal to increase to 50% the maximum sentence discount for a guilty plea at the first opportunity produced numerous responses when it was canvassed in the Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle”. The majority of those who commented were not in favour, including the judiciary, whose opposition was especially influential in persuading me that we should not proceed.
Bob Stewart
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that when a defendant pleads guilty at the last minute because he has been presented with overwhelming evidence against him, judges will still have discretion not to give him the maximum statutory sentencing discount of 33%?
Mr Clarke
I am glad to say that the guidelines have always said that, and it was never my intention to propose any change. The guidance on sentence reductions for guilty pleas recommends that a last-minute plea should attract no more than a 10% discount. It also says that where the prosecution case is overwhelming, even an early plea should receive less than the maximum, and recommends 20%. That is obviously a sensible rule. There is some discount because we are still saving the victim and witnesses the ordeal of going into the witness box, but the current one third, let alone 50%, is obviously far too generous for someone caught red-handed.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If the Justice Secretary’s aim is to spare the victim, why does he not turn things round and insist on an additional sentence for offenders who waste court time in the face of overwhelming evidence and subject victims to further hurt by their behaviour in court?
Mr Clarke
It is simply a result of the culture of the last 50 years, at least, that this has always been described as a “discount” for a guilty plea. Most of the general public do not appreciate that a discount applies. If members of the public are asked whether a discount on the sentence should be given for someone who pleads guilty early, they say no. But if they are asked, “Should someone who puts the victim through the ordeal of the witness box get a longer sentence than someone who pleads guilty?” they answer yes. Because we could not find a resolution to the risk of some of the more serious offences attracting too short a period in custody, and judicial discretion could not be devised to cover that, we have now decided to stick with the long-standing process whereby a one-third discount is available for an early guilty plea.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
17. What steps he plans to take to reduce rates of reoffending.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The Government set out their radical plans to reduce reoffending in response to the “Breaking the Cycle” consultation. We will pay by results to incentivise rehabilitation programmes that successfully prevent offenders from returning to a life of crime.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As a serving JP, one of the things I find particularly frustrating when considering sentencing is the several pages of antecedents involving multiple short sentences and failed attempts at drug rehabilitation. What work is being done to improve the effectiveness of drug rehabilitation, which is so crucial in stopping reoffending?
Nick Herbert
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The good news is that in April this year the Department of Health assumed responsibility for funding all drug treatments in prison and in the community. That joint commissioning of services by the health and criminal justice agencies will facilitate a more co-ordinated approach. We must move to programmes that ensure that we are dealing with the problem properly and getting people off drugs, not simply maintaining them, as has too often been the case in the past.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
18. Which organisations his Department has consulted on reforms to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the scheme for compensating victims of overseas terrorism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In the coming weeks we intend to launch a public consultation on victims services, which will include the criminal injuries consultation scheme. We will not make up our minds about any changes until we have carefully considered responses from the public and other interested parties. We will make an announcement about compensation for victims of terrorism overseas at the same time as we launch our consultation.
Chris Williamson
The Justice Secretary’s party signed up to the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010 that granted compensation to victims of overseas terrorism. He will know that victims fought hard for those provisions, including the backdating of compensation for those severely injured in atrocities such as the Bali and Mumbai attacks. I do not understand why he has snubbed those victims, who were led to believe that the compensation scheme would come on stream last September. How much longer will victims of overseas terrorism be expected to wait while he and his Ministers dither over this important and just scheme?
Mr Blunt
I am afraid that there was a certain amount of confusion under the previous Administration, when for some reason the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had responsibility for overseas terrorism issues. These issues have now been brought together, and we will bring forward our proposals on victims of overseas terrorism in tandem with our proposals on criminal injuries compensation.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
On Thursday the Government signalled their intention to lead by example by launching a new dispute resolution commitment. From now on, Government Departments and agencies are committed to using better, quicker and more efficient ways of resolving legal disputes, and to seeking alternatives to court action wherever possible. The commitment will save time, money and stress for those involved, and will reduce the number of cases unnecessarily clogging up the courts. This is an important part of our commitment to make the justice system radically more user-friendly and to cut down on the amount of expensive, painful and confrontational litigation in our society.
Mr Raab
I thank the Justice Secretary for that reply. Getting offenders clean of drugs is one of the best ways to get them to go straight on release. What progress has the Justice Secretary made in reducing the previous Government’s excessive reliance on methadone prescriptions, and increasing abstinence-based drug rehabilitation in our prisons?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
As my hon. Friend heard from the previous answer of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice on the centrality of rehabilitation, clinical interventions are the responsibility of the Department of Health. It is important that we work with clinical services to ensure that there is a proper path towards detoxification and abstinence, not only in prison but during the transfer between prison and the community. We are working hard with our colleagues in the Department of Health to deliver that.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Last week the Prime Minister announced the Justice Secretary’s new law on self-defence. However, there is no mention of it in the Green Paper, the Government response or the 119-page Bill. Is the Justice Secretary aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions is on record as saying that the current guidelines, which permit people to use reasonable force to protect their property, work well? Will he spell out how his proposal differs from the current law?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
We intend to clarify the law on self-defence by amending the Bill at the earliest possible stage. We are finalising the drafting of that. Essentially, we are clarifying the law. It will still be based on a person’s undoubted right to use reasonable force when they choose to defend themselves or their home against any threat from an offender.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
T2. Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s policy to create drug-free wings in our prisons, does he agree with me, and my constituents, that the whole of our prison estate should be completely free of illegal drugs? Will he explain to my constituents how that can be achieved?
Mr Clarke
I would love to announce just such a policy. My hon. Friend probably shares my comparative amazement that drugs are so readily available in our prisons. The fact is that that is so endemic in the system that we have to start from where we are. We have a definite programme to introduce drug-free wings. As soon as we establish those successfully, a prime objective of the Government is to eliminate the presence of drugs and to establish proper rehabilitation of offenders that does not depend simply on maintenance and methadone.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
T5. To return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the Prime Minister said that there would be provisions on self-defence included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, but the Bill as it stands is silent on the issue. Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin, says that allowing householders to use any force that is not grossly disproportionate would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”. Can the Justice Secretary clarify how his legislation will differ from what is currently in place?
Mr Clarke
The Prime Minister was not advocating state-sponsored revenge, nor is anybody else. What we are doing is clarifying in statute the basis upon which people can use reasonable force to defend themselves in their property. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what aspect of that Labour Members seek to oppose, but I think they will be reassured when they see the amendments that we propose to introduce.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T4. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend going to take to ensure that the Government send out the strongest possible message on knife crime?
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/ Co-op)
T7. The Youth Justice Board has support right across the political spectrum. Indeed, the House of Lords voted to retain it. I cannot understand why a Government who pride themselves on listening to the people cannot do a U-turn that, on this occasion, would be popular.
Mr Blunt
There is a clear case for bringing the responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board within the Ministry of Justice, and for making Ministers directly accountable for youth justice. We are going to reintroduce that case to the House, and I am sure that it will command the House’s support.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T6. Last week I visited HMP Hewell in Worcestershire, where I met the restorative justice manager Clifford Grimason. He showed me the excellent work that has been done there with prisoners. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending HMP Hewell, and Cliff and his team, who have been working together with Conservative-controlled Redditch borough council on innovative schemes to help get prisoners ready to go out into the world of work?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s description of that work is correct, and I readily commend the work that is being done there and in other places. The main feature of the reforms that I am introducing is the concentration on cutting reoffending, which means rehabilitating offenders. I try to avoid giving the impression that nobody is doing that already, but instead of looking to particular spectacular examples, I want to see that running through the whole system. To reduce crime we have to reduce the number of criminals who are going to offend again as soon as they are out of prison, which is an objective of reform that has been missed for many years.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
T9. In the light of the Ministry of Justice’s own impact assessment, which says that increased criminality, less social cohesion and increased costs are all likely to result from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, have the costs to other Government Departments been considered and costed? If so, what are they?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We have worked closely with other Departments to examine the impact of our proposals, and that is ongoing.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T8. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to reducing reoffending rates. Does he agree that increasing the scope of judicial discretion, as outlined in the Bill, will go a long way to help to achieve that?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I do, and I can reinforce my hon. Friend’s point with a remarkable statistic showing how the last Government were falling down in that respect. Some 29% of all sentences for indictable offences in 2010 were given to offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions—up from 17% in 2000. We need a more intelligent and sensible system of sentencing, and I agree that a proper degree of judicial discretion is an important part of the system.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that in October last year, Citizens Advice in Manchester signed a three-year contract with the Legal Services Commission for the provision of community legal services, which involves four new advice centres, one of which is in my constituency. On the strength of that, Citizens Advice entered into a series of leasing and employment obligations. Will he cut through the increasing uncertainty and confirm this afternoon that that contract will be honoured in full?
Mr Djanogly
That is, of course, a matter for the Legal Services Commission, with which the contract was agreed—but about 50% of CABs have legal aid contracts, which last for different periods. The proposals will work through over the period of the contracts.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Given the costs of delay when court papers do not turn up on time, what are the Government doing to expand the use of e-mail to deliver court judgments and papers?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Government think that it is time the criminal justice system caught up with the rest of the world. Our plan is that information documents will be sent by secure e-mail between all agencies in the system by April next year, so that we can eliminate that wasteful paperwork and drive efficiency in the system.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Minister update the House as to what discussions he has had with the Minister of Justice in the devolved Administration concerning proposed changes to the legal aid system?
Mr Djanogly
I can confirm that I have had discussions, correspondence and a meeting with the devolved Administration to discuss the implications for legal aid and to ensure that we are all moving in the same direction.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Following the Milly Dowler trial, does the Secretary of State agree that measures need to be taken to protect the families of the victims of crime from intensive questioning in court? If a footballer can be afforded privacy from the public arena, cannot the father of a murdered child?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
It is obvious that members of the public generally were appalled by the experience through which that family were put as a result of that criminal trial going ahead and the nature of the defence. Such cases are exceedingly difficult, because any defendant has the right to put forward a defence, however distasteful or distressing that may be to the victims. That sometimes happens. The straightforward process of calling the victim a liar can be extremely offensive to someone who has suffered grievously at the hands of the accused.
The judge has a discretion to cut out all irrelevant and unnecessary lines of questioning. I have no reason to doubt that the judge considered his discretion in that case. The Crown Prosecution Service actually applied for an order to ban the reporting of the relevant pieces of the cross-examination. I respect the decision of the judge, who decided that the principle of open justice should prevail. It was therefore all reported. The newspapers made their own judgments on the extent to which they reported those incidents.
In that case, which was exceedingly distressing, there was never a question of an early guilty plea, but it is useful to remind ourselves of just what an ordeal it can be when victims and witnesses have to go to a court to face someone who is denying the crime.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not an ordeal to listen to the Secretary of State—indeed, one might almost call it a leisure pursuit—but unfortunately, we have not the time on this occasion to do so uninterrupted.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the Government’s U-turn on shorter sentences, which could have led to a reduction in the prison population, mean that in future under the coalition, any Minister caught in possession of an intelligent idea is likely to be doomed to a brief unhappy ministerial career?
Mr Clarke
I made a few slightly light-hearted remarks about U-turns last time—but the Government have a process of consultation, and this is another Catch-22 situation. If we modify our proposals we are accused of making a U-turn, and if we proceed with our proposals we are accused of being deaf.
We explored every possibility of encouraging more early guilty pleas. We still intend to make such proposals, and some of the legal aid reforms are designed to encourage early guilty pleas. Anything that can be done to get early guilty pleas saves a lot of people distress, and also saves a lot of wasted time and cost for the police, the CPS, the courts and the prisons.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
What message is sent to potential offenders and police officers—one of whom is my own brother—by the guidance of Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, that even the most offensive language used against a police officer will not now result in an offence under public order provisions.
Nick Herbert
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. We should all agree that it is wholly unacceptable for people to swear at police officers. Whatever the merits of that guidance or the legal position, we should stand by our police officers in the job that they do. They should not have to expect that kind of treatment.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Last December the Justice Secretary promised me that he would consider reviewing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving, which currently stands at two years regardless of the severity of the injury caused, short of death. It might well be against his liberal instincts to increase tariffs, but what progress has he made?
Mr Blunt
The hon. Gentleman may know that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) secured an Adjournment debate on that subject. We are considering it, and will look at ways of doing it without having to legislate, if possible. We are considering what sanctions are available to us, and I am in discussion with the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General to see how we can deliver the objective that we both share.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about people not being convicted of abusive language and behaviour towards the police, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more ridiculous that some of the people concerned are then compensated for wrongful arrest? Will he please review this as a matter of urgency?
Nick Herbert
Again, I share my hon. Friend’s dismay. It is precisely to avoid such a situation that the Metropolitan police issued the guidance on the existing position. I repeat that it is not acceptable for police officers to be sworn at, and nor are we happy about the suggestion that it is. We wish to consider this issue because we need a system that ensures that we stand by our police officers when they are executing their duties.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I want to ask about the drug-free wings that the Justice Secretary is introducing in prisons. Will prisoners be able to choose whether they enter a drug-free wing or a wing where drugs are rife?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
It might cost more to send a prisoner to prison than it does to put him in a room in the Ritz hotel, but there are limits to how much choice we give prisoners over the suitability of their accommodation. There will be a process of careful assessment. We wish to spread the provision of drug-free wings and eliminate drug dealing in prisons as rapidly as is practicable.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State consider, within a year of the legal aid proposals being implemented, assessing the ability of those on low incomes to access the courts, the availability of appropriately qualified lawyers prepared to undertake publicly funded work, and the sustainability of legal services provided by bodies such as Citizens Advice?
Mr Djanogly
We have just commissioned research on those topics, and there will also be a post-impact assessment within three years.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to Question 7, will the changes to civil litigation make it easier or more difficult to take action against multinational companies? The consensus among non-governmental organisations is that it will be more difficult.
Mr Djanogly
People will still be able to be assessed by solicitors to decide whether they are prepared to represent them in multinational actions.
Petition
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to present my petition, Mr Speaker.
Sam, a constituent of mine, has had his application for a long-term visa refused by the UK Border Agency, which plans to send him back to America within days.
The Petition of residents of Pendle, Lancashire, and others,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Sam Fontana Wright should be allowed leave to remain in Britain.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the UK Border Agency to halt his deportation and reconsider his case.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000932]
School Closures (Thursday)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement about the school closures on Thursday and advice to parents worried about the situation.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
The Government are currently in discussion with trade unions representing public sector workers to reach a fair deal on pension reform. Our proposals draw on the widely praised report from Lord Hutton, who was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under the previous Government. The state of the economy that we inherited and major demographic changes mean that reform is vital. We want to ensure that all public sector workers enjoy pensions that are among the best available, but we need to balance that with fairness to other taxpayers. Talks between the Treasury and the TUC yesterday made real progress, which is why it is so regrettable that two of the classroom unions are planning industrial action this Thursday. This action is unnecessary while talks are still going on, will cause massive inconvenience to hard-working families and will hit working women particularly hard.
In order to minimise the impact of the strike on working parents, I wrote last week to all local authorities, as the employers of teachers, and to all schools, emphasising their duty to keep schools open wherever possible. In response to requests from governors, I also laid out the flexibilities at the disposal of schools to ensure that they stay open. Schools can vary staff-pupil ratios, they can depart from the national curriculum and they can draw on voluntary support from the wider community, with those who have been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau able to provide particular help. Nothing can replace the great teaching offered by gifted professionals, but I would far rather see schools staying open and offering a restricted curriculum than see hard-working families having to lose a day’s pay or paying for ad hoc and expensive last-minute child care.
When I wrote last week, I also asked local authorities and academy heads to let me know which schools they knew would be closing. We collated data from them last Friday, and these data were updated yesterday. At that stage, 118 out of 152 local authorities, and 379 out of 707 academies had replied. The initial returns suggested that 2,206 local authority schools would be partially open and that 3,206 would be closed, while the situation with a further 10,872 was not known at that stage. The figures showed that of the 707 academies, 158 would be fully open, 128 partially open and 84 closed. Nine were still uncertain and 328 had not yet responded. I asked last week that those figures be updated as of 3 pm today, and that exercise is ongoing. Once the provisional data are examined, we will provide updates tomorrow and on Thursday.
It is the responsibility of individual schools to inform parents if they are closed, but the ability of individual heads to determine if and when a teacher has decided to strike—and therefore their ability to make contingency plans—is governed by the employment law that we inherited. Individual teachers have no obligation to tell their school or employer of the intention to strike in advance. Of course, we always keep the law under review.
I remain committed to discussing pension reform with all the teacher unions openly, honestly and constructively. The current generation of teachers in our schools is the best ever, and I want to see them properly supported; but this strike, at this time, will not help our schools, as those unions that are not striking this Thursday know. This action is unnecessary, premature and disruptive. I hope that all parts of the House will join me in working constructively to support those hard-working families who are the victims of this action.
Andy Burnham
Let me start by making one thing clear: on Thursday, children should be in school and their parents at work. Opposition Members have said consistently that these strikes are a mistake. We support reforms to make public sector pensions sustainable, and it is wrong for action to be taken now, while talks are ongoing. However, the Government cannot evade their share of responsibility for the disruption that millions of families will suffer on Thursday. We are worried that the Secretary of State has once again not properly thought through the consequences of his statements and has left parents in the dark, because it is we who have brought him here today. For the first time, Members have some information about the likely scale of disruption. Will he give us a commitment that he will keep Members in all parts of the House regularly updated from here on in?
Secondly, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give to parents today that where schools are open, children will be properly looked after, and remain safe and secure at all times? His letter to head teachers urged them to keep schools open, but was silent about children’s safety. We want schools to stay open, but will he say more about what roles he considers it acceptable for parents to perform? What is a safe balance between trained and untrained staff? Are advanced checks advisable or necessary? He has said today that those with CRB checks may be able to do particular jobs, but will he spell out exactly what those roles are? This is not an area where he can afford to look like he is making it up as he goes along, so I would be grateful if he could answer those specific points.
Thirdly and most importantly, what steps are the Secretary of State and the Government taking over the coming hours to try to avert the strike? His letter acknowledged the
“very strong feelings in the teaching profession about teachers’ pensions”.
Does he not accept that those feelings have been inflamed by the Government’s reckless and provocative handling of the issue from start to finish? In retrospect, does he believe that it was wise or fair to pre-empt the Hutton report by slapping a 3% surcharge on pensions, costing some teachers an extra £100 a month, or for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to announce a raising of the retirement age at a crucial moment in the negotiations? Does the Secretary of State recall saying this to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers’ conference while in opposition?
“I…think that, for people who’ve been in the profession, we shouldn’t alter the terms on which they entered. I think that’s part of the sort of broad contract that you expect.”
Is not that exactly the point? Pensions are a contract, and they should not be changed unilaterally in this high-handed way.
During the Labour Government, the number of days lost through industrial action fell to its lowest level ever. Will not parents take a dim view if this Government return us to the 1980s so that the Secretary of State and his friends can rerun the battles of their youth? Do not those parents want a Government who play fair with the professionals who teach their children, rather than one who play politics with people’s pensions?
Michael Gove
I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he began his response, but I think that, on reflection, he will consider the way in which he concluded it to be irresponsible at this time. The whole House wants to see people keeping level heads and maintaining an even temper at this time, and the fact that he chose to ratchet up the rhetoric in that way was not appropriate.
I am grateful to him for supporting the direction of Lord Hutton’s reforms and for his initial words about the responsibility of all local authorities and heads to keep schools open in order to ensure that we do everything possible to minimise disruption. Because teachers are employed by local authorities and individual heads, individual local authorities and heads have to depend on teachers telling them whether they will be on strike before making contingency arrangements. That is a direct consequence of the labour laws that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. If he believes that those laws should change, and that we should reform trade union laws, I should like to know about it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to update Members of the House with data, and we will do so. At the first available opportunity when the data are reliable, we will share them with hon. Members, with local authorities and with individual parents. He also asked us to do everything possible to keep children safe and secure. The safety of children is always my first concern, and that is why I want to see schools remain open, and why I have written to local authorities and outlined the flexibilities that they have. It is also why I have drawn their attention to the statutory guidance that covers health and safety and child protection.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 3% surcharge that is being placed on pensions. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he should be aware that every aspect of the pension reform that we are bringing forward is a direct result of the dire mess in which he and his colleagues left our economy. If people want to know why our pensions have to be reformed, they need only look at the financial mess that was made—[Interruption.] I am afraid that the intemperate response coming from the Opposition Benches reinforces the guilty consciences on that side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also quoted from a speech that I gave to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It is important that he not mislead the House or anyone listening—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sure that he would never do so intentionally, which is why I hope that he will stress that the proposals that we are putting forward respect the accrued rights of all those who have been in state pension schemes up until this moment—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”] I know that he would wish to make that clear.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that, in the last year of the Labour Government, we had the lowest number ever of days lost to strike action. The truth is that, in the past year under this coalition Government, we have lost even fewer days to strike action. If we are to maintain that record, we need calm on both sides of the House, and not the pandering to the union gallery that we heard at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is irresponsible for union leaders in the teaching unions who are on six-figure salaries to lead teachers out on strike when two thirds of their members did not even vote in the ballot? Does he also agree that this action will undermine and damage the education of children and the status of the teaching profession?
Michael Gove
We all listen with respect to the Select Committee, and its Chairman is quite right. The general secretaries of those trade unions have, throughout their careers, shown a commitment to improving state education. I therefore believe that their motives are right in most circumstances. On this occasion, however, they have made a mistake and they should acknowledge it.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I went to school in Darlington in the ’80s and I remember being sent home from school because not all the teachers had informed the head that they were going on strike. I was sent home and sat on the front door step before a neighbour came to fetch me. What guarantees can the right hon. Gentleman give about the fact that, although schools might be open, some teachers unexpectedly might not be present? The most important consideration here is the welfare of children. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do to ensure that we do not see a return to strike after strike after strike under this Tory Government just like we did in the ’80s?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point, but as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made clear from the Opposition Front Bench, this strike is unjustified at this time, and the responsibility rests on those general secretaries and trade union members who are going on strike. They are causing inconvenience to hard-working parents and they should not be going on strike: that is the united position of both Front-Bench teams, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not share it.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I have a huge amount of respect for the hard work that teachers do, but share the disappointment of many parents in my constituency that Thursday’s strikes will cause massive disruption to their children’s learning. Will the Secretary of State advise how people such as myself and other colleagues who have a CRB certificate can help schools to stay open on Thursday?
Michael Gove
One of the things I would stress is that all of us can play our part in helping to ensure that children are kept safe and have a fruitful and constructive time in school on Thursday. Any Member—and, indeed, any member of the public—who is CRB checked can volunteer to help in their local school. I am sure that the head and the chair of governors would welcome that level of support. I have already received a number of letters from head teachers who have asked me if they can ensure that those who are CRB checked can help. They can help in many ways, by providing cover, by supporting trained teachers and by ensuring that children spend a fruitful and constructive time in school.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
To those people who follow industrial relations it is remarkable to see a union like the ATL vote for a strike for the first time ever. I understand the Secretary of State’s desire to keep schools open, but in view of that, is it not better that he leave the Chamber now, phone those general secretaries, invite them in and spend the next 24 hours trying to secure a solution for these strikes? It is not too late.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as we all know, was a union negotiator before he came to the House and therefore has some expertise in these matters. As an expert union negotiator, he will know that it is unwise for anyone to call the dispute in the middle of talks. Talks are ongoing: we had talks yesterday with the TUC; I have arranged telephone calls with the individual general secretaries of trade unions for later today—and I took the precaution of doing so before coming to this House. [Interruption.] I have already talked to all the general secretaries in person and explained to them the lack of wisdom in what they are doing. The question for the hon. Gentleman and for other Labour Members is: what are they doing to keep our schools open? Are they doing everything possible to encourage the unions to lower the temperature or are they, sadly, once again engaging in the sort of opportunism that has given their party a bad name?
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I regret, as the Secretary of State clearly does, the decision by two unions to cause the strike this week, and I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is engaging in a constructive way. Will he set out what will be happening over the coming weeks to further the talks, to allay the concerns of teachers, perhaps by going against the message sent to them by the people at the top of their unions?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been misinformation and propaganda about this dispute, and it is important that the facts are known—and that they are known by every Member. It will be the case at the end of this process that all public sector pensions will be among the best available. In particular, teachers’ pensions will remain strong because we recognise the importance of ensuring that those who work in our classrooms are well protected. Because discussions are ongoing and because they are based on Lord Hutton’s report, I think it quite wrong to prejudice those discussions by pre-empting them and stating what an end-point should be. By their very definition, discussions allow for both sides to make constructive suggestions, which is why it is such a pity that the trade unions have deliberately chosen to pre-empt that process.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State understand the degree of anger and frustration among so many teachers who have given years to their profession and feel that they have been forced into taking strike action, thus losing a day’s pay, in order to try to protect the pension for themselves and for a future generation of teachers? Instead of trying to work out cockamamie schemes to keep schools open, why does he not deal with the issue, retain the pension and support the teaching profession?
Michael Gove
I understand that there will be anger and frustration on Thursday: anger from parents whose child care arrangements have been disrupted, and frustration about the fact that schools remain closed. The question for all of us is: why is this reform necessary? I am afraid that the answer is: because of the dire economic situation that we inherited from the Labour Government. We are pledged to negotiate openly, honestly and constructively, but that negotiation has been pre-empted by the unions, and the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility is to ensure that schools in his constituency stay open.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I can inform my right hon. Friend that 35% of schools in the borough of Wokingham and well over 50% in the borough of Reading will close. Will he join me in thanking teachers at schools that are staying open, such as E P Collier and Reading girls’ school in my constituency, where staff have put the needs of children and parents before the pre-emptive action of their unions?
Michael Gove
As I said in my statement, not every teaching union has chosen to go on strike this Thursday. While I am well aware of the strong feelings that exist about the future of teachers’ pensions, I know that many people who will be taking industrial action feel understandably concerned about what will happen when schools close, and I think it important for all of us to recognise that people who are working hard to keep schools open are operating in a public-spirited fashion and deserve our support.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Are the Secretary of State and other members of the Cabinet aware that many public sector workers, including teachers, believe that a war has been declared against them over their standard of living and their pensions? They are sick and tired of a Cabinet, consisting of a fair number of multi-millionaires, which takes such a hostile attitude to people who want to work for the community—as teachers do—but whose standard of living is constantly being undermined.
Michael Gove
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for many years and has stood up for many unpopular and noble causes, but I think that he is quite wrong in this instance. We are not declaring war on anyone. We want to ensure that our public finances can be restored to balance after what happened under the last Government, and we also want to ensure that public sector workers have the best pensions available. It is critical for us to ensure that our reforms proceed. The right hon. Member for Leigh made it clear that we need to work constructively on the basis of Lord Hutton’s proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his rhetoric, and recognise that it is not helpful to parents or to his own community.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said that the Government could not evade their share of the responsibility for what is happening. Earlier, he said that the Government must accept their share of the blame for causing disruption to millions of families. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, and the whole House, that he will not consider taking an ounce of blame for the strikes until the Labour party apologises for the dreadful financial legacy that he and the Government inherited?
Michael Gove
My hon. and learned Friend has made a good point, but notwithstanding the dreadful financial situation that we inherited, teachers, and all public sector workers, will retain a defined-benefit pension scheme. Defined-benefit pension schemes were the norm in 1979, and indeed in 1997, but I am afraid that after what happened with the Labour Government, they became a rarity in the private sector. That is why we are so anxious to ensure that they are reformed in the public sector so that they can be secure for the future.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State asked what Labour Members were doing to help to resolve the strike. Unfortunately I am not the Secretary of State, but if I were, I would be ringing those general secretaries, bringing them together, and trying to resolve matters before Thursday. What is the Secretary of State going to do between now and Thursday to prevent the strike and the disruption to children’s education?
Michael Gove
I have met, and enjoy meeting, the general secretaries of all the trade unions, and I am glad that I enjoy cordial relations with them. As I told the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) earlier, I am talking to all the general secretaries of all the trade unions later this afternoon. I made sure that yesterday’s negotiations and discussions were concluded so that the general secretaries had a chance to reflect on them before I contacted them today. I think that that is the wise and moderate way in which to proceed, and I am sorry that there are Labour Members who believe at this stage that anything else is appropriate.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
I received an e-mail from a teacher in Eccleston in my constituency who was concerned about the proposed strike action on Thursday. My constituent is concerned that, despite being a member of the ATL, he did not receive a ballot paper. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent and me that, if members of the ATL are being disfranchised in this way, the legality of the strike is in question?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I am sure that the ATL will want to investigate any irregularity in the ballot. As has been pointed out, it was not the case that a majority of those who were members of the union voted in favour, but a majority of those who did cast their ballot clearly voted in favour of the strike, so we have to respect that democratic vote, even though I strongly believe, like the right hon. Member for Leigh, that the unions are mistaken to go on strike.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it takes two sides to create any conflict and this smug, arrogant Government have revelled in the part they have played in this dispute? In the real world, trade unionists have to fight for every penny and every pension, but the bankers just wait for the Government to give in and to line their pockets. That is the real contrast.
Michael Gove
I respect the passion of the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he has a distinguished record as a trade unionist. Members of trade unions have an absolute right to take industrial action in defence of their interests if people believe it is right, but trade union leaders should decide whether it is wise to strike at any given moment. I do not believe that it is wise to strike at this point.
On the specific question of bankers, I have to say that they are paying more in tax under this coalition Government than they ever did under a Labour Government.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Six years ago a lot of blue-chip companies closed their final salary schemes to new employees and within the past three years they have closed them full stop. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that now is the right time to reform public sector pensions to make sure that they, too, are sustainable going forward?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to be fair to all taxpayers. Of course it is important that we make sure public sector workers have a decent pension, but we must also make sure that others in the private sector who are paying for those pensions have their position respected. Given what happened to private sector pensions under the previous Government, Labour Members are in no position to lecture anyone about the integrity of benefits in retirement.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is no use his calling for calm from the Dispatch Box when the words of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the implied threats that he has made today to review the laws on strike ballots simply serve to inflame the situation? Why does he not stop posturing, get the employers and the teachers around the table and find a way of avoiding this strike conflict?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has a duty to ensure that our finances are back in balance after the terrible situation that we inherited. The speech that he made just over a week ago outlined proposals for discussion. It was not an end position; it was an opening position. The hon. Lady should have the responsibility to recognise that.
As for keeping the law under review, it is my duty to do so. It has nothing to do with strike ballots and everything to do with making sure that heads and local authorities are informed so that parents can be protected. I would have thought that the hon. Lady was on the side of parents and would support any review that might enhance protection for them.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of the teaching union Voice, the cardinal rule of which is that teachers will not strike in any circumstances because of the impact on young people. Today, so many children are brought up by just one caregiver and in many families both parents work. Rather than looking at thresholds, is it not time to consider requiring teachers, in the interests of young people and school pupils up and down the country, at least to inform their school that they plan to go on strike? Too many schools in my constituency will be closed this Thursday because head teachers do not know whether teachers will be arriving to teach or not.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an informed and constructive point. I think that workers should retain the right to call for a strike and to take part in industrial action—absolutely. But we also have to recognise that public sector professionals have a wider responsibility. One of the questions that my hon. Friend puts is whether we should require individuals to inform their workplace that they intend to take industrial action and give appropriate notice. It is a matter for review and one that we will have to review after Thursday when we have seen the effect on schools and parents.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Teachers up and down the country will be appalled at the attitude that the Secretary of State has taken, implying that the people going on strike do not care about the children they educate. When did the Government change the law on portable Criminal Records Bureau checks in order to allow these parents into the schools? Unless they are CRB checked for these particular schools, those CRB checks are not appropriate. When did he change the law?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is already the case that there are parents who have been appropriately CRB checked and can support the work of schools. It is also the case that parents can support the work of schools without a CRB check. Of course parents have to be supervised by an appropriate member of staff, but it is perfectly possible, as we all know from the example of parents who have helped with school trips and journeys, for any parents to support them.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly possible to understand the anger that teachers and other public servants feel at being asked to pay the price for the economic mess we inherited from the previous Government, but also to believe that it cannot be fair to ask those in the private sector to work longer and pay more to pay for pensions that they themselves can never hope to receive?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Obviously, all of us who are parents want to ensure that teachers receive good pensions in the future and appropriate reward for the hard work that they do. However, we also have to recognise that the average level of pension enjoyed by people in the private sector is significantly lower, so we have to ensure fairness across sectors.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I can recall when, during the last Conservative Government, a Secretary of State was booed at a teachers’ conference. May I advise the Secretary of State to cut out the rhetoric and get his friends on the Government Benches to calm down? Let us instead have some negotiations that can resolve the problem before Thursday.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I know he takes a strong interest in educational matters, but, as I have said, negotiations are ongoing. The reason why both the Labour Front-Bench team and the Government believe that these strikes are wrong is because they pre-empt the conclusion of negotiations.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend give me some advice, because I am very concerned that this strike will not only affect young people’s education, but will have a negative impact on businesses, particularly small businesses? On Thursday, many small businesses may find themselves without a significant number of staff, as they may have to look after their children. What advice can he give to businesses that are going to be hit by this, especially if the strikes are ongoing or repetitive?
Michael Gove
I absolutely sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend and I recognise that there will be an economic cost as a result of the disruption caused by this strike. We will, of course, do everything we can to ensure that schools remain open so that the economic and social impact is lessened.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State really is sincere about wanting to bring this to a resolution, will he go back to the teachers’ leaders and negotiate on the basis that the 3% Treasury tax on pensions will now be subject to review—will he get rid of that, because if he does not do so, he is not negotiating in good faith?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he makes. The truth is that the specific increase in contributions applies not only to teachers, but to public sector workers across the piece—it is one of the issues that affects all public sector unions. The public sector unions affected, apart from the teachers’ unions and the Public and Commercial Services Union, are not going on strike on Thursday. We can thus infer that there are other unions that, whatever their views on the requirement to increase contributions, believe it is important to conclude the conversation and dialogue about the state of public sector pensions overall before taking any decision about action.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The fair but difficult changes to teachers’ pensions and the pre-emptive call for a strike by the trade unions will leave many teachers this week wrestling between their loyalty to their union and their concern about the impact of this on the esteem of the profession. On Friday, I welcomed Taiwanese students to St Thomas More school in my town. Teachers in Taiwan are not able to strike and, as my right hon. Friend knows, Confucian tradition reveres teachers. What advice does he have for teachers who are wrestling with the concerns about the impact of this strike on the teaching profession in our country?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of my concerns—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for the attention that she pays to this very important question. One of the things that this Government have been seeking to do over the past 15 months is to raise the prestige of the teaching profession. We have sought to work on changes that were instituted under the previous Government and under preceding Governments. I said in my initial response to the right hon. Member for Leigh that we were lucky to have the best generation of teachers ever in our schools, and that is in no small part due to the efforts made across parties to ensure that. I am delighted to take this opportunity to underline that, but I did say on Sunday, and I will say again, that the reputation of teachers risks being affected by action on Thursday. I hope that, whatever action is taken, all of us recognise that we need to operate responsibly on Thursday, because it would be a grave shame if the respect in which teachers are held is, in any way, undermined.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he claimed earlier that the shadow Secretary of State misled the House? Yes or no?
Michael Gove
I said that he would never wish to mislead the House and I hope that he will take the opportunity, in this House or elsewhere, to make it clear that our proposals respect the accrued rights of all public sector workers. My concern is that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in his understandable anxiety to make a political point, will fail to make entirely clear to every teacher the reality of the position that the coalition Government are proposing.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Last Friday, I met all the head teachers of primary schools in Tamworth and they told me that many of their staff have no intention of following their highly paid union leaders out on strike because they want to stay in their schools and teach. Will my right hon. Friend commend the attitude of those teachers and of the teacher at Rawlett high school who sent a message to me only this morning saying that the strikes will serve the interests only of the unions and not of children?
Michael Gove
The point has been made—and has been made well by the Leader of the Opposition—that no one benefits from this precipitate action. It is entirely right that all the teachers reflect on those points. Of course we respect the decision of any individual to take industrial action, but we all agree that the position of teachers will be stronger and public support for them greater if they do not take such action this Thursday.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is a staunch trade unionist and I know he has experience of going on strike, so he will understand the difficult decision that many teachers face this week. Will he clear something up for me? Is the pension decision to do with long-term demographic change, as discussed in the Hutton report, or is it to do with cutting the deficit, as he implied earlier? Either way, will he sit down with teachers’ leaders before Thursday and sort out the problem rather than provoking strikes through his macho posturing?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes two fair points. On the first, yes, I went out on strike and indeed I lost my job as a result of taking industrial action. One of the reasons I am therefore so opposed to industrial action this Thursday is that I recognise that strikes do not solve problems. Any one of us, on either side of the House, who has taken industrial action and lived with the consequences recognises that strikes do not solve deep-rooted problems. On the broader question of the way in which pension reform is designed to deal with the problems we have inherited, as I mentioned in my statement we are seeking to deal both with the terrible state in which our public finances were left by the previous Government and with the demographic challenges that force us to conclude that there is a case for reform.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
In my constituency, the impact of Thursday’s strikes will be felt not by the bankers who live there but, most acutely, by lower paid people, lone parents and, especially, women who rely on fragile networks to provide child care, based on education, family and so on. Does he not share my astonishment that that point does not seem to be fully understood by those on the Opposition Benches?
Michael Gove
One of the critical points my hon. Friend makes is that the Opposition seem to be curious in their desire to make political points rather than seeking to work constructively with local authorities and others to keep schools open. As the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made clear in his response to my statement, it is wrong for strike action to be taken at this point when discussions are still going on. The victims will be working women who will lose out as a direct result of the disruption to family life.
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now move on. I have taken 25 Back-Bench contributions, but we have an important statement to follow and considerable pressure as regards progress on the Finance Bill. The Secretary of State has shown his willingness and desire to keep the House regularly updated and that is, I am sure, appreciated.
Higher Education White Paper
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the higher education White Paper, which sets out how our reforms will build on the changes to student support announced last year. We will put higher education back on to a sustainable financial footing. We will put students at the heart of the system and improve the academic experience, with universities and colleges being more accountable to their students than ever before. We will also take steps to improve social mobility without compromising academic excellence or institutional autonomy.
We inherited an enormous deficit, which has required difficult decisions. We could have reduced student numbers or spending per student, or we could have provided less help with living costs, but those options would have been unfair to students, to universities and to the country. Instead, we are introducing a pay-as-you-earn system that provides more support for students, that does not require reductions in student numbers and that increases the cash flowing into higher education. We estimate that there could be a cash increase in funding for higher education of around 10% by 2014-15.
Our reforms ensure that no first-time undergraduate will have to pay fees up front and that they will be asked to contribute to the cost of their education only when they are earning more than £21,000. That increase in the repayment threshold—up from £15,000 under the current system—means that graduates will benefit from smaller monthly repayments than under the current system. For example, someone earning £20,000, which is the median starting salary for graduates, repays £38 a month under the system we inherited from the previous Government; in future they would pay nothing. At the moment, a graduate earning £36,000, which is the median salary for all graduates, pays £158 a month; under our scheme that would fall to £113 a month.
Our reforms also recognise that for many people higher education does not mean a full-time, residential degree. Some students want to work or take care of their family while studying. To support them, many part-time students and distance learners will become entitled to loans to cover their full tuition costs for the first time. Also, I can announce today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have agreed that for undergraduate medical and dentistry students starting their course in autumn 2012, the NHS bursary will be increased in years 5 and 6 to cover the full costs of tuition. For graduate entrants starting in autumn 2012, access to student loans will be made available so that there are no additional up-front tuition costs. We will consider arrangements for subsequent years; more information is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
These changes to higher education funding enable us to put financial power in the hands of learners, but to make that effective we need to liberalise the system of quotas we inherited from the previous Government so that more students can go to universities that offer a good-quality, good-value student experience. The White Paper therefore proposes unconstrained recruitment of the roughly 65,000 high-achieving students, scoring the equivalent of AAB grades or above at A-level. Quotas for those students will be abolished and funding will go to whichever university offers them a place they accept. In addition, we will create a flexible margin of about 20,000 places to reward universities and colleges that combine good quality with value for money and with average tuition charges, after waivers, at or below £7,500 per year. That adds up to around 85,000 student places—roughly one in four places for new entrants contestable between institutions in 2012-13. We aim to expand this further year after year.
We will also extend the scope for employers and charities to offer sponsorship of extra places, provided that they do not create a cost liability for the Government, and provided, of course, that there is fair access for all applicants, regardless of ability to pay, and no sacrifice of academic standards.
The reforms put students in the driving seat, but if they are to use that power to best effect, more than a liberalising of the quotas regime will be needed. Prospective students also need to know far more about the academic experience on offer. We will therefore transform the information available to them about individual courses at individual institutions. Each institution will make available key items of information, such as contact hours and job prospects. Information will also be available to outside bodies, such as Which?, so that they can produce their own comparisons. That will lead universities to match their excellence in research with a high-quality academic experience.
We also want our universities to work with business to improve the job prospects of their graduates by providing the knowledge and skills employers value. The sandwich course, giving students practical experience of work, declined under the Labour Government; we want to reverse that. We have therefore asked Professor Sir Tim Wilson, who made the university of Hertfordshire one of our most business-friendly universities, to review how we can make England the best place in the world for university-industry collaboration. We want our universities to work with business across their teaching and research activities to promote better teaching, employer sponsorship, innovation and enterprise.
Student choice will be more real if we liberalise quotas and transform information, and if there is a greater diversity of institutions to choose from. We will therefore remove the barriers to more provision from the Open university, further education colleges and private providers. We will simplify the regime for obtaining degree-awarding powers. We will also review the artificial barriers to smaller higher education institutions taking the title “university”.
We want students from a wide range of backgrounds to benefit from the reforms. We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students, introducing a national scholarship scheme, and strengthening the Office for Fair Access to make sure that institutions fulfil their outreach and retention obligations to people from disadvantaged groups. That will not be at the expense of institutional autonomy; the director of fair access will continue to have a duty to protect academic freedom, including institutions’ right to decide whom to admit, and on what terms.
So that universities and academics can focus on educating their students, we will strip back the burden of excessive regulation and form-filling. We will explore whether it is possible to reduce costs associated with corporation tax returns. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has today announced a consultation on the possibility of introducing a relief to remove some of the VAT barriers that currently deter institutions from sharing costs. We will reduce burdens that result from information collection. We will give students power to trigger quality reviews where there are grounds for concern, but will cut back the burden of automatic review for high-performing institutions. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will be the lead regulator, taking on a new role as consumer champion for students and promoter of a competitive system.
We are now inviting people to comment on our proposals as part of a broad consultation. Subject to the availability of parliamentary time, that will be followed by a higher education Bill next year, to make the necessary legislative changes to deliver the reforms.
The White Paper offers universities the prospect of more funding, provided that they attract students. At the same time, it saves the Exchequer money by asking graduates to pay back more as their earnings increase. Our universities already transform people’s life chances; we expect them to do even more. We will protect their autonomy and reduce their regulatory burdens. Above all, our proposals benefit students by driving universities to focus on the student experience. They will have real choice, better information, and a wider range of institutions to choose from. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Is it not true that as higher education teaching has been cut by 80%, far more universities are charging £9,000 than the Government planned, causing huge political embarrassment for the Government and creating a funding crisis with the Treasury? Is not the real substance of the White Paper a desperate drive to cut fees, no matter what the effect on quality?
Is not the truth that this is another example of the Government’s failure to think things through, their disregard for the consequences, and the wrong choices being made for the country’s future? Is it not true that the Minister has slipped out on his Department’s website today a report on the impact on exports to this country of the proposal on tuition fees and of visa changes, suggesting that the total impact is some £8 billion of revenue lost to the UK?
It is
“difficult to recall a worse example of public policy making…wishful thinking has followed the apparent failure to do any serious modelling…the whole thing is a mess, and getting messier”—
not my words, but those of Sir Peter Scott, one of Britain’s leading experts on higher education and the former vice-chancellor of the Secretary of State’s local university. Is not the real truth that any expansion in university places is set to come on the cheap, with the Government cutting student places at the majority of universities—so much for student choice now—in order to fund the race to the bottom; an auction of places—who can charge the lowest?
The Prime Minister promised that universities charging the maximum would be the exception, yet is not the truth that two thirds of universities will charge the full £9,000? Is not that a devastating example of the neglect and incompetence that the Prime Minister routinely shows to the hopes and dreams of the next generation? The Secretary of State threatened to cut student places even more or university funding even further. Guaranteed places have been floated for those who want to buy their way in, and last-minute cut-price degrees. Almost 24,000 student places are already axed or are going. The Minister is in secret talks with the banks to help him out.
Forests, the national health service, prison sentences, universities today—it is “Carry on up the Khyber” in Whitehall, the Minister the latest to do the Hattie Jacques role. I am all for vigorous competition, but on for-profit higher education corporations, has he not been warned by both the Higher Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Policy Institute? Too many examples of the worst quality higher education, not for every student, but shocking drop-out rates, appalling degree completion rates, and aggressive recruitment practices that make pensions selling seem a walk in the park, are too often their norm.
The market has not protected against poor quality there. We need to be able to spot and stop students and their families being taken for a ride. Should not new providers have to prove themselves more rigorously, more regularly? How will making it easier to get university title and degree-awarding powers improve quality or the reputation and value of particular degrees, or boost the employability of those studying for such degrees? Nobody could be against the principle of an increase in places at high quality universities, but does it sit with the Secretary of State’s promises on social mobility when 50% of those getting AAB grades are from selective or independent schools? Will contextual data be truly embedded in university admissions or has he caved in to the Tory right?
How will the Secretary of State prevent, as the Institute of Physics has warned, students being deterred from studying the sciences or maths? Student charters and better information will be little compensation for trebling fees. I accept that there have to be safeguards, but will students be able to move courses with their loan intact if they realise that their course is not suitable or if their complaints are not taken seriously? Who will be the consumer champion—the representative of students and their families—at the new providers? Why should not students paying vastly increased fees know if their university has financial problems that might affect the quality of their teaching?
I welcome the end to at least one area of uncertainty today—the NHS bursary increasing for 2012-13—but what about future years? Why no certainty on that now? On research quality, why no mention that the rest of the world is increasing its science spending, yet here in the UK British researchers are having to cope with cuts of 40% or more in the funding to invest in world-class research facilities at our universities? Because of the bungled visa changes, universities face even more intense challenges to recruit the brightest and best research students and their lecturers to work with our brightest and best. No mention of cuts in funding for postgraduate courses or the impact on postgraduate recruitment of graduates leaving university with £40,000 worth of debt. Will we see as a result of his complacency a new divide opening up between those who have a postgraduate qualification and those who do not?
On the day it was revealed that 80 graduates are chasing every graduate job, which is double the figure for last year, all we got on university and business collaboration is a review. Where is the financial plan to incentivise universities to do more to stimulate new jobs in the industries of the future? Regional development agency funding has gone, HEFCE funding has been reduced and Technology Strategy Board funding has been squeezed, so this is yet another example of opportunities for economic growth being spurned, and of Ministers fiddling while Rome burns.
It could have been so different. Why were university cuts not in line with other public service cuts? Tuition fees would have been far lower, with no black hole, and chaos and confusion would have been avoided. Universities would have concentrated on getting their research and skills into businesses to drive jobs and new growth and there would have been a rigorous drive to ensure that every student gained employable skills. The Government did not need to leave the next generation of engineers, police officers and nurses having to pay so much more for so much longer. The Minister did not need—
Mr Speaker
Order. I should explain to the shadow Minister that his response should be no longer than half the expected length of a ministerial statement of 10 minutes, so I think that he is on his last sentence.
Mr Speaker
Order. I was being gentle about it. This is the hon. Gentleman’s last sentence, and it needs to be a short one.
Mr Willetts
I have to tell the shadow Minister that I am informed that Hattie Jacques was not even in “Carry on up the Khyber”, and many of his other statements were no more reliable. There were no questions, only a set of random scares that bear little relation to what we are proposing in the White Paper. Let me make it absolutely clear that there are no number controls on overseas students. We continue to welcome to this country overseas students who have the ability to benefit from studying at our universities.
The hon. Gentleman seems typically confused. One moment he complained about fees of £9,000, and the next he complained about our measures for providing a clear incentive to charge £7,500 or less. Our proposal for 20,000 places to be awarded on that basis is intended to ensure that students face a range of fees as they choose a university, which we think is the right thing to do.
I should also make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are reducing the burdens on universities, supporting them and liberating them from some of the impositions placed on them by the previous Government. It was his Government who introduced quotas and fines of £4,500 per student for universities that infringed their quotas. We are liberating 85,000 places from such a quota regime.
I make no apology for the measures that we are taking on access. It was under Labour, despite their claims to care about social mobility and opportunity, that—to quote Sir Martin Harris’ report—the
“most advantaged 20 per cent of young people were six times more likely than the most disadvantaged 40 per cent to enter these institutions in the mid-1990s. This ratio has risen to seven times more likely by the mid-2000s”.
That refers to Russell group universities. Those figures are scandalous. Under Labour’s watch, the ratio got worse. We are committed to equality of opportunity, which is why we have set out in the White Paper proposals for strengthening the Office for Fair Access.
Not only were there no sensible questions from the hon. Gentleman, but there was no indication whatsoever about what Labour would do. Are they advocates of a graduate tax, as the leader of the Labour party is, or do they accept the need to increase fees, as Lord Mandelson did? We are none the wiser after the hon. Gentleman’s random rant.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is extensive interest in this statement, and I am keen to accommodate that interest, but I must appeal for brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I have spent the past six years on the advisory board of the London School of Commerce, a private higher education provider, and I wholeheartedly support the Minister’s proposals to provide diversity and innovation in the sector, but does he share my bemusement at the Opposition’s stance, given that the biggest beneficiaries of such a policy will surely be students from less well-off backgrounds?
Mr Willetts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that a more diverse sector with a greater range of institutions offers the greatest opportunity for students with a range of requirements to find the form of higher education that best suits them.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
This White Paper was originally scheduled for January. I understand that one reason for the six-month delay was No. 10’s concern to ensure that it did not herald a repeat of the NHS reform fiasco. What guarantees can the Minister provide that in “widening participation” and bringing in more of the private sector, we do not have a repeat of the any-willing-provider fiasco?
Mr Willetts
OFFA is considering proposals from universities to improve access to their institutions, which is what they will have to do if they wish to charge fees above £6,000. The conclusions will be announced in the next fortnight, and I very much hope and am confident that they will show how it is possible to deliver wider access while maintaining high academic standards.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I welcome the White Paper and, particularly, the additional money announced for those dental and medical students who will start their courses next year. May I assume that Ministers are clear that the White Paper’s two key effects will be increased access at decreased costs for students and, particularly, that students will have the power to influence their courses and the quality of their teaching? It would be helpful if the Minister were to explain how they will be able to do so, and that there will be plenty of time for students and universities to respond to the White Paper before the announcements are finalised in policy.
Mr Willetts
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his very constructive engagement in this very important area. At the university of Loughborough, I sat in on a fascinating meeting in which students gave their feedback on their academic programme that year, raising with the academic staff issues such as the right balance between essays and lab work and the extent to which there should be continuous assessment during the year and final exams. We want to see more of that; we want universities to provide such information on their websites; and, yes, we believe that if students are concerned about the quality of academic standards and work at a university, they should have the opportunity to raise that with the Quality Assurance Agency.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In responding, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) referred to the assessment of the impact on university income and on the local and national economy of discouraging students from across the world from coming to Britain, and of the shambolic visa changes, which were clearly not put together by the two Departments responsible. How can the Minister come here this afternoon and say that we want to be the best in the world while discouraging the best in the world from coming to Britain?
Mr Willetts
The changes in the visa regime were very carefully worked out by the Home Office and BIS working together, and they tackle the problem of bogus colleges and students who wish to come to a university but do not have the academic qualifications that would enable them to benefit from a university course. The changes absolutely keep open, however, the opportunity for legitimate students who have achieved the necessary academic standards to come to this country, with no quota or limits on the number that should be able to do so.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today on the Floor of the House and, especially, what he has said on institutional autonomy over admissions. Will he say a little about how that is to be guaranteed? Does he agree that it is academics who should determine admissions to university, not politicians?
Mr Willetts
In that respect, I hope that we will be able to maintain a cross-party consensus, because the previous legislation that the previous Government introduced provided a clear protection for universities, making it clear that ultimately they determined their own admissions. We will keep that legal protection.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I look forward to studying the White Paper in detail. It is surprising, however, that in his announcement the Minister made no reference at all to postgraduate study. Does he appreciate that the trebling of debt means that British students are being put off going on to taught masters courses, with only 23% of students taking such courses? If we are to compete with India and China, must he not now come to the Dispatch Box and say what he is going to do to ensure that British students can go on to postgraduate study?
Mr Willetts
I recognise the expertise of the right hon. Gentleman, who was previously a higher education Minister, and I accept the need to monitor very carefully what happens with postgraduates. We have asked Sir Adrian Smith—I think that the right hon. Gentleman originally asked him to do this—to investigate the whole issue of postgraduate education. We want him to reopen his inquiry and keep the matter under close review, and we will of course watch very carefully what happens.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I regularly meet the three principals of the FE colleges that serve my constituency, who are keen to deliver innovative degree-level courses. Does the Minister agree that we should be looking at a model whereby institutions of further education can deliver innovative higher degrees?
Mr Willetts
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; he is right. This is one of the main ways in which we can improve access to higher education. Perhaps one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 20,000 places that will be more flexible will be higher education delivered in further education colleges. We are all working together as Ministers in BIS—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning—and we are committed to ensuring that that opportunity is available to young people.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Minister not recognise that in marketising the whole system of higher education he is creating several markets, with a sort of Harrods at the top that gains prestige from charging the highest fees and a sort of Poundland at the other end that has to cut its costs and cut corners in order to attract the worst-off and most impoverished students?
Mr Willetts
I have to break this gently to the right hon. Gentleman: Government Members believe in choice and in empowering students. We believe that there should be a wider range of institutions and a wider range of fees, and that is what these reforms are all about.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome many aspects of my right hon. Friend’s White Paper, particularly the better information about contact hours, job prospects and quality of teaching experience. Does he agree that there is a real need for more part-time courses so that more people can get the opportunity to study and work at the same time?
Mr Willetts
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I respect his expertise as a former FE college lecturer. One of the reasons we are extending loans for fees to part-time students is to address that long-standing injustice.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that these proposals do not allow charitable private schools to buy places at university?
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the increased competition and supply-side reforms, which will lead to a much more dynamic HE sector. I hope to respond separately to the consultation on OFFA. In the White Paper, what lessons have been taken from the community college system in the United States, where business plays a part not only in designing but in funding courses?
Mr Willetts
Again, my hon. Friend has a long-standing commitment to this. He describes exactly the type of innovation we hope to see as we liberalise the system. We very much wish to encourage the American model of two-plus-two courses, whereby someone may do two years at a community college and then move on to do one or two years on an honours degree at a university.
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that higher education should be one of our greatest exports? Over many years, thousands of students have come over to study at the two universities in Leicester, yet with his comments on contact hours, the mess over student visas and the cuts to the teaching budget, more and more international students will choose institutions in Australia, Singapore and the USA instead of the UK. Is he not concerned about that?
Mr Willetts
There certainly is growing international competition for students. Higher education is becoming more of a global market. I am confident that British universities, with high standards and no limit on the number of legitimate overseas students, will continue to attract many overseas students.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Fourteen years ago, the Dearing report identified employers, alongside students and the state, as stakeholders in higher education. What measures will the Minister use to facilitate the contribution of employers to the costs of the higher education that they require of the graduates they recruit?
Mr Willetts
This goes back to an earlier question. Let me make it absolutely clear that one of the proposals in the White Paper is to make it easier for employers and charities to sponsor additional places at university. That is an additional flexibility in the system. Already, 6,000 university places are sponsored by employers in that way. However, it is not our intention that these proposals be abused by people to purchase places at university that they could not achieve on academic merit.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that this is the day of the launch of the higher education commission. All of us who care about higher education want to digest the White Paper, hope that it has green edges, and will see whether we can improve it. The Minister constantly talks about the student being in the driver’s seat, and about consumer satisfaction and student satisfaction. Our universities are made of other materials. Their values and principles come from their academic staff and long traditions. Getting the balance right is a difficult task. Please do not let us go just down the consumerist route.
Mr Willetts
There is a real dilemma here and I respect the hon. Gentleman’s raising it in the House. I believe that putting more power in the hands of students, introducing the choice that we put forward in the White Paper and recognising that the student is in many respects a consumer will not destroy the traditional values of higher education, but strengthen them. I think that the proposals will bring traditional, high-quality teaching and close academic engagement with students back to centre stage. We should not fear these forces. Respecting the autonomy of universities is the best single mechanism we have to drive the traditional high academic standards that we believe in.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I had an enjoyable night last Monday at the students’ union awards at Huddersfield university, where many students are enjoying their student experience. When students are exercising their choice and picking their university and course, what additional information does the Minister envisage being made available to them?
Mr Willetts
There is a lot of important information that we think prospective students should have, ranging from the contact hours through to the employment prospects at the end of a course. We think that such information should be widely available. Which? has given a clear indication that it will deploy the information and help prospective students to assess it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
According to the House of Commons Library, there is a funding gap of between £600 million and £1 billion as a result of the mistakes the Minister has made. Are the Government not going too far and too fast on higher education, as on so much else? Is it not true that quality will suffer from his attempts to deal with the funding gap, as we have heard from my hon. Friends? To use his own words, that will be “unfair to students, to universities and to the country.”
Mr Willetts
There is no such funding gap, we are not going too far and too fast, and there is no threat to quality.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
When I voted against the rise in tuition fees, I did so because of the impact I thought it would have on some of our more vulnerable young people. I welcome much that is in the White Paper, particularly the increase in choice. However, the problem with increasing choice is that it can increase confusion. Many young people can access advice from their financially literate and educated parents, but for vulnerable children choice can result in confusion. What work will the Minister do with schools and colleges to ensure that proper support mechanisms are in place to support vulnerable young people?
Mr Willetts
This is about the importance of information, advice and guidance in our schools and colleges. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for his work in examining the matter carefully. I urge Members of all parties to take every opportunity to visit schools and colleges and get past some of the misinformation, and be absolutely clear to young people that no young person or their family will have to pay up front for the opportunity of going into higher education. I regret the anxiety about the matter, but it is misplaced and all Members, whatever their political views, have a shared responsibility to tackle it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
There is concern on both sides of the House about the expansion of the for-profit sector in higher education. Will the Minister not learn from the experience of the United States, where the for-profit sector has a higher failure rate than other universities and is currently being investigated for misrepresentation to prospective students? Will he listen to the concerns of HEFCE, which says that the expansion of the for-profit sector here will damage the reputation of our university system?
Mr Willetts
We are not Americanising our higher education system. There are important differences between the system that we are proposing and the American one, not least of which is universal access to Exchequer-financed loans, which is not possible in the US. Also, there is a robust quality assurance system, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which we are keeping. We are not Americanising the system.
I noted that in what the shadow Minister said there was no recognition of the fact that under the previous Labour Government, five private providers were awarded degree-awarding powers. That seems to me an indication that even the previous Government were not opposed to the private provision of higher education. I very much hope that Labour is not abandoning that position.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When all sorts of universities were obliged to charge the same, a student from a modest economic background had only to consider how well he or she would do in examinations and interviews in order to get a place at the best universities. Now, that potential student will have to consider how much he or she will be paying to go to a good university compared with the lesser amount required for a lesser university. Is that a step forward for meritocracy or a step backwards?
Mr Willetts
My hon. Friend talks about how much they will be paying, but we should remember that no student will pay up front. What will be crucial in determining their repayments is their earnings, and because we have raised the threshold, their monthly repayments, regardless of the university fee, will actually be lower under our proposed system than under the system we inherited from the Labour Government.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I noted the Minister’s answer to the question about the funding gap, but I have to say that I found it quite inadequate. Will he tell the House by how much he will have underestimated the cost to the UK taxpayer should universities choose to charge an average of, say, £8,000?
Mr Willetts
I will happily share with the House the arithmetic on which we have made an estimate, although nobody can know the exact figure. [Interruption.] I can tell the shadow Secretary of State exactly how it is done. We start by assuming that 350,000 students will apply to English universities in October 2012. We assume that 90% of them will take out a student loan, which is actually a rather higher proportion than do so at the moment—who knows whether it will be more or less than that? We assume an average loan, which is not the same as the fee—people may borrow less than the fee—of £7,500. Multiplying all that, we get approximately £2.4 billion of student loans. We are in an uncertain world, but if the hon. Gentleman is claiming, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) did, that there will be £3.4 billion of student loans, I have to tell him that that is very, very unlikely.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Anglia Ruskin university is opening a university campus in Harlow later this year, which will be the first time in the history of the town that we have had a university? I noted that he said in his statement that the Government would extend the scope for employers and charities to offer sponsorship, and talked about the national scholarship programme. Will he explain what that means in practice, so that disadvantaged students in Harlow can benefit from our new university?
Mr Willetts
I do not fully understand my hon. Friend’s proposition, but we are committed to access for students in the circumstances that he describes. Perhaps we can meet to go through his proposition more carefully, but it sounds interesting and imaginative.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Will not the real effect of the Minister’s White Paper be to allow private institutions to cherry-pick those courses that are easiest to deliver, and to drive down costs by driving down quality? What modelling has his Department done of how many courses will cease to exist, and how many existing universities will be non-viable as a result?
Mr Willetts
The hon. Lady and the Labour party must decide whether they are to approach the future of higher education assuming that the private sector is the enemy. If they decide to take that approach, which, as I have said, is different from the one they took in government, they will be making a serious mistake. Students do not think about the exact legal status of the institution they study at; they want to focus on the quality of the education they will receive. We will ensure that any institutions for which students can receive student loans are properly audited, regulated and monitored. That is the right way forward.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I very much welcome the plans to increase the role of business in higher education. Four out of five FTSE 100 companies have sponsored their staff through courses at the Open university in my constituency. Will the Minister say a little more about how he plans to incentivise businesses in that respect, for part-time as well as full-time courses?
Mr Willetts
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s strong commitment to the Open university and his close involvement with it. The OU could be one of the main beneficiaries of the new flexibility with the 20,000 extra places, and we very much expect that it will be able to offer its degree for delivery at a range of local FE colleges and other providers. Our proposals make the funding available for that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has talked a lot about what will happen to the top university institutions and those that were formerly polytechnics, but I am interested in my local university. Hull university is a good, local university, but under the proposals in the White Paper, it will be part of the squeezed middle and will lose places. What is the future for institutions such as Hull university?
Mr Willetts
The future is one in which, year after year, we try to increase the flexibility in the system. We have had to strike a very fine balance in the first year. We wanted a significant shift to more openness and flexibility, but we fully recognise that there is a limit to how much change the system could take in that first year. I do not know the exact intake of the university of Hull, but I very much hope that in future, it, too, can participate in the types of flexibility that we have set out today.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. Does my right hon. Friend envisage an enhanced role for colleges such as West Thames college in my constituency in delivering better outcomes in higher education?
Mr Willetts
West Thames college can put in a bid to HEFCE under the 20,000 places scheme that we have launched today. I very much believe that some further education colleges that offer higher education can take advantage of the new flexibility that we have launched.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I very much trust that as a result of the Minister’s White Paper, excellent colleges such as Newman college, in Bartley Green in Birmingham, can call themselves universities. However, may I take him back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones)? The Minister must have made an assessment that some institutions will no longer be viable. How many will there be, and what provision has he made for the students who will be caught halfway through their courses if their institution becomes non-viable?
Mr Willetts
Successive Governments have never given a guarantee that every institution will carry on. However, it is unlikely that the changes we have launched today will of themselves make any institution unviable—I do not know that, but it is unlikely. Of course, it is also clear that there would be a commitment that any student should be able to complete their studies.
On the hon. Lady’s first point, I very much hope that it will be possible for institutions that have a clear focus on higher education to take the title “university” when they were previously prevented from doing so because they had fewer than 4,000 students. We have said that that should be reviewed, because some excellent higher education institutions would like to take the name “university”. I am sure that any such proposal will be very carefully considered.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the furthering of links between business and universities. Which developing and emerging economies does the Minister think we have most to learn from, and when will Sir Tim Wilson produce his report?
Mr Willetts
I hope that it will be possible for Professor Sir Tim Wilson to report to us by the autumn on his observations. Having visited our main trading partners, encouraging legitimate overseas students to study in the UK and building education contacts, I think there are opportunities for us to learn from them, but equally there remains a great desire among them to learn from us. Some of our vocational qualifications are well respected, especially traditional, well-established qualifications such as City and Guilds, HNCs, HNDs and BTECs. I want to see those expanded, as do the Secretary of State and the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. Indeed, one of the new flexibilities will be to have a BTECU. It will be possible to take BTECs beyond A-level, so we could imagine a level 4 or 5 qualification—it might not be a full-blown honours degree, but it could be called a BTEC even though the organisation offering BTECs is not a teaching institution. That is the type of new flexibility that we are going to make possible so that higher-level vocational qualifications can be properly studied in our country.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I have met the Minister to discuss the difficulties faced by the university of Cumbria in recent years. That institution is trying the difficult process of turning itself around, but does he not accept that the chaotic package of reforms he is suggesting today could increase the risks faced by this university and others like it, which are critical to the economic success of the areas in which they are situated?
Mr Willetts
We on the Government Benches believe in openness, flexibility and innovation, but every time we propose it, Labour Members call it chaos. We are not going to have a central plan, and we are not going to say exactly what the quota is for each individual university—and rightly so. We believe in openness and diversity, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to recognise that moving away from a centrally planned system, which of course will mean less central control, does not mean chaos; it means students getting the higher education they want.
Mr Speaker
Order. As I said to the Justice Secretary the other day, Ministers at the Dispatch Box should not operate like rotating cruise ships, constantly turning round to their own side. It is entirely understandable, but we want to see the right hon. Gentleman.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I very much welcome the White Paper, particularly the provisions for part-time students. Will my right hon. Friend give me more details about his idea for student charters?
Mr Willetts
We invited the outgoing president of the National Union of Students and a vice-chancellor to work together, and they have produced a useful pro forma, which we refer to in the White Paper, and which gives an example of what universities are entitled to expect by way of student behaviour, and what students are entitled to expect by way of respect for them from their higher education institutions.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I want to ask about the Minister’s private providers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) mentioned Poundland. Has the Minister thought about approaching BrightHouse? First, BrightHouse university is a great name, and secondly it is expert at loading heavy debt on to people who cannot afford to repay it.
Mr Willetts
If Labour is going to take this approach to private provision, it is making a serious mistake. We are focused, quite simply, on the quality of the student experience, and this kind of snobbery—that some kinds of provision are okay and others are wrong—is out of place in modern Britain. The hon. Gentleman should remember that all universities are, strictly speaking, private institutions; they are not public sector bodies. Government Members believe in maintaining their autonomy. We wish to see a greater range of universities but all sharing the same feature—that they are not part of the public sector.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
When the previous Government increased fees, students started to ask about the value for money provided by their courses. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that in future students get better teaching and a better overall experience at university?
Mr Willetts
Universities will have to provide far more information about that than they have in the past. We hope that they will provide the kind of information that local authorities now provide to council tax payers—that is, about how the money that students have paid in fees is being used. The more information, the better.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister has made much of wanting to introduce equality into the system, but one thing that infuriates many students, particularly from my constituency, is having to watch those who go to so-called charitable private schools easily obtaining places in the best universities. I did not hear the Minister say no in answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), so will he now say whether those students will be able to purchase places? If they will, they could get into the best universities not on merit but on their ability to pay.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Like many Government Members, I particularly welcome the support for universities working with business. Will he ensure that Professor Wilson’s review does not just cover sandwich courses, but covers the support that they can provide their graduates, such as that provided by the very good paid graduate intern scheme supported by the university of Worcester?
Mr Willetts
I am aware of that scheme at the university of Worcester, which was very imaginative. My hon. Friend is right that the review will go beyond sandwich courses. Again, because we will expect universities to publish information about the employment outcomes for their graduates, this will give them a much stronger incentive to make more efforts to ensure that their graduates are indeed employable.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome this excellent statement because it paves the way for more quality and better choice. How will we encourage businesses to co-operate with universities to encourage research and development?
Mr Willetts
There are some barriers here. One of our frustrations—I am sure that we have all come across examples of this—is that small and medium-sized enterprises might like the use of a piece of equipment that they could not afford to buy themselves, or they might like some technical advice on a project, but they do not realise that there is a university in the area that might have that piece of equipment or those technical experts. The SME does not necessarily ever step foot inside the university, and does not know what is available. We want to break down those barriers, and that is what we are looking to Professor Tim Wilson’s review to tackle.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Although I support relaxing the Stalinist quotas that we have had in our universities, I am concerned that a flat AAB hurdle may disincentivise people from taking subjects such as science and maths, which state school students are already half as likely to take as their independent school counterparts. What can the Minister do to address that?
Mr Willetts
In a letter that the Secretary of State and I have sent to HEFCE today we make clear our continuing commitment to strategically important and vulnerable subjects. We will of course monitor the effects of the change in the first year, but we wish to take it further, so that gradually more and more A-level grades are included in the system.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend work with the Secretary of State for Education to introduce a system of post-A-level university applications? The current system, whereby many students are offered places based on their predicted grades, is bureaucratic and inefficient, and undermines the opportunity of many of our most disadvantaged students to get places, because their grades are routinely under-predicted. Will my right hon. Friend consider this long overdue reform?
Mr Willetts
I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s points, which are important. The current system is exceptionally complicated, with a large amount of interaction between the prospective student and the university. We have asked UCAS to look into the situation, and we will await its proposals. The idea would take some time to implement—I suspect that successive Governments have wrestled with this challenge—but it is also one that we put forward in the White Paper.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that these proposals, together with the Government’s previously announced reforms, will lead to more two-year degrees, as opposed to three-year degrees, and is that something that he would wish to encourage?
Mr Willetts
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the kind of flexibility that we wish to see in the new system.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Will the White Paper strengthen the link between universities and employers, so that we can get even more of our graduates into employment, post-university?
Mr Willetts
The White Paper is absolutely committed to that, and there are many different ways of doing it. For example, we could do it by encouraging the revival of the sandwich course, or by ensuring that university courses were kitemarked as ones that employers valued. And yes, it might indeed be the case, as we have seen with KPMG, that employers wish to sponsor students at university. If there were no Exchequer costs involved, that could provide extra places, so there are lots of different ways we could achieve what my hon. Friend quite rightly wants.
Point of Order
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the case of Mr Raed Salah was raised in the House. Today, we have learned from the media that that man was banned from entering the UK on the ground of extremism. Apparently, however, he has just strolled through the border past border control, and we now learn from the papers that the Home Secretary has ordered the police to track him down and arrest him. Do you not think, Mr Speaker, that rather than briefing the papers on this matter, the Home Secretary should be briefing the House on what has happened and how this incompetence has arisen? She promised tougher border controls, but there is no evidence of that in this case. There is just chaos and confusion. Mr Speaker, have you the power to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and explain exactly how a banned extremist has apparently just walked into this country with no one able or willing to stop him?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Home Secretary or other Ministers to make a statement to the House on that matter, but his point of order will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. Such a statement might of course be forthcoming, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a range of means by which the presence of Ministers can be secured. I hope that that is helpful to him and to the House.
Bail (Amendment)
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer upon the prosecution a right of appeal against judges’ decisions to grant bail; and for connected purposes.
The prosecution’s right of appeal in bail cases currently applies only to bail granted by a magistrates court. I present this Bill in response to the murder of my constituent, Jane Clough. Jane was murdered on 25 July last year by her ex-partner Jonathan Vass, who was out on bail at the time despite a series of charges having been brought against him. Jane Clough, a 25-year-old accident and emergency nurse, was murdered by Jonathan Vass in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital just before she was due to start her shift at work. On 14 October last year, Jonathan Vass was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in jail, but the failure of the justice system before that trial is the reason that I am bringing forward the Bill today.
Jane’s murder occurred while Jonathan Vass was on bail following a series of charges for previous crimes that he had committed against Jane. He had been charged with nine counts of rape, and with four counts of common assault and sexual assault against her. By murdering Jane, Jonathan Vass ensured that the only witness to his crimes could not testify against him. Jane had displayed great bravery in going to the authorities to report the abuse that Jonathan Vass was subjecting her to while she was pregnant with their child. Like many victims of domestic violence, she put her faith in our legal system, but our legal system failed to protect her. Before granting Jonathan Vass bail, Judge Simon Newell was advised by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that he should not grant bail due to the severity of the crimes with which Jonathan Vass had been charged. However, Judge Newell failed to provide Jane with the necessary protection from a man who posed a real danger to her.
In a statement made by the Judicial Communications Office following Jane’s murder, it was said that Judge Newell was acting within the bounds of the Bail Act 1976, working under the general assumption that bail should be granted in all cases except in specific circumstances. The statement went on to say that the judge was not told of any of Jane’s concerns and that no evidence was presented to make him aware that Jonathan Vass would go on to commit further crime, having been seen as a paramedic with previous good character—a statement that Jane’s parents and the Crown Prosecution Service would strongly contest.
The law needs to be changed to allow the prosecution a right of appeal, so that in such a case the CPS or the Attorney-General could have challenged Judge Newell’s verdict. We need to rebalance the legal standing of bail verdicts. At the moment, the system is unfairly weighted towards the defendant. Even if Jonathan Vass had been denied bail, he would have been able to appeal that decision almost indefinitely, whereas the prosecution currently has no right of appeal to judge-made bail decisions. Even if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General wanted to appeal the granting of bail to Jonathan Vass, he could not have done so.
We can all see from the murder of Jane that the warnings given to the judge by the police and the CPS should have been heeded. Jonathan Vass’s history of offences towards Jane should have persuaded Judge Newell that he posed a serious threat to her, which would only escalate once she had reported him to the authorities. The bail conditions applied to Jonathan Vass provided Jane with little protection from any retaliation. In her diary, Jane wrote of her fear that Jonathan Vass would break bail and come for her and her daughter, that he would do something to hurt her and that nothing would stop him once he was released. While Jonathan Vass was free, Jane became a prisoner in her own home: the doors were always locked; she was afraid to go anywhere alone. Jane was scared for her own and her daughter’s safety from the moment she heard that Jonathan Vass had been released. Effectively, the wrong person had been locked up.
It is my opinion that the Bail Act 1976 should be amended to provide more protection for victims of crime such as Jane Clough. If Jonathan Vass had not been granted bail on the 13 charges against him, he would have been able to appeal the decision—a luxury not currently afforded to the prosecution. The amendment I propose would not only give the right of appeal to the prosecution, but give victims and their families more influence over the legal process.
I imagine that many of us here today know of many other legal proceedings where victims and families of victims have felt they had little knowledge or influence over what was being decided. We need to give victims of crime, and particularly of domestic violence, the reassurance that their voices will be heard and that their abusers will not be able to intimidate or hurt them.
The problem appears to be widespread in our legal system. The most recent figures I have been able to find were released in 2009 under the Freedom of Information Act and show that in excess of 30,000 crimes were committed by suspects who were on bail at the time. Most disturbingly, at least 27 murders were among those statistics. Although bail decisions will never be easy to make, surely those figures are a cause for alarm.
At the time that those figures were released, my right hon. and learned Friend was quoted in The Daily Telegraph, making the point that the legal system is set up in such a way that bail is too readily given and too weakly enforced. He went on to say that it was shocking that so many serious crimes were committed by people awaiting trial and that the Government must put public protection first. I hope that as Attorney-General he is still committed to that, as my Bill would empower him or the CPS to challenge bail decisions that are clearly wrong.
By allowing the prosecution to appeal against bail decisions, we will make sure that judges can be held accountable for the decisions they make. Even the best judge will not get every decision right and surely there should be a safeguard for when a decision is made that clearly looks ill-advised or incomprehensible. Making such a change would also protect the rights and freedoms of victims of crime and their families. As I previously mentioned, Jane became a prisoner in her own home. It strikes me as totally unacceptable that Jonathan Vass was allowed to roam free, while Jane lived under the constant shadow of her tormentor and rapist. I have received support from across the House from more than 50 MPs who want to see this issue addressed. We must ensure that victims of crime are protected from further punishment.
The murder of Jane Clough has highlighted several issues in our legal system that need to be addressed. The case raises questions relating to the accountability of judges, the granting of bail, the treatment of victims of rape, and sentencing policy. I pay tribute to John and Penny Clough, who are in the Public Gallery today, to their friends and family, and to all who are working with them to ensure that there is justice for Jane. They have shown tremendous courage in fighting not just for their daughter but, as they would put it, for all the other Jane Cloughs out there.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Stephenson, Esther McVey, Heather Wheeler, Robert Flello, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Bob Russell, Lorraine Fullbrook, Paul Maynard, Hugh Bayley, Tracey Crouch, Jackie Doyle Price and Lorely Burt present the Bill.
Andrew Stephenson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 20 January 2012 and to be printed (Bill 210).
Finance Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:46 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 23 / Noes: 473 - Question accordingly negatived.
01:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
13:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Eligible medical insurance contracts—
‘(1) This section has effect to determine whether a contract is at a particular time (the relevant time) an eligible contract for the purposes of section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)].
(2) A contract is an eligible contract at the relevant time if—
(a) it was entered into by an insurer who at the time it was entered into was a qualifying insurer and was approved by the Commissioners for the purposes of this section,
(b) the period of insurance under the contract does not exceed one year (commencing with the date it was entered into),
(c) the contract is not connected with any other contract at the relevant time and has not been connected with any other contract at any time since it was entered into,
(d) no benefit has been provided by virtue of the contract other than an approved benefit, and
(e) the contract meets one or more of the three conditions set out below.
(3) The first condition is that the contract is certified by the Commissioners under section [Certification of contracts] at the relevant time.
(4) The second condition is that, at the time the contract was entered into, it conformed with a standard form certified by the Commissioners as a standard form of eligible contract.
(5) The third condition is that, at the time the contract was entered into, it conformed with a form varying from a standard form so certified in no other respect than by making additions—
(a) which were (at the time the contract was entered into) certified by the Commissioners as compatible with an eligible contract when made to standard form, and
(b) which (at that time) satisfied any conditions subject to which the additions were so certified.
(6) Where a contract is varied, and the relevant time falls after the time the variation takes effect, subsections (1) to (5) above shall have effect as if “entered into” read “varied” in each place where it occurs in subsections (4) and (5) above.
(7) For the purposes of this section a contract is connected with another contract at any time if—
(a) they are simultaneously in force at that time,
(b) either of them was entered into with reference to the other, or with a view to enabling the other to be entered into on particular terms, or with a view to facilitating the other being entered into on particular terms, and
(c) the terms on which either of them was entered into would have been significantly less favourable to the insured if the other had not been entered into.
(8) For the purposes of this section each of the following is a qualifying insurer—
(a) an insurer lawfully carrying on in the United Kingdom business relating to insurance;
(b) an insurer not carrying on business in the United Kingdom but carrying on business in another member State and being either a national of a member State or a company or partnership formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or another member State and having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business in a member State.
(9) For the purposes of this section a benefit is an approved benefit if it is provided in pursuance of a right of a description mentioned in section [Certification of contracts] (3)(a).’.
New clause 3—Certification of contracts—
‘(1) The Commissioners shall certify a contract under this section if it satisfies the conditions set out in subsection (3) below; and the certification shall be expressed to take effect from the time the conditions are satisfied, and shall take effect accordingly.
(2) The Commissioners shall revoke a certification of a contract under this section if it comes to their notice that the contract has ceased to satisfy the conditions set out in subsection (3) below; and the revocation shall be expressed to take effect from the time the conditions ceased to be satisfied, and shall take effect accordingly.
(3) The conditions referred to above are that—
(a) the contract either provides indemnity in respect of all or any of the costs of all or any of the treatments, medical services and other matters for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury, or in addition to providing indemnity of that description provides cash benefits falling within rules for the time being so specified,
(b) the contract does not confer any right other than such a right as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury,
(c) the premium under the contract is in the Commissioners’ opinion reasonable, and
(d) the contract satisfies such other requirements as are for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury.
(4) The certification of a contract by the Commissioners under this section shall cease to have effect if the contract is varied; but this is without prejudice to the application of the preceding provisions of this section to the contract as varied.
(5) Where the Commissioners refuse to certify a contract under this section, or they revoke a certification, an appeal may be made to the relevant Tribunal by—
(a) the insurer, or
(b) any person who (if the policy were certified) would be entitled to relief under section 1 above.
(6) Where a contract is certified under this section, or a certification is revoked or otherwise ceases to have effect, any adjustments resulting from the certification or from its revocation or ceasing to have effect shall be made.
(7) Subsection (6) above applies where a certification or revocation takes place on appeal as it applies in the case of any other certification or revocation.
(8) In this section the reference to a premium, in relation to a contract of insurance, is to any amount payable under the contract to the insurer.’.
New clause 4—Medical insurance: supplementary—
‘(1) The Commissioners may by regulations—
(a) provide that a claim under section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)] (3) or (6)(b) shall be made in such form and manner, shall be made at such time, and shall be accompanied by such documents, as may be prescribed;
(b) make provision, in relation to payments in respect of which a person is entitled to relief under section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)], for the giving by insurers in such circumstances as may be prescribed of certificates of payment in such form as may be prescribed to such persons as may be prescribed;
(c) provide that a person who provides (or has at any time provided) insurance under contracts of private medical insurance shall comply with any notice which is served on him by the Commissioners and which requires him within a prescribed period to make available for the Commissioners inspection documents (of a prescribed kind) relating to such contracts;
(d) provide that persons of such a description as may be prescribed shall, within a prescribed period of being required to do so by the Commissioners, furnish to the Commissioners information (of a prescribed kind) about contracts of private medical insurance;
(e) make provision with respect to the approval of insurers for the purposes of section [Eligible medical insurance contracts] and the withdrawal of approval for the purposes of that section;
(f) make provision for and with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to the giving or withdrawal of approval of insurers for the purposes of section [Eligible medical insurance contracts];
(g) make provision with resepect to the certification by the Commissioners of standard forms of eligible contract and variations from standard forms of eligible contract certified by them;
(h) make provision for and with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to the certification of standard forms of eligible contract or variations from standard forms of eligible contract certified by them;
(i) provide that certification, or the revocation of a certification, under section [Certification of contracts] shall be carried out in such form and manner as may be prescribed;
(j) make provision with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to certification or the revocation of certification under section [Certification of contracts];
(k) make provision generally as to administration in connection with sections [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)] to [Certification of contracts].
(2) In subsection (1) above—
“eligible contract” has the meaning given by section [Eligible medical insurance contracts], and
“prescribed” means prescribed by or, in relation to form, under the regulations.’.
Sir Paul Beresford
The new clauses would provide tax relief on medical insurance premiums for people above a certain age. “Pensioners” might be a better description of them. As a very part-time dentist, I must declare a potential interest, but I had better declare a further potential interest, as birthdays keep relentlessly coming upon me—and the rest of us.
As in much of the south-east, life expectancy in Surrey is somewhat higher than the England mean. The average life expectancy in England is about 78 for males and 82 for females, while in Surrey the figures are about 82 and 86 respectively. Moreover, the proportion of those aged 65 and over in my constituency is about one in five, or 20%. It is obvious to me, as one with a professional interest in health and as an observer of my constituents’ health, that that longevity brings with it a higher demand for health care and imposes large demands on health services, especially cardiac, carcinoma and orthopaedic services. A planeload of Surrey Saga tourists would really set the airport metal detectors buzzing as the hip and knee replacements proceeded towards take-off.
The Mole Valley constituency is served by three good national health service hospitals: East Surrey hospital, Royal Surrey County hospital at Guildford, and Epsom hospital. Those hospitals have expanded in certain health areas to meet the increasing demand for treatment from the elderly, the best example being Epsom, which has a special orthopaedic unit where more than 3,000 hip and knee replacement operations are carried out annually, almost entirely on elderly people from surrounding areas such as Mole Valley. As a result of those medical problems there has been a call for an enhanced and enlarged cardiac unit at Epsom as part of the retention and refurbishment of that much-loved hospital. I have given those two examples to illustrate the increasing demand for national health service care from, predominantly, those aged over 65. That increasing demand is not specific to Mole Valley or even Surrey, but is, to a greater or lesser degree, nationwide among that age group.
My older constituents are also served by private hospital services. Some are relatively local and some are in London, but there is choice for patients. Approximately 12.5% of the United Kingdom population are currently covered by private health insurance, and about 70% of that cover is corporate while about 30% is individual. On retirement, many may wish to take over their corporate private health insurance, but the personal cost becomes a heavy factor. Additionally, many of those who fund their health insurance personally may not feel able to do so when a regular personal income is just a pension or savings. That means that, just as their need for health care is likely to increase, those individuals turn to the national health service and absorb facilities and costs that they would not use if they could be persuaded to retain or take out private health insurance and use the private sector.
Before March 1997, when tax relief was available to those over 60, it was estimated that tax relief was paid in respect of 400,000 contracts to cover about 600,000 individuals.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his new clause. Is he aware that a ComRes poll of 150 Members of Parliament found that 66% of Conservative MPs supported the return of tax relief on private insurance for pensioners? That is hardly surprising when even the Major Government gave that elementary service to our elderly people.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my hon. Friend. One of the delightful things about his intervention is the increase in my education.
Over seven years from 1990, tax relief for the over-60s cost £560 million. However, that included a period when the relief was across all taxpayer rates. In 1994, that was reduced to apply to the basic rate of tax only. Unlike in my proposal, the relief started then at 60, not at 65, so my proposal would reduce the cost to the Revenue in real terms compared to pre-1997.
In 1997 the Labour Government cancelled the tax relief for pensioners, and Western Provident Association estimated that 40% of pensioners would discontinue their private health service. Which? magazine reported in 2002 that private health insurance coverage was lowest in the 65-plus age group. Those who choose to have personally funded private health insurance pay twice for their health—premiums and tax. It would be safe to assume that nigh on 100% of those aged 65 and above are personally funding their health insurance. It is their choice, and for many it may mean sacrificing other choices that may affect their lifestyle.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend also give us some idea of the saving in NHS expenses that results from people taking out cover and going privately?
Sir Paul Beresford
I would love to, but I am numerically dyslexic and English is my second language so I have some difficulty. I am sure that the next time I raise this possibility, I can bring those facts forward.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and proud to support the new clause. Does he agree that there is real concern about the cost to the NHS as estimates of longevity rise, and that his measure is likely to carve out a portion of that and protect the position for the over-65s, who will be an ever larger group?
Sir Paul Beresford
I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that, it would allow spaces for the NHS to provide choice and opportunity.
The new clauses would allow basic tax relief at 65-plus and rising, and the age would rise as the pensionable age increased. It would encourage people either to keep or take out health insurance just as they reached the period of life in which demand can be expected to increase. If they do not have or cease to have insurance, they will add to the call on the NHS. This approach in no way degrades my or, indeed, their respect for the NHS, but it is intended to take some of the load of numbers and cost off our tax-paid national health service.
As UK life expectancy increases, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) just mentioned, and as the wonders of medical research improve, our pensioners’ life expectancy and well-being will increase. That will be an incentive for more to choose not only to pay their taxes—thus supporting the NHS—but to use health insurance to take an increasing load off our NHS, to the benefit of others.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the new clauses. I have to say that it is pleasing to see the real Conservative party still alive and kicking on the Back Benches, wanting to create a privilege for a small section of the population. I understand that when tax relief was in operation, it affected only about 5% of the population. It feels as if we are going back in time a little, because if we accepted the new clause we would be stepping back to the late 1980s, when the Conservative party introduced relief on private health insurance—I acknowledge that the new clause would apply to the over-65s, rather than to the over-60s, as was the case then. That was introduced to address a lot of the arguments put by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford); the aim was to try to ensure that people would be given choice. I hasten to add that people have a choice if they can afford it, but they have no choice whatsoever if they cannot. I believe, as I understand the Conservative Front-Bench team does these days, that we should seek to improve the health service and opportunities for all, rather than give a tax cut and perk to a very small section of the population.
Mr Leigh
Surely the point is that the proposal applies to pensioners, that they have paid tax all their life and that, just at an age when they might need private medical care, they find that their insurance premiums rocket. Surely it is only elementary natural justice that they should get tax relief on those insurance premiums.
Mr Jones
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why a low-paid worker in South Stanley in my constituency who has worked hard all his or her life should be given no tax relief or assistance and should pay their taxes just to give a tax relief and perk to individuals who not only might be able to pay for care, but who have an advantage over them. We should seek to ensure equal access to health care.
I understand what has been said about waiting lists and the health service, but when I was elected in 2001 my constituency contained two old hospitals, one of which—the old workhouse—was a disgrace. We now have two new hospitals, thanks to a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned hip and knee replacements, and I can tell him that the industrial legacy of a mining community meant that my area had a long waiting list; it was not uncommon for people to wait for more than two years. I recall people coming to my surgery arguing about how they could get up the list any faster. Waiting lists have more or less been abolished over the intervening 10-year period, which is testament to the changes the previous Labour Government made and the investment we put in. Investment in the health service should be about ensuring equal access to care, not about giving a tax perk to a very small section of the population—the less than 5% who actually have private health insurance—as this proposal seeks to do.
Mr Redwood
I would be more persuaded by this argument if the Labour party had, when in office, prevented the rich from buying the health care they wanted when they wanted it. The truth is that neither the Labour party in office, nor the coalition Government, have had any intention of preventing the rich from using their power and wealth to get the health care they want. The new clause is a measure to enable people who are not that rich to be able to do so.
Mr Jones
The facts do not bear that out, and I shall return to that point in a moment. If people wish to spend their money on health care, that is entirely up to them—I am not opposed to that. What I am saying is that I and others should not be subsidising that choice. We should be putting the money, as the Labour Government did, into ensuring that the general population have access to good-quality NHS care and do not have to worry about the cost.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful socialist speech, which is nice to hear in this Chamber. Is he not wrong about the new clause, however, because we would not be subsiding from the taxpayer? Anyone who takes out new private medical insurance because of the subsidy would be saving money for the NHS and so more money could be spent on the people who wish to use the NHS? [Interruption.]
Mr Jones
Not necessarily, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) says from a sedentary position. As I have seen in my constituency, people who have access to the private sector cherry-pick. Routine operations might be covered by private health insurance but with the more difficult, specialist treatments, the last recourse is often the NHS. A few years ago, a constituent of mine came to my surgery and complained that she could not get her knee replaced on the NHS. I found that remarkable, because by that stage the waiting lists were reduced in my constituency, until I found out from the NHS trust that there were medical reasons why she could not have that operation at that time—basically, she had weight and heart problems. She subsequently had the operation in the private sector, against all the advice, and lo and behold, when there were complications they were picked up not by the private sector but by the NHS. A full NHS care package and local social services were needed to support that woman through an operation that she was determined to have against medical advice.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am delighted to be regarded as the true face of the Conservative party, but I am also very pleased that there are lots of other true faces of the Conservative party present to listen to this debate. Not everyone recalls the great excitement that there was in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches back in 1989 when the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Justice Secretary, said that he was going to introduce tax relief for health insurance premiums. That policy, which was announced in a health White Paper and then put into practice in the 1990 Budget by Nigel Lawson, was the action of a self-confident Conservative Government. That same self-confidence carried on through the years when John Major was Prime Minister, and right up to 2001, when a proposal to restore the relief, which had been taken away by the mean Labour Government, was in our manifesto. Since then, we seem to have rather lost our way.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of losing his way, but can he remember why the Labour Government did that? It was not just because the relief was unfair but because they went on to use part of the money to reduce the VAT on heating fuel.
Mr Chope
That was the excuse put forward at the time, but I doubt whether it was the real justification. I suspect that the real justification was a feeling on the part of a lot of socialists—people on the Labour side of the House—who resented the idea that the health service should in any way be funded by the private sector. The problem we have in this country is that although our health service is funded by taxpayer money to the extent of most health services across the G7 or G8 countries, we lag behind those other countries in that we do not have enough private sector contributions to the health service. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is brilliant, because it sends out a very strong signal to people that we want to encourage them to participate in and contribute to the cost of their health care.
It is good for people to contribute to the cost of their health care, and that of their family, if they can afford so to do. Some people who can afford to do that pay for their health care outright: in a sense, they pay as they go. Others who can afford to do that pay through insurance policies. Yet others who can afford to do that do not make a contribution at all, because they believe that it is in the national interest that the whole cost of their health care should be borne by other taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than they are. Those are the three categories, and we should try to move more people from the category of those who could afford to pay for, or contribute towards, their health care but do not, into the category of those who do contribute.
Mr Jones
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand where he is coming from. However, the scheme introduced in the 1980s did not do what he wants. It basically just gave a tax cut to about 500,000 people who already had private plans, so it did not work the last time it was tried.
Mr Chope
Obviously, the Treasury will always say that there is what is described as a dead-weight cost associated with such initiatives, in that people who would be paying for health insurance anyway would get the tax relief—but that is looking at only part of the issue. What I am trying to do—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in his new clause—is to encourage more people to come into that category, so that we grow that cohort of people. We certainly do not want to allow that cohort to be reduced, as it inevitably is when people who were on schemes provided by their employers retire and lose that provision. Taking on that burden, or responsibility, for themselves is a significant expense; my hon. Friend’s new clause would not eliminate that cost, but it would reduce it by a useful amount.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell us how, in the current financial situation, we could pay for any dead-weight costs? Where would the money come from?
Mr Chope
It is a matter of seeing what the countervailing benefits would be, because obviously, if as a result of my hon. Friend’s new clause a lot more people who are not contributing anything towards the cost of their health care started to do so, thereby reducing the burden on the NHS, the dead-weight cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentions would be exceeded by the overall benefits, and a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. More people who are getting health care in this country would be paying for it, or contributing to its cost, rather than relying on the state and the taxpayer to do so.
Mr Leigh
The dead-weight cost argument is always used against ideas such as school vouchers or tax relief for health insurance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of such proposals is to help the people in the middle? Quite rightly, Parliament is concerned about the people at the bottom of the heap, and the rich can always buy their way out, but this part of the Conservative party should help the people who struggle all their lives, and pay tax all their lives.
Mr Chope
Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of resentment about the fact that people who arrive in this country can latch on to the health service, at no cost to themselves, when they have not made any contribution at all. The new clause would give people who have been making a contribution, either through their employers or by paying insurance premiums themselves, a bit of help in the form of tax relief when they retire. We are talking about modest sums, but that would send a useful message and be an incentive.
Mr Kevan Jones
If we were designing a system to increase the number of people with private health insurance, would not this proposal be a very inefficient way of doing it? I must draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and King’s Fund report, which showed that when the scheme was abolished, 0.7% of people—4,000 people—gave up their policy. It strikes me that for most people, the scheme was a not a great incentive to buy health insurance.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman quotes figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that go back, I think, to 2001—10 years ago. What concerns me is that there has been no update of those figures. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, comes forward with up-to-date statistics that show that the Government have been considering the issue seriously, obviously I will listen to his arguments, as I always do.
I am concerned that the issue has become one that the coalition Government do not want to discuss, and they are not prepared to commission research into it. They are not prepared to consider the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that our proposal would generate more private sources of income for the health service. The Government are going for the simplistic version and concentrating on the idea that there would be an up-front dead-weight cost. There might be, but that would be outweighed by the other benefits.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the individual making the payment should not make it out of resources provided by another person for the purpose of enabling it to be made? If he can explain that, does he not believe that it would require a desperately intrusive large state to undertake investigations to ensure that the provisions in the new clause were adhered to?
Mr Chope
The new clauses being considered together are a word-for-word recital of the original legislation. The hon. Gentleman may have some good points, but I hope that those will not be taken by the Minister, because they would be points against the measures that followed the 1990 Budget.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am simply trying to establish the extent of Government intrusion that would be required in order to enforce the clauses that he supports. The Government would have to intervene and find out whether the funds being made available for the premium had been supplied by a third party—perhaps children who wanted to help their ageing parents. How would the restriction be enforced?
Mr Chope
In the same way as it was enforced before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley says. As the insurance companies will be the beneficiaries, in a sense, because more business will be created for them, the provisions of the new clauses require those insurance companies, in effect, to participate in a regulatory regime supervised by the Treasury. That is the reasonable safeguard that we had before, and it would be a reasonable safeguard in the future. I am delighted if the hon. Gentleman’s only objection to the new clause is that whingeing technical objection, because that must mean that he is in favour of the substance of it.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. I am puzzled that Labour Members oppose the new clause as creeping privatisation, because when they were in office they privatised large sections of the NHS, with the independent sector treatment centre programme. I do not see how those two views sit together.
Mr Chope
As so often, my hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has got Opposition Members back on their haunches as a result of that good intervention.
Let us look at the total contribution made to health spending in this country by the private sector. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) quoted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that came out in 2001. It said:
“Despite the increase in use of the private sector, private spending on health care makes up only 16.3 per cent of total health spending in the UK, which is lower than in any other G7 country.”
It goes on to describe how low health spending was as a percentage of gross domestic product. I concede, and am pleased, that since then health spending as a percentage of GDP has increased, but the percentage of private contributions to health care has not increased commensurately, as it should have done.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
That has been used as an argument against privatising the national health service, because the reason why the United States spends such a high proportion of its GDP on health care is that there is a completely free market there. The hon. Gentleman is actually making an argument for the national health service.
Mr Chope
I certainly support the national health service, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. My point is that even in very socialistic countries, such as Sweden, the other Scandinavian countries and others in Europe—quite apart from the United States—the proportion of total health spending that comes from the private sector is much higher than it is in this country. I think that it would be much better if a higher proportion of our total health spending came from the private sector and from individuals and companies.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Where is the evidence for that? The old scheme that the hon. Gentleman says was so great clearly did not do that, for example in relation to waiting lists. It would cost £140 million, and it would be far better if that money went into the health service to improve care for all, rather than to the small section of society that he is trying to benefit.
Mr Chope
Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.
Mr Leigh
Is my hon. Friend not being very moderate? Surely there is an argument for giving everyone tax relief, which is how we would move to a continental-type system with much better health outcomes, and blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors. That is what we, as Conservatives, should believe in.
Mr Chope
I absolutely agree, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who tabled the new clauses, is a gradualist by nature; that goes back to his time as leader of Wandsworth council, when he was preparing for his time in Parliament and knew that things could not be done immediately but must be done gradually. He can speak for himself when he contributes to the debate, but perhaps that gradualism is part of his thinking.
I will finish soon, because many Members wish to contribute, but let us first put this suggestion in perspective by thinking about roughly how much it would cost. Let us suppose that an average health premium is about £2,000, which a pensioner or pensioner family would be faced with paying, and which previously their employer had paid as part of a contributory or non-contributory occupational scheme. Many pensioners would not pay that, but if we gave them the tax relief, which would amount to more than £400, I submit that many of them would carry on paying for their insurance, thereby contributing towards the cost of the health service, which would be a benefit.
The last time I spoke in a debate on a Finance Bill on Report it was about insurance premium tax. The insurance premiums paid for health insurance are already subject to tax, which the Treasury keeps increasing, so an alternative way forward might be to abolish the insurance premium tax paid on health insurance contributions. That is a separate argument and not the subject of this group of new clauses, but it serves as an example. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury would obviously say that we could not afford that—but does he realise that if we increased the number of people taking out health insurance, the Treasury would receive a lot more in insurance premium tax? I am sure that he will take that into account when he—in due course, having done the proper research—tells us the costs and benefits of the proposals in the new clauses.
We should not forget that the dynamic effect of these taxation changes could deliver great benefits and dividends. It is important to send a strong message to those who can afford to contribute towards their health care costs but who currently do not do so, that this would enable them to contribute at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case. I think that it is a well-rounded and sensible proposal, and I am delighted that it is getting so much support from colleagues on the Government side of the House.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I am sure that people across the country would be astonished to discover that the first priority of Back-Bench Tories on health spending is to give a tax concession to people who pay, on average, £2,000 a year towards health insurance, because most people over 65 are in no position to pay such a sum towards health insurance. Most people across the country, including many pensioners, and perhaps even those pensioners who have private health insurance, think that the first priority for spending should be to avoid some of the cuts that the Government are already introducing and to direct spending to the national health service.
Mr Redwood
I just want to correct the record, because our first priority was to have a wider range of drugs to treat cancer, as we thought that the previous system was too meanly constructed, and we were proud of the Government when they made that the No. 1 priority for extra spending.
Frank Dobson
But that decision has been and gone, and I do not think there was any opposition to it across the House, but we are now talking about the Bill. The Government now propose that the first priority should be to spend the best part of £200 million to give a subsidy to people who are already sufficiently well off that they can pay £2,000 on average towards their private health care costs. I do not think that that is a sensible priority for anyone concerned about health care. I hope that no Tory Members, or Lib Dem Members if they support this proposal, will parade outside their local hospitals saying, “Please don’t get rid of 200 nurses, or some of the doctors, or our ambulance and emergency service, and please don’t take away our maternity unit.” That will be because some of their colleagues thought that the first priority was to spend £200 million on people who are considerably better off than the average.
Government Members have said that the rich can afford to buy private health care and that most rich pensioners already have it. Some extreme marketeer right-wingers both here and in the United States think that health insurance should be abolished because, if people have to pay for health care costs out of their income or savings, they will be a source of pressure to bring down those costs, but Government Back Benchers have not reached that extreme marketisation approach yet.
Mr Bone
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and I should say something nice about his speech, but I cannot think of anything. This Government’s first priority on health, however, was to make sure that we increased health spending at more than the rate of inflation. It was something that his party would not guarantee.
Frank Dobson
Let us turn to a bit of history. When the previous scheme was introduced, neither the Department of Health nor the Treasury made any calculation whatever of what it would cost the taxpayer. It was a decision flying blind—[Interruption.] I notice the Financial Secretary looking to the Box, but if those in the Box give him an honest answer, he will have to confirm that the Treasury made no calculation of the cost of introducing the scheme originally and neither did the Department of Health. When I had the scheme abolished, I found it very difficult to discover how much it had cost. It took the Treasury quite a bit of time, too, because it had not logged the effect of the scheme—which it introduced.
The proposition is that, if people have private health insurance, they will not place any demands on the national health service. First, however, they would get the tax concession most of the time, but, during the years—one would hope that there were many of them—when they did not need any health care at all from anybody, they would not be relieving demand on the national health service because they would not have any demand to supply.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has already pointed out, large numbers of people—certainly if they have a difficult or complex operation—do not resort to their private health insurance, because private providers are not up to providing them with the quality of care that is needed, so they resort to the national health service.
I remember a proposal to build a private hospital on the Odeon site on Tottenham Court road, and the brochure that the projectors of this brilliant scheme provided had a paragraph that can be summarised as stating, “It doesn’t matter if anything goes wrong in our private hospital, because you’ll be next door to the world-famous University College hospital, so you’ll be transferred there and then you’ll be okay.” Almost all intensive care is provided in the national health service; private sector providers do not generally provide it, so when things go wrong people are shifted.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we wanted to move to the market-led initiative that some Government Back Benchers have put forward, we would find that private hospitals had to train all the nurses and doctors whom they currently get through state-subsidy and training in the NHS?
Frank Dobson
The private sector creams off the straightforward, relatively simple and less risky operations for people who are otherwise healthy, leaving the national health service to provide similar operations for people who are unhealthy, which can be much more complex. For instance, if someone needs their hip joint replaced, and they are okay apart from their bad hip, that is fairly straightforward, but, if they have a dickey heart or something wrong with a kidney, it is altogether more complex, and you can bet your boots that that operation will take place in an NHS hospital. Similarly, an NHS hospital will provide intensive care, accident and emergency care and emergency beds, and it will carry out the training that by and large the private sector does not.
All those burdens stay with the NHS, none of it transfers to the private sector, and we are being asked to provide a tax incentive for people to do something that they do already. There was no evidence in the 1990s of any increase in the use of private health insurance as a result of the Government’s tax benefit.
Charlie Elphicke
The right hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions, and he has a long-held principled position on the national health service. On the private sector creaming off, as he would say, the easy cases, does he agree that, first, he would not have acceded to the independent sector treatment centres programme and, secondly, that it was wrong for the private sector in that case to charge for operations which were not carried out?
Frank Dobson
When I was Health Secretary, I agreed to the establishment of national health service units that undertook diagnostic and straightforward treatment on straightforward conditions. I thought that it was a sensible idea, but unfortunately my successors decided to privatise it, and it has to be said that then, John, now Lord, Hutton was not good at getting bargains for the taxpayer. He agreed a scheme whereby on average the private sector was paid 11% more per operation than the national health service, and the private providers were also paid when they did not do all the operations that they were contracted to do. Some got 11% more for operations that were not actually carried out, so I am no fan of such arrangements, but, having opposed them right from the start, I do not recall any cries of “Hosanna!” from the Tory party when I attacked the proposition. My memory may be false, but the Tories seemed to be wild enthusiasts for that ridiculous scheme.
Noticeably, however, unlike putting money into the private sector or, in the case before us, a bit more money into the hands of pensioners who have quite a bit to start off with, investing in the national health service had a dramatic effect. When we took office, national health service hospitals performed 5.7 million operations a year; in the most recent year for which figures are available, they performed 9.6 million. If we want to look after the interests of people who get sick, we will find that the way to do so is to ensure that everyone has access to a massive increase in the number and quality of operations, and there has been a massive increase in both.
Barry Gardiner
When considering the situation in 1990, does my right hon. Friend recall that part of the rationale for those people having private health care was that the queues in the health service were so long that it was effectively a way of getting the same care and the same consultant but doing so in the private sector much faster? Does he share my fear that the reason why the proposal is being made now is that Tory Back Benchers know that waiting lists are already going up and will go up still further, so they want to give their friends exactly the same opportunity?
Frank Dobson
Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Government Members are obviously anticipating the expected decline in national health service output, and that decline is the reason why the national health service is going to stop collecting figures on waiting lists and waiting times. One is always rather suspicious of any organisation that collects figures and then stops. One wonders why, and the idea that those figures might be embarrassing is a good explanation.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is coming on to precisely the point that I want to make. This week, my local hospital, Tameside general hospital, announced 200 job losses among front-line staff, and its waiting times have shot through the roof. Is not this the real picture of what is happening in the national health service? If money is available, should we not be prioritising care in hospitals such as Tameside, not giving a tax hand-out to people for medical insurance?
Frank Dobson
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will draw this proposition to the attention of the electors of Tameside, who are facing valuable staff being got rid of and reductions in the number of operations being carried out. I hope that he will also point out, as I did at the beginning of my short contribution, that apparently the first priority of a lot of Back-Bench Tories, who seem to represent the true core of Tory opinion, is to bung £200 million into the hands of the best-off pensioners, some of whom will not agree with it either.
Charlie Elphicke
I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that our priority is not to bung £200 million at people, as he describes it, but to see real increases in NHS spending as against the cuts that were in the last Budget of the Government whom he long supported.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman’s previous question go, but he is drifting way off the mark. This debate is about medical insurance.
Frank Dobson
Let me return to the point. The proposition before us is to divert £200 million of taxpayers’ money to a group of pensioners—not to the national health service, or even to the private health care sector, but to those particular pensioners. I cannot believe that many people in this country, at this moment, believe that that is the first priority of anyone sensible—it is certainly not my priority—but that is what we are being asked to say by those who want us to vote for this new clause.
I can remember the claims that were made when the old scheme was introduced. Despite that, nobody was able to adduce any evidence that it added to the number of pensioners who took out health insurance or stayed as pensioners who had health insurance. When it was abolished, the predictions from the national association of scaremongers, led by Bupa and others, created the impression that the whole system would collapse, that hardly anybody would keep using private health insurance, and that legions of the formerly insured would be pouring into every hospital, clinic and doctor’s surgery. That did not happen. The main function of the scheme was to put a few bob in the pockets and handbags of the better-off pensioners, and that is what it did. It had virtually no impact whatever on health care either in the national health service or in the private sector, and I suspect that the situation would be similar today.
If we have £200 million to spare—apparently we do—and we want to put it into health care, I would be very happy to see some of it go into my local hospitals so that they were not laying off nurses and doctors and other staff in the next couple of years while having to put up with the ridiculous marketising shambles that the Health Secretary has wished on the country. In case it has not been clear, I am opposed to this proposition and, given the opportunity, will vote against it.
Mr Bone
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who has been very consistent in his views over the years and, I think, represents the real views of the Opposition.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on proposing—
Mr Bone
I will not give way on congratulating my hon. Friend because I am not going to change my view about that. He has proposed a very small and sensible measure that I support because it would benefit people’s health. That is its basis; it is not being done for any other reason.
Over many years, I had the opportunity to observe at very close hand someone who was very seriously ill and was being treated in the national health service and in private hospitals, and they got wonderful treatment in both cases. I pay tribute to the staff in all our health institutions. I do not single out any one group as being better than the other; they all did a very good job.
I believe passionately in insurance. People should insure against things that might go wrong in future; they hope that they will not, but they take out insurance and pay a small fee for that benefit. In the case of the person I mentioned, the cost to the private medical company ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds. My argument is simple: had they not taken out private medical insurance, that money would have had to be paid by the national health service. One of the sad things I saw during that period of years was elderly, retired people at the private hospital putting down £10 notes to get a service that they would have got at a fraction of the price had they taken out insurance. By offering tax relief, we will get more people to do the right thing. It is right that we encourage people to provide for their own medical care. It is simple: if someone is getting 20% off in tax relief, the other 80% is a saving to the national health service.
Let me deal with the dead weight argument. I suspect that the Government will say, as Opposition Members have said, that because people are doing the right thing they should be penalised. If they are doing the right thing in saving money for the NHS, they should benefit from it. The new clause would encourage more people to take out private medical insurance—in this case, only those who are retired. Come February next year, when I introduce my private Member’s Bill on extending the proposal to cover all patients, we can go even further, but this would be a small step in the right direction.
Frank Dobson
The hon. Gentleman is trying to justify this on the grounds that people should be rewarded if they place a lesser demand on the national health service. Is he suggesting tax cuts for people who stay slim, do not drink too much or do not smoke, because that would have a much bigger impact on demand on the national health service?
Mr Bone
Some of those things were tried in the past by the previous Administration—incentives for people to stop smoking, for instance. That is not what I am talking about, and I think you might well say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order if I started to drift on to those subjects. One of the great things about today’s debate, of course, is that we have all night to scrutinise the Bill. One of the benefits of having no programming is that nobody can stop our discussions, and so far there has not been any filibustering.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Clearly we have a financial problem in this country. Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the number of people who do not currently sign up for private medical insurance but would be likely to do so in order to establish the costs of the new clause?
Mr Bone
The proposal applies to retired people, so I think that it will affect people who have private medical insurance through their companies or who can afford to have it while they are employed, but who drop it when they retire, at the very time when they are most expensive to the national health service. The more people we can encourage to take it up, the better.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am very interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman say what evidence there is? When this tax relief was withdrawn, 4,000 people did not continue with their health insurance, so there is no evidence at all that people drop out. Likewise, there is no great evidence that by introducing this measure, the previous Conservative Government increased the numbers. What it did was give a tax break to people who already had private health insurance.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he said first that 4,000 dropped out and then that nobody dropped out. He had already proved that 4,000 people dropped out.
I believe that the proposal will improve the uptake of private medical insurance enormously, which will mean that there will be less of a burden on the national health service and that more money will be put into private hospitals, allowing them to develop. This country needs more health care of a higher quality. That does not need to be centrally controlled, but can be done by a mixture of NHS and private providers.
To get the idea that the priority of this Government has not been the NHS, Opposition Members must have been asleep. A thorough new Bill has come forward, which has been scrutinised by Parliament. There have been slight shrivels on the way, and it has now gone into Committee. This proposal would be a very minor adjustment to the NHS programmes of this Government. It deserves the support of the House and it will be interesting to see what happens when we divide.
Thomas Docherty
I should say at the outset that I have no problem at all with private health care or education. If somebody wishes to spend their money as they see fit, it is entirely a matter for them. However, we must challenge head-on the argument that has been articulately, though falsely put forward by some Government Members that people are doing their patriotic duty by not using the national health service because they are a burden on it, and that they should be rewarded for having private health care. That is simply not the case. First, private health care is a form of queue jumping. I understand the arguments behind it, but we should recognise that we are talking about people who jump to the front of the queue.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is exactly what people with private health care do—they jump right to the front. There might be a six-month waiting time for a minor operation—I suspect that waiting times will get longer—but people who choose to have private health care go to the front of the queue and are seen within a fortnight. I have seen various television adverts for very reputable private health care companies that advocate the services that they provide. I do not think that that should be forgotten.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also recognise that when we had long waiting lists, the incentive that a lot of these companies used in their advertising was that people could get to the front of the queue? Is there not an argument that now that we have short waiting lists—for the time being—there is less need for private health care?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is interesting that there are now far fewer adverts for private health care. He is right that part of the reason for that is that we have a superb national health service. Having served in the House for longer than I, he should take a great deal of credit for the fact that we have a first-class health service. The second reason why I suspect private health companies are not advertising is that thanks to the policies of the Government parties, people cannot afford to have private health care. Of course, many people are losing their jobs. I will return to that point shortly.
The other huge issue about burden is that the private health system is a burden on the national health service, because it takes doctors, nurses and other medical professionals away from it.
Thomas Docherty
Now the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. There are many highly paid consultants who split their time between their private practice, their golf course and the national health service. The time that they spend in private practice is clearly time that is not available to the national health service.
Andrew Gwynne
Is this not a question of priorities? If there is a pot of money to be given away, would it not be much better to spend it on health care for the many, rather than on a tax give-away for the few?
Thomas Docherty
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is fascinating that in this debate, we have seen for the first time who the real deficit deniers are in this House. I appreciate that the parliamentary resources unit, which so ably serves the Conservative Benches, is very good at putting out lines to Conservative colleagues about my hon. Friends being deficit deniers. We have seen this afternoon that the real deficit deniers are sitting on the back row of the Conservative Benches. At a time when there is a real-terms cut in NHS spending—I must correct the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—because the promised increase in funding under this Conservative-led Government is lower than inflation, whether using the consumer prices index or the retail prices index, these Conservative Members propose that we should take money, which Government Front Benchers often tell us we do not have as a nation, and use it to assist with private health care. We have seen yet again today, as my hon. Friend points out, that they are the real deficit deniers. I look forward to seeing whether they have the courage to push the new clause to a Division, and I look forward to going through the No Lobby later this evening.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
On that issue, there is clearly a very large deficit, which we inherited from the hon. Gentleman’s Government. On funding for this proposal, we have seen a 74% increase in our net contribution to the EU, which many Government Members would not like to see paid. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made very substantial savings by keeping us out of the Greek bail-out—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not think that we will be tempted down that route. We will stick to insurance.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is always tempting. I suspect that you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I pointed out that it was this Prime Minister who went to the European Council and failed to live up to his promises. Therefore, let me move back to the substantive debate, which is being so ably chaired.
This proposal is a Trojan horse. Government Members tried hard to cover up their anti-health service rhetoric, but every now and again it seeped out in their speeches. The national health service is an institution that Labour Members are proud of. It is the greatest achievement in 100 years of the Labour movement. It has transformed our country’s health. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am doing an Open university degree in history. [Interruption.] I am asked where I find the time. I have a great wingman in my parliamentary duties. I am currently studying a module on the history of medicine from 1500 to 1930. It is fascinating to see that the pre-war health system that was available to the vast majority of people did not compare one iota to the achievement of the 1945 Labour Government. It was fascinating to hear the disdain of Government Members for the national health service. They are attempting to allow privatisation through the back door and to undermine the national health service. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether he agrees with his own colleagues on the issue.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is the top 40% of earners who have access to private insurance? In the bottom quartile, less than 5% have it.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the new clause is, yet again, all about the few, not the many. It would do nothing for the squeezed middle, the people who, thanks to the economic policies of Treasury Ministers, are finding life much harder at the moment. We should perhaps reflect on the fact that for all the passion about tax breaks on insurance, hon. Members of both Government parties did not hesitate to go through the Lobby and vote to raise VAT, which has made life much harder for many of my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine.
There are two reasons why companies have historically offered private health care. One is as an incentive to get people to come and work for them in a competitive market. As I said, thanks to policies of the Government parties, that is not particularly a problem in the current climate of job losses and rising unemployment.
The second reason is a hard-nosed business case for key employees. There is obviously a good reason why companies decide that to minimise the amount of time for which certain key employees are absent from the workplace due to illness or injury, they will provide a fast-track or—wait for it—queue-jumping approach to health care. I understand the argument for that, and it is a matter of choice, but companies have not offered private health care beyond retirement because they have no further use for that employee. That is why we tend not to see companies giving a lifetime guarantee, as they do in the United States. It is therefore a slightly false argument to say that when a company provides private health care up to the age of 65, the state needs to step in after that. It is a hard-nosed business reason.
Mr Jones
Is not one of the hard facts of life in the United States system, as many individuals there are seeing now, that as soon as people become unemployed, their health insurance stops? In some cases the public sector then has to pick it up. Although there may be a benefit when somebody has work, there clearly is not if they do not have work.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is entirely correct that that is the case for the vast majority of people. Of course, care is often continued for highly paid executives, the group of people whom Conservative Members seek to help—as I have said, the Conservatives are the party of the very few, not the many. However, he is entirely right that the vast majority of US citizens lose their private health cover in that situation. That is why Opposition Members have worked so hard to resist the attempts of the Secretary of State and his Liberal cohorts to introduce privatisation by the back door.
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will wish to make his closing arguments prior to dividing the House. We look forward to seeing the strength of feeling that exists, and I urge Liberal Democrat Members to stand up for the health service and stand up to their Conservative allies.
Mr Redwood
I should like to make it absolutely clear that this matter is not my No. 1 priority, and I do not think it is the No. 1 priority of all Conservative Members. We were elected on a manifesto that said that we were going to increase spending on the NHS in the traditional way by several billion pounds a year, and that pledge is going to be honoured.
Mr Redwood
The hon. Gentleman should read the Red Book. It clearly shows substantial cash increases in spending on health every year over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Thomas Docherty
The reality is that the increase in spending is lower than the increase in inflation, so it is a real-terms cut.
Mr Redwood
We have kept the promise to have substantial increases in cash spending. It is now very important that we get the maximum for it. We are in danger of wandering too far from the new clause, but I point out that as we are about to enter a period of wage freezes, a substantial increase in cash funding will obviously buy more health care, because the main cost is wages. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. The Government’s clear priority was to expand cancer treatments and other drugs, and to ensure that we have more high-quality care. I welcome that very much.
The second thing to understand about the new clause is that it is not a help-the-rich new clause. Opposition Members should understand that the rich are not going to be attracted by an offset on 20% tax, because they are either non-doms paying very little tax or they are paying 50% tax. They are people who self-insure, so they are not going to take out insurance policies such as we are discussing. We are not dealing with the rich, because the rich have always been able to buy the health care that they want under any type of Government. That would not change as a result of the new clause.
We are talking about a specific group of people who are coming up to retirement. Some of them will have had the benefit of company scheme insurance, and some will not have had the benefit of insurance at all. At 65, they often have an important decision to take, because several things happen. First, they lose their company health insurance, if they were receiving it. Secondly, their insurance premiums go up a lot, because they are suddenly thought to be higher risk. Thirdly, they enter the age group when they will need a lot more health care than they did in their healthy, earning years when they were executives or whatever. We are talking about whether that group of people should be able to carry on their insurance, and whether such an incentive would make any difference.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of what proportion of the population he is talking about, and what sort of income scale they are on, including retirement income?
Mr Redwood
I will give as much precision as the Leader of the Opposition and say that they are the squeezed middle. They are exactly the people in whom the Opposition are meant to be interested but whom they clearly now wish to attack in the debate.
Mr Redwood
That may have been the case in the past, but what we are interested in is the new clause.
The answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool is that no, I cannot tell him that. It is not my new clause and I have not researched the matter. I was about to say that I would be more likely to vote for it if a case could be made on the money involved. It seems to me that it would be a good-value purchase if the savings on health care that it generated for the NHS were considerable. We need to balance the two things—we need to know what the revenue loss would be, based on a sensible estimate of take-up, and what the savings to the NHS would be.
The Labour party has to accept that it is not a one-sided matter. The whole point of the scheme is that there would be cost savings to the NHS. That money going into the NHS could then be spent on other people and other treatment. The NHS may still have to do the really difficult things for the people involved, but there could still be an overall benefit both to them and to the NHS if the extra money coming through the private sector led to extra care.
The fundamental mistake that we have heard from the Opposition tonight in their approach to these issues—although it was not the mistake of many Labour Ministers—is the idea that the resources to be provided are finite, to be used either in the private sector or in the public sector. The whole idea, surely, is that we need more resources, more trained people, more treatments, more supplies and more medical activity, because people are living longer, they need more health treatments and the population is growing for a variety of reasons.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, the one big gap between Britain and our European partners, which are normally the example held out by the Labour party, is the amount of private sector money that goes into health in Britain. It is a considerably smaller proportion than in countries such as Germany or France or the Scandinavian countries. If Labour Members are interested in the squeezed middle, they would be well advised to consider any scheme that might help to increase or release private sector money in health in a way that creates more resources, more medically trained people, and more medical treatment.
Oliver Heald
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a more substantial private sector would help the NHS, because at times of great busyness in the NHS, it is to the private sector that the NHS looks to do the necessary operations? That happens right across the country, and it is one reason why it has been possible to bear down on waiting times.
Mr Redwood
That is exactly what successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for Health in the Labour Government concluded, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). After him came the modernising Secretaries of State and Ministers who felt that they had to turn to the private sector to achieve better standards—in terms of offering people treatment in a timely way—and to expand the total capacity of the system.
Frank Dobson
My successors, to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, sometimes make rather wild claims about the number of cataract operations that are carried out by the private sector. When Labour came to power, the NHS did 167,000 cataract operations a year, and in the last year for which figures are available it did 346,000. The private sector made the massive contribution of 16,000 in its best year.
Mr Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. It is quite obvious that the NHS is the dominant health provider in our country—it has been for the many years since its foundation, and it will continue to be so under any schemes proposed by any governing party or parties in this House of Commons.
I wanted to concentrate on the cost and benefit of the proposals. I am an agnostic on this issue, which may come as a surprise to the House, because I am far from being a deficit denier, and I believe that we must weigh carefully any proposal for tax relief against other such proposals. In this case, I would be interested to know more about what the savings would be. There could be significant savings. If Ministers do not adopt the proposed scheme, they need to introduce others to promote more private health care of the right kind, because we will need a lot more of that to meet our targets and requirements, alongside the very large, and rightly favoured and supported, NHS.
Perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald), who have spoken so strongly for the new clauses, wish to move closer to the Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Perhaps they had ringing in their minds the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who set out a comprehensive universal insurance scheme for health in the Orange Book. We will have to disappoint him today, because the proposal is modest, and it will not cover nearly as many people as he would like. Were he here, we could debate that with him, and perhaps he would see that caution and moderation is the hallmark of Conservative approaches to such things. This proposal might be the way to get started on the journey that he wished to make.
Mr Iain Wright
In terms of spending on health, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should move away from a policy of funding through general taxation and towards comprehensive medical insurance, which is the policy advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws)?
Mr Redwood
No, I was just wondering whether my hon. Friends had that in mind, knowing how much they treasure the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and knowing that such bold statements were made in the Orange Book by no less than a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably knew the price of everything and the value of some things, and who would want to ensure value for money.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider the wider issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. How do we get extra resources and money spent on health in a friendly and sensible way, on top of the very great and important NHS, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley, for Christchurch and for North East Hertfordshire rightly back? If not by their route, what route? May we please have some numbers? The proposal could be a good-value buy, but that depends very much on how much cost would be taken out of the NHS.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I have one or two things to say about this debate, and I was stirred into standing up by the previous speech, because either woolly-headed logic was being used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), or he was making a deliberate statement to try to cover—
Oliver Heald
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for somebody to come into the Chamber towards the very end of a debate and then to start criticising how it has been conducted?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is not a matter for me. I have just come into the Chair myself, as I am sure you observed, Mr Heald, so I am the last one to criticise anyone for just coming in and talking.
Michael Connarty
You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is amazing technology in this place. Members can sit in their offices and, if they wish, not watch the tennis but follow the debate in detail, and come down to the Chamber when they think it might be useful to add something. I recommend it to Members: turn off the tennis, turn on the Chamber.
The point I was making is that the logic used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham was possibly deliberately to convince the public that the proposal is an effort to add extra resources to the health services by encouraging people to put money into private health insurance. The logic, of course, is that such private health insurance is available to some people when they are in employment, but is denied them when they retire. If that is the kind of employer that people have, it is a shame that they are deluded into thinking that insurance is a substitute for taxation-based health services.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that resources are not finite, and that somehow this money would bring new resources rushing into the health service. Everyone who has studied the health service over the time I have been in elected politics, which is since 1977, knows what happens. The consultant and the surgeon choose whether to work in the private sector or in the public sector. Sometimes they choose to work in a mixture of those. I commend those who decide to work entirely in the public sector, because they give the best value to our constituents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said when, in an intervention, he cited the number of operations for cataracts.
However, the reality is that only a limited number of people get to the top of the elitist profession that is the medical profession, particularly to consultant level, because we do not train enough people to do the work that is required in the health service.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in countries that have a bigger private sector on top of a large public sector, there are more doctors and nurses in relation to the population, because there is more money?
Michael Connarty
The right hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. He recommended that we look at the EU system. I am glad that in reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends he said that he objects to the idea of a comprehensive, insurance-based health service in this country. I, too, have looked at that on the continent and in EU countries, and I have seen that it does not work.
In fact, other EU countries do have a larger number of doctors—there are more doctors per head of population in most of them than in this country—but that is because of the elitist structure of the medical profession in this country. That structure keeps the numbers down and pays huge bonuses to people once they get to the higher gradings. Many of those people are the very same ones who moonlight in the private sector for additional personal financial gain.
Mr Kevan Jones
Insurance-based health systems such as that in the United States may have large numbers of doctors, but those doctors are not accessible to the large proportion of the population who do not have private health care.
Michael Connarty
I hear my right hon. Friend say that 40 million people in the United States of America exist without adequate health care insurance or provision. A friend of mine tried to set up a dental care service in New England based on Medicare, and found that the money was not available. Many people in New England are denied any form of dental care when they end up in private nursing homes in their old age. Something is seriously wrong with that. I commend President Obama’s attempts to at least moderate that.
Let me return to the debate. People should not be deluded into thinking that the proposal will encourage more resources into the health service. It will encourage more companies to demand the services of the limited number of available surgeons to carry out operations for their private patients, instead of allowing the surgeons to do the job they should be doing. I would commend a scheme of private health care payments that provided the NHS with new equipment, doctors and other staff on top of those already trained in this country to work in the NHS.
Those who say that this proposal could do that should look at what happened with a hospital built for the private sector on the west coast of Scotland. The idea was to build a huge hospital with private money and to have people come from around the world to use it, but eventually it had to be sold to the Scottish Government when Jack McConnell was First Minister. We bought the hospital at a knock-down price because, in reality, the private sector could not generate new and fresh talent and equipment. That is not going to happen. It will just suck out resources needed by my constituents, who believe that the NHS should be paid for through taxes.
Andrew Gwynne
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not about restricting choice, but about prioritising finite resources and ensuring that any available money goes into front-line NHS services, rather than into a tax giveaway to a small number of people who are already accessing private health care?
Michael Connarty
I could not have put it better myself—I commend my hon. Friend for helping me with his analysis.
The Labour Government were right to encourage people to provide resources that the NHS could access using taxpayers’ money where it would be more efficient. That was an excellent scheme that enabled people in my constituency to go to hospitals where beds were available over Christmas for operations that were not being done and could not be fitted into the schedules of hospitals that were short of resources. That was a good initiative, but this proposal is not; it is the opposite. It would be a damaging initiative if it encouraged people to take out private health insurance and so divert resources from the NHS, where they are needed.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have found it odd recently that some private health insurers will pay those whom they insure to use the NHS. If that is the habit of private health insurance, where does the hon. Gentleman think the saving to the taxpayer is in allowing this tax relief?
Michael Connarty
I did not want to cite that example, although it is a good example of what happens when people use private health care and take resources away from the NHS. I find it appalling that through private health care people can actually buy organs donated to the NHS by paying for the hotel care and all the rest of it. They are not allowed to buy the organs any longer; instead they buy the ancillary health care and then use resources that people might have donated thinking they would go to NHS patients, but which end up being used for private care. But that is an aside from this debate.
The new clause would encourage more private money to suck out resources and money needed in the NHS. The right hon. Member for Wokingham kept talking about cash increases. We should not pretend that this is not the same Member who reminded us all of the real effect of cash increases when inflation is running higher than the increase. He was—how can I put this?—dodging the issue unnecessarily and treating us as though we were stupid. Cash increases will not keep the resources at the level they are at, and the new clause will in fact take out resources that the NHS does not have to give.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I can scarcely believe that the hon. Gentleman is making that case, given that the previous Labour Government paid consultants and general practitioners respectively 27% and 44% more for doing less work, hid billions of pounds off balance sheets with dodgy private finance initiative schemes, which have reduced taxpayers to penury, and foisted independent sector training on primary care trusts, meaning that they could not plan for patient numbers or the money needed to run those centres.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Interventions must be brief; otherwise we might find ourselves sitting until the early hours of the morning.
Michael Connarty
If the hon. Gentleman proposed a motion suggesting that all those things should not have happened, I would vote for it. I am a socialist. I did not like the Labour Government overpaying people and changing their hours in such a way that my constituents got less of a service. It seems that even some Conservatives realise that paying people huge amounts of money and asking them to work fewer hours in this elitist organisation—I am very critical of the consultancy-led health service in our country—is something we should be looking at seriously. Our constituents need value for money, which many of the schemes the hon. Gentleman mentioned did not provide. However, it is interesting that this Government have done nothing to change the tax laws, despite 23% of PFIs now being owned by foreign companies that are still getting the tax breaks in this country. Part of the idea of PFIs was that they would bring in tax money, yet 23% of the companies are abroad and put nothing into this country’s economy.
Kerry McCarthy
I can confirm that the Opposition oppose new clause 1. The Prime Minister spent the years in the run-up to the general election and the year since trying to convince us that he valued the NHS, that it was “safe in his hands”. Sadly, however, given the current shambles over the health Bill, which has yet again returned to Committee, it is safe to say that he and his Health Secretary have spectacularly failed. On current evidence, it seems that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to persuade his Back Benchers—it seems that they now want to reinstate a policy introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s Government.
As we have heard, new clauses 1 to 4 would introduce a tax relief on medical insurance for over-65s. The hon. Members who tabled the new clauses stood on a manifesto that proclaimed we “believe in the NHS”. It turns out that they believe so much in the state that they think even private sector provision should receive state funding.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that this proposal has not appeared in a Conservative party manifesto since 2001? The fact that it was dropped in 2005 and 2010 shows clearly that it is not a vote winner.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that I will come to the point that he raises in a moment.
New clause 1 would reinstate a benefit that was withdrawn by the Labour Government in 1997 because, quite simply, it had failed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, it was not picked up by the Conservative party during the recent general election. As noted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who was in government at the time—I congratulate him on his excellent speech—the measure had little impact. One of the problems with the previous Conservative Government's tax relief was that they did not do their homework on what impact it would have. I would be interested to hear what research the hon. Members who tabled the new clause have done. I note that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pleaded numerical dyslexia when asked about the statistics. I think he should have got someone to do his maths homework for him before proposing a spending commitment. The first thing hon. Members should have done was to see whether it would have the desired effect in spending that money.
The Justice Secretary, the then Chancellor, claimed when originally introducing the relief that it would provide an incentive to older people to buy private insurance and reduce the pressure on the NHS. That has been echoed by many Government Members today. However, the tax relief did not reduce the burden on the NHS or help those patients who relied on it. It simply subsidised health insurance for those who could already afford it and had chosen to buy it. When originally announced in 1989, it was estimated that the relief would cost £40 million. A telling warning for Government Members who want to reintroduce the expenditure at a time of such fiscal restraint is that by 1997 the cost had multiplied to £140 million, because there was no limit on the state’s generosity to private providers. It would be wholly irresponsible to reinstate a policy whose costs could spiral to such an extent.
As NHS patients knew to their cost in the 1980s and early 1990s, the then Government were far more comfortable limiting expenditure on the NHS and letting waiting lists rise for the majority of pensioners and others who could never contemplate private insurance, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, was primarily a way of financing queue jumping for those who could afford it. For just a 10% increase in the number of people covered by insurance qualifying for relief, there was a 100% increase in costs in just the first three years. Over the lifetime of that Government’s policy, the number of people covered rose from 500,000 to 600,000; so, for a 20% increase in the number of people covered, the costs shot up by 350%.
Andrew Gwynne
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has confirmed that those on the Labour Front Bench will oppose this measure. She is setting out the right arguments for why we should do so. Did more people not take up NHS care and treatment under the 13 years of Labour Government because of the improvements in NHS care and treatment that were achieved over the lifetime of the Labour Government?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a good point as always. That is the crucial thing. Under the Conservative Government, the increased take-up in medical insurance from 500,000 to 600,000 did not necessarily have anything to do with the tax relief that was introduced; it happened because the NHS was in absolute crisis. Waiting lists were going through the roof under the last Conservative Government. People were terribly scared and did not feel confident that the NHS would look after them in their ill health. There were significant improvements under the Labour Government, which meant that fewer people felt the need to take out private health care.
Let me turn to the fairness argument. It remains to be seen how much the Health Secretary’s experiment through the measures in the Health and Social Care Bill—driven once again by a preoccupation with private sector involvement in health care—will eventually take from health care budgets. We know that £850 million will be spent on redundancies alone, and the estimates are that £2 billion of PCTs’ budgets are earmarked for what can only be described as—in those infamous words of the coalition agreement—a “top-down reorganisation”. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise of real-terms increases, NHS expenditure is falling in real terms. The King’s Fund has calculated that the NHS will have £910 million less to spend over the spending review period. Patients and staff know all too well that front-line services are being affected, but tax relief for private patients will not help them.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Do I take it from the hon. Lady’s comments on health spending that she is condemning her colleagues in Wales, who are cutting health spending by £1 billion over the next three years?
Kerry McCarthy
I am sorry, I did not quite catch the end of that because a colleague was talking to me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to make that intervention again.
Alun Cairns
I will happily repeat the point. Do I take it from the hon. Lady’s earlier comments about growth in health spending that she condemns her colleagues in Wales, which is the only place where Labour is in power? They are cutting health spending by £1 billion over the next three years.
Kerry McCarthy
The Government are here to answer for the activities for which they are responsible in the English health service—it is one of those things that goes with devolution. We have heard from Government Members in this debate that the Government are increasing spending on the NHS. They have trumpeted that over and over again—it was meant to be a platform on which the Conservatives sought election—but the truth is that there is not a real-terms increase in spending on the NHS. When inflation is taken into account, there is actually a cut in NHS spending, and it is time that the Government owned up to that.
I am under pressure to finish my speech and allow those on the Government Front Bench to come in. [Interruption.] As hon. Members can see from the fact that not one but two Opposition Whips are sitting behind me, shouting at me to hurry up, I am indeed under pressure.
How can Conservative MPs tell the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed up to the “Save our NHS” campaign that a spending commitment priority for this Government should be subsidies for private medical insurance? The coalition has tried to deny that it is creating a market in the NHS, but now Conservative MPs do not even want it to be a fair one, by creating incentives for the private sector. If the Treasury thinks it wise to spend such considerable sums, I hope that it is clear by now that they could be much more wisely and fairly spent on the NHS for the benefit of everyone, not the few who need it least. Why not invest in the NHS as a universal service of which we should all be proud, rather than sending the clear message to patients and enormously dedicated NHS staff that private health care is better? Is the coalition planning to run down the NHS to such an extent that people will need to resort to private insurance?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) knew when the relief was withdrawn in 1997, not only could those funds be of great value to the NHS, but ending the relief could fund a reduction in the VAT charged on domestic energy supplies to 5%—a rate that the Conservative Government had increased to 8%, and which they would have increased still further to 17.5%, had they not been defeated by Opposition MPs. The Labour Government at the time made clear their priorities. Rather than giving a tax break to older people who could already afford health insurance, they chose a tax cut that benefited everyone, but made the most significant difference to older people on low incomes who were struggling to heat their homes.
It is worth reminding the House that the Conservatives wanted to reverse that policy and reinstate the relief in 2001. Now, 10 years later, they still have the wrong priorities —priorities that will quite simply be incomprehensible to the average person feeling the effects of this Government’s reckless spending cuts. It is estimated that 4.5 million families in the UK are living in fuel poverty, while people are facing 10% increases in their electricity bills, which are likely to increase still further as a result of the coalition’s poorly thought out plans for a carbon floor price, which we will debate perhaps in the early hours of tomorrow morning or next week. Moreover, this Government have decided to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners.
Faced with individuals and families who will struggle to heat their homes this winter, are the Government taking positive, responsible action to help them? No; instead, they have already hiked up the VAT bills of a couple with children by £450, and those of a pensioner couple by £275, and their Back Benchers think that it is more important to reverse a decision taken to help with fuel costs and instead give tax relief to the minority who can already afford the luxury of private health insurance.
The Labour Government lifted 1.1 million pensioners out of poverty, but there is a continuing need to support those on the lowest incomes. I fear that these proposals betray how some Conservative Members neglect the needs of the poorest pensioners. With the new clauses, they want to add insult to injury by giving tax breaks to the richest to buy private medical insurance, while poorer pensioners have no option but to rely on the NHS—a service that the coalition seems determined to decimate. New clause 1 explains that the relief would apply to people over 65 but, as we all know, the coalition is planning rapidly to increase the state pension age, which will affect the associated support for older people. Does the hon. Member for Mole Valley therefore envisage the age limit increasing with the state pension age, or does he disagree with the Government’s timetable?
In 2006, 10.6% of the population were covered by private medical insurance, and only 3% by personal private medical insurance. The latest figures that I have seen indicate that just 7% of people over 65 have private medical insurance, so the clear motivation behind new clause 1 is the choice to prioritise a very small percentage of the population at a time when the country and the NHS cannot afford it. Inflation is running at more than double the target rate thanks to the Chancellor’s decision to increase VAT, growth is flat-lining, the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count is increasing and more than 80 claimants are applying for each vacancy in some areas. That all means that the Government will have borrow £46 billion more than they planned last autumn, so how on earth can this measure be a priority?
I urge the Government to reject these new clauses, to consider how the money could be much better spent and to secure the future of the NHS as a high-quality service that everyone can access and trust. Instead of an unfair income tax cut for the few, we need a temporary emergency VAT cut that will benefit everyone, particularly those on low and middle incomes, and that will give a much-needed boost to the economy to reduce the deficit over the long term in a fair and balanced way. I conclude by asking the hon. Members who tabled the new clause what their priority is. Is it a tax cut for the minority who can afford private health insurance, which would undermine and undervalue the NHS, or a tax cut that would help everyone at a time when the economy needs it most?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
New clauses 1 to 4 seek to provide for tax relief on medical insurance premiums for individuals above the age of 65. I understand that the argument for introducing such relief is that it would encourage individuals above that age to take up private medical insurance and therefore reduce pressure on NHS resources, and that this would result in a net saving for the Exchequer in the medium to long term.
The Government introduce new tax reliefs only when there is a compelling case that to do so would represent a good use of public money. Turning first to cost, we estimate that this relief would have a direct and immediate cost to the Exchequer of at least £135 million pounds a year—a significant amount, especially given the fiscal climate in which we are now operating. That would reflect the cost of restricting relief to the basic rate of tax.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am interested to find out where the Minister got his figure from, because the figure in 1997 was £135 million. Has it not changed since then?
Mr Hoban
That is the Treasury’s latest estimate, and it is a number that we are going to stand by.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said that he wanted to restrict the tax relief to the basic rate, but subsection (3) of new clause 1 would not have that effect. It suggests that the relief could be obtained at the highest marginal rate that a person paid. He has used the 1990 legislation, whereas in the 1994 legislation the relief was restricted to the basic rate.
Mr Leigh
Why does my hon. Friend think that the social insurance systems on the continent, where there is much more blurring between the public and private sectors, produce much better health outcomes? Also, why does he think that the Major Government followed this policy, which we all supported at the time? Why is this proposal different from the policy of the Major Government, which we all—or some of us—supported?
Mr Hoban
I am pleased that my hon. Friend added that qualification. I entered the House only in 2001, so I was not in a position to support the Major Government or to disagree with them. We need to look at this measure on its own merits.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that the way in which his new clause has been drafted means that tax relief could be gained at someone’s highest marginal rate, which could mean relief of up to 50%.
Sir Paul Beresford
Of course, if that were the result, I would be prepared to make some little adjustments to the new clause as the Bill progressed through the House.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of the House, and he will know that this is the final stage of the Bill, so it would not be possible to amend his proposal in that way. I note, however, that he has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on a related subject, so we shall see what progress that makes through the House.
Mr Hoban
I want to make some progress. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has said that the debate may go on until any hour, but I do not want to be the cause of delaying the House’s tackling subsequent new clauses.
The vast majority of the cost of providing the proposed tax relief would go to those who already have private medical insurance, and there is therefore no obvious need for a new incentive. The case for introducing tax relief rests on the proposition that it would encourage significant new take-up of private medical insurance and ultimately be self-financing. However, at this stage we do not have any strong evidence to show how much additional take-up of private medical insurance a tax relief would generate, or how much pressure on NHS resources would be relieved as a result.
Indeed, when a similar relief existed between 1990 and 1997, it had little apparent effect. It is estimated that take-up of medical insurance increased only from 500,000 to 550,000 individuals over that period. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that that increase was a demonstration of people’s lack of confidence in the NHS under the previous Conservative Government, but she ought to be aware that the take-up of private medical insurance under the Labour Government of whom she was a member went up from 550,000 to 1.7 million, so I do not think that her argument is particularly strong.
Frank Dobson
I congratulate the Minister on at least producing an estimate of the cost of the proposed measure. When the original scheme was first introduced, neither the Treasury nor the Department of Health made any estimate whatever; they were flying blind.
Mr Hoban
I thank the right hon. Gentleman; there are times when I am happy to accept congratulations from the other side of the House. We want to ensure, especially given the constraints that we are working under in these times of fiscal austerity, that measures can be well justified.
An Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in 2001 questioned how far the take-up of private medical insurance would ever respond to tax relief. It also suggested that the dead-weight cost would make it unlikely that tax relief could be self-financing.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend was not in the House in 1989, but is he saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Secretary of State for Health at the time, was wrong to say that introducing this self-same measure would
“reduce the pressure on the NHS from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing resources for those who need it most”?—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 169.]
Mr Hoban
Loth as I am to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend could ever be wrong on any measure, I want to make a point about the chances of a reduction of pressure on the NHS exceeding the cost of the tax relief. There is no evidence that there would be a net positive outcome for the Exchequer. When a similar relief existed in the 1990s, it had little apparent effect, and the IFS report from 2001 concluded that it was unlikely that such a subsidy for private medical insurance would ever be self-financing.
I appreciate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has put forward his argument for the new clause, but I do not think that there is sufficient evidence at this point to justify the relief. There is no evidence that it would represent good value for money for the taxpayer, particularly at a time when our efforts should be focused on reducing the deficit and tackling the problems left by the previous Government.
Oliver Heald
Assuming that the new clause does not result in making a change in the law tonight, would my hon. Friend be prepared to look into the effects of longevity and the effect of having a more substantial private sector available to undertake operations and procedures on behalf of the national health service, as this is partly about capacity and what the future holds, not just about the numbers today?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of longevity on the public finances; the Office for Budget Responsibility is working on that at the moment, and we await its report. At the moment, however, given the fiscal situation and the need to tackle the deficit we inherited from the Labour party, I do not believe that the costs entailed by the new clause would represent good value for money, so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley to withdraw the motion.
Sir Paul Beresford
It is traditional to say that we have had a good debate, but we really have had a good one today; it has been stunning in a way. Most importantly, I do not think there is any Member who does not support the national health service. We are very much behind the national health service, and it is true of me even more than most Members of all parties, because I have worked in it, as well as working in the private sector and in a combination of the two. I am emphatically behind it, and I back the hospitals in my constituency.
The approach has, of course, been different. If the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) had not joined the debate, I would have felt that I had failed because we would otherwise not have heard a good red-blooded, left-wing socialist viewpoint. The difference, of course, is that Conservative Members support the national health service, but we also support the possibility of looking for alternatives or different ways of helping the NHS. That was my aim tonight.
I question the figures that the Minister provided, as we need to recognise that over a seven-year period from 1990, with the over-60s—not just the over-65s—having a full swathe of tax deducted, not just the basic rate, the relief was costing about £80 million. If the proposal in the new clause went through, there would be a progressive growth in the number of people claiming as time went on. I do not think it would be logarithmic, but it would certainly make a difference to hospitals in my constituency and others, particularly those down south. There would be a relief of the strain on those hospitals and an opportunity to redistribute the money.
I was putting my toe in the water this evening, trying to get some thinking going on the proposal, and that has happened. I will discuss the issues further with the Minister before the Budget and next year’s Bill, but in the meantime, I wish to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to new clause 5. Fiona Bruce. Not moved?
New Clause 5
Transfer of personal allowances between spouses
‘After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert—
“37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses
(1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if—
(a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, and
(b) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc).
(2) If—
(a) the allowance exceeds the individual’s remaining relievable income;
(b) the individual makes an election, and
(c) the individual’s spouse makes a claim,
the individual’s spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the excess.
(3) The individual’s remaining relievable income is found by—
(a) taking the amount of the individual’s net income, and
(b) subtracting any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year.”’.—(Mr Leigh.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Leigh
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the last Parliament the Prime Minister and other senior Conservatives repeatedly expressed their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. There were some very strong statements, particularly by the Prime Minister. For instance, in Glasgow, in July 2008, he said:
“And when it comes perhaps to the most important area of all, families, we will take action not just to support marriage and family stability”,
because he wanted to say
“to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.”
That was the leader of our party speaking during the last Parliament. This was the key policy response to the challenge of social breakdown, or the “broken Britain” phenomenon, and it became an important manifesto pledge at the 2010 election—a manifesto pledge on which every Conservative MP was elected. It was a sacred bond, as it were, with the electorate to support marriage, which was considered to be an absolutely key part of dealing with broken Britain. We put that in our manifesto.
I know that our party did not win an outright majority, but the commitment, most importantly, got into the coalition agreement with a provision for our Lib-Dem friends to abstain. I am not asking them to do anything, but I am asking our Front-Bench team to fulfil the pledge that they solemnly made in the manifesto and put in the coalition agreement. We are still waiting for it, which is why new clause 5 is so important and why I believe that, whatever else has been going on in the background this afternoon—I need not go into that—it was my duty to move it. If it had not been moved, many people involved in the Christian community or in the Christian Institute or in churches would have wondered why this new clause—clearly on the agenda this afternoon, and a vital part of what we are trying to achieve for Britain—had suddenly been withdrawn. I was not prepared to let that happen. I have therefore moved it to allow a debate, to which the Government should be made to respond.
Since the election the Prime Minister has reiterated his commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system on a number of occasions, including at his second Prime Minister’s Question Time—but no action has yet been taken. Given that the manifesto pledge is backed by the coalition agreement and pertains to the period between 2010 and 2015, the fact that the Government have not yet acted to recognise marriage in the tax system is, I hope, no cause for alarm. This debate is important: the Minister will have to respond to it later, when he can assure us that although it has not been possible to do this yet, it is definitely going to happen in this Parliament because it was in our manifesto and in the coalition agreement. At the very least, I want the Minister to say that.
Since the commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system was made last year, there have been some significant changes, which in my personal view greatly increase the need for swift action. In this context, the tabling of new clause 5 on Report to recognise marriage in the tax system is an important step. It provides an opportunity to put on the record the standard arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system and, more importantly, to set out the changes over the last 12 months that have greatly increased the urgency of taking action in this area. As I have said, the Government are obliged to respond and engage with the implications of the changes as they relate to the importance of recognising marriage in the tax system.
Let us go into a bit more detail. Apart from married couples with at least one spouse born before 1935—a number that will clearly reduce over the years—and couples in which at least one partner is blind, everyone in the United Kingdom is taxed on an individual basis. Unused tax allowances cannot be transferred from a non-earning spouse to an earning spouse.
Under the system of transferable allowances, which we have constantly promoted as a party for several years and as is envisaged in our coalition agreement, a non-earning spouse would be able to transfer the whole or part of the basic income tax personal allowance to their earning spouse. Depending on how it was introduced, the whole allowance or part of it could be transferable, and it could be limited to couples with children under a specified age, or limited to tax at the basic rate. The Government can decide what they can afford and they can bring it in gradually; there need not be dead-weight costs or the other problems that were aired in the previous debate. Moreover, I am not at all sure that it is appropriate to talk about dead-weight costs in this context at all. For 2011-12 the personal allowance is £7,475; if the whole allowance were transferable it would be worth up to £1,495, so we are not talking about huge sums of money.
Let us look at what other countries are doing, because it is important to nail the untruth that this idea comes just from the right wing of the British Tory party, or from the Christian community, when it is very common throughout the world. In fact, Britain is unusual among developed countries in failing to recognise marriage in the tax system. This is something that we did as a country, with cross-party agreement, as it was considered absolutely the right thing to do, right up to 1999-2000. Only 24% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system in one way or another, and most of those live in just three countries—Mexico, Turkey and the UK. We are very much in the minority in not recognising marriage through our tax system. Why should we not recognise marriage when most countries and tax administrations in the world think that marriage is a force for stability? It is not unusual to want to recognise that. Other developed countries such as France, Germany, Italy and America all recognise marriage. In that context it was hardly surprising to learn that, according to the latest figures—published in May 2010—the resulting tax burden on single-earner married families in the United Kingdom was one third greater than the OECD average.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of marriage, but I am not convinced that it is appropriate to encourage and recognise it through the tax system. The hon. Gentleman mentioned unfairness, and I think the question of fairness is the nub of the issue, for if the money were spent on benefits or tax credits for children rather than on a married tax allowance, far more children could be lifted out of poverty.
Mr Leigh
As so often in Finance Bill debates, the devil is in the detail. The hon. Lady has made a perfectly reasonable point. However, I hope to establish in my speech that the present system is unfair and, specifically, militates against single-earner families. That applies especially to those who are struggling out of poverty, but it is not necessarily the very poorest about whom we should be concerned. We should also be concerned about families on fairly modest earnings who are desperately trying to look after their children, and who decide that someone, usually the mother, should stay at home and care for them. But, as I have said, the devil is in the detail, and I will try to deal with the hon. Lady’s point later. It is important, and we need to tease the answer out of Ministers. We want to know why action has not been taken.
Mr Leigh
That argument has been used against transferable tax allowances. It is true that it is impossible to create a transferable tax allowance that helps everyone, but I do not consider the fact that in certain circumstances, through no fault of their own, people will not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such allowances to be a good argument against trying to help others—and that is all we are trying to do.
Let us examine the extent of support for marriage in Britain. It is no surprise that marriage rates are at an all-time low and family breakdown is a massive problem, affecting many different areas and, it is estimated, costing us directly between £24 billion and £41 billion per annum. The “Breakdown Britain” report motivated the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, to come up with this policy—our policy—and launched the debate. It was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; although he is not present today, I pay tribute to him for his fantastic work.
Mr Leigh
I will in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress. Others will want to contribute to this important debate.
There is no doubt that the lack of support for marriage gives rise to some family breakdown, not primarily through the breakdown of existing marriages but by making marriage a less attractive and more costly option for some people than it would otherwise be. I do not pretend that that applies to everyone, but undoubtedly our present system, which is very unfair on single earners receiving relatively low wages, is a disincentive for some. As the “Breakdown Britain” report demonstrates, a child born to unmarried parents has a nearly one in two chance, before reaching the age of five, of seeing its parents split up, whereas for children whose parents were married, the figure is just one in 12. That is unmistakably a huge difference. It is, I believe, a commonly held view that marriage is a good thing.
A more recent piece of research, “Family breakdown in the UK”, set out the problem of the lack of support for marriage in the following terms:
“the problem is not divorce. While marriage accounts for 54% of births, the failure of marriages—i.e. divorce—accounts for only 20% of break-ups and 14% of the costs of family breakdown, amongst all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80% of the break-ups and 86% of the costs.”
The report also states:
“These new statistics demonstrate dramatically that family breakdown is a huge and growing problem and that the main driver of family breakdown is the collapse of unmarried families. A failure to acknowledge these key points will lead to the inevitable failure of any government policy aimed at strengthening families.”
That is why many Government Members believe that this policy is so important.
Chris Williamson
Given the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that the tax system discriminates against single-income households and could cause couples to break up, what does he think of the Government’s decision to force through a change in the child benefit rules for single-income higher earners with, say, three children, whose families will lose up to £3,000 per annum? If he believes that family breakdowns result from financial circumstances, he must surely believe that that will lead to even more of them.
Mr Leigh
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made clear my belief that our policy of fiddling around with child benefit is entirely wrong. Child benefit works because there is no fraud and no error, and because it is a flat tax. I strongly oppose the Government’s policy, because it will attack families who are on the margin just as they get into work and emerge from poverty. I predict that we will see a U-turn on that policy, and if it is the 23rd U-turn, it will be one of the best of them.
Why does the lack of stability in marriage matter? We all recognise that most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances—I noted earlier interventions on my speech to that effect—and they must enjoy our full support. Nothing that I am saying constitutes an attack on them. However, policy must be based on evidence, and the evidence is very clear. It shows that, on average, children who are brought up in single-parent families do less well than children brought up in two-parent families according to every significant measure: educational attainment, health, the likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse. I do not think it wrong for the Government to try to recognise what works when it comes to bringing up children.
Some may be tempted to respond to what I am saying by suggesting that the principal cause of the different outcomes is not marriage but wealth, and that it just so happens that wealthier people are more likely to get married. However, the facts do not support that. No one is trying to argue that marriage is the only important consideration, or that wealth is not relevant—of course it is—but data show substantial differences in family stability between married and unmarried couples in the early years of parenthood, even after the discounting of socio-economic factors such as age, income, education and race.
Most notably, the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting couples is sufficient that even—this is an important point—the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. It is foolish to make ourselves the odd one out in comparison with other developed countries such as France, Germany and America. Why do we not recognise marriage in our tax system, and why has the Minister not fulfilled the pledge that we made in our manifesto?
As we all know, recognition of marriage in the tax system specifically through a transferable allowance brings heightened child development benefits. In a culture that encourages parents to go back to work as quickly as possible, even though research demonstrates that this is a key time for developing attachment which has huge implications for the later development of a child, the provision of a transferable allowance makes it easier for one parent to stay at home to be with their children. I am not saying that everyone will want to do it, I am just giving an opportunity. I am not requiring anybody to do anything.
Mr Leigh
I have given way to the hon. Lady once. I will make a bit of progress and if she is really desperate, of course I will let her in because I am very fond of her, as she knows, and we have served together in a Select Committee.
Polling demonstrates that staying at home is a choice that parents want to exercise. That is all that we are talking about here; we are talking about choice—no requirement. For instance, a 2008 YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Justice, run by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, found that 88% of parents thought that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home and bring up their children in the early years and 97% agreed that the Government should do more in that area. What other policy has 97% support?
A 2009 YouGov poll for the Centre for Policy Studies found that only 12% of mothers wanted to work full time, 31% did not want to work at all. Only 1% of mothers with children under five thought that the mother in a family where the father worked and there were two children under five should work full time, 49% thought that she should not work at all and fathers, when asked the same question, offered an almost identical response. So the facts are there in the opinion poll data. Only 2% thought that mum should work when her husband worked and the children were under five, and 48% thought that she should not work at all.
Many people are forced into work. Many mothers want desperately to be at home looking after their children when their children are very young, but they simply cannot afford to do so. No one suggests that a transferable allowance will solve the problem of family breakdown or make it incredibly easier for families to cope, but it will be a step in the right direction and a small gesture that we in Parliament could make to mothers who desperately want to stay at home and look after their young children.
Many women, rightly, want to work; they have good jobs. Why should we be forcing young women with very young children into low-paid jobs when they want to be at home looking after their children? Why should we create a tax system that militates against women making that choice?
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me. He makes a powerful point. Many mothers of small children want to work part time. I worked part time as I am sure did many other hon. Members. I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the facts. When the tax system changed from one that included a transferable allowance to one that did not, was there evidence of any impact on family breakdown?
Mr Leigh
I confess that I cannot go back to 1999 and I do not know what data were then available to the Chancellor, but the hon. Lady cannot deny that our tax system is unfair because it militates against the choice to stay at home. Surely I can take the hon. Lady just this far, if no further—that it should be a free choice for women with young children whether they work or not, and the tax system should be neutral. That is all that we are asking for. The hon. Lady can make a speech later if she disagrees with me. I do not doubt her sincerity. I am just saying that the system is simply unfair.
Britain’s failure to recognise marriage in the tax system meant, as of May 2010, that it was out of line with other developed countries, with the effect that, far from supporting the best child development environment and being family friendly, it was placing a significantly greater proportion of its total tax burden on this family type than was the case in comparable countries. In that context, it is not surprising that family breakdown, the key driver of the broken Britain phenomenon is particularly pronounced and the case for recognising marriage in the tax system is clear and compelling. So all the arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system stand in one key area. The tax burden on one-earner married couples with children in the UK has now risen such that it is over 40% greater than the OECD average.
Mr Kevan Jones
New clause 5 would allow married couples to transfer their personal income tax allowances between each other, along the lines of what was said by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during the election campaign about recognising marriage in the tax system. The new clause is not exactly what the Conservatives were proposing at the general election, and I shall deal with the differences in a while. The important point, which has not been clearly articulated by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), is that this policy arose from a 2005 report by a Conservative think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice, on the breakdown of the family. Its main argument was that marriage is the important point in keeping families together, tackling poverty and dealing with all the other arguments that he has covered. It also supported the introduction of an incentive in the tax system to encourage people to marry, and I shall return to that in a moment. I am not sure that most people who get married are thinking about the tax system before they decide to do so.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and one that we were discussing on the Back Benches earlier. I am married and all three of my children attended my and Allison’s wedding in 2003. We did not need a tax allowance in order to get married—that is the important factor here that is being missed.
Mr Leigh
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not suggesting for a moment that people get married in order to get tax allowances—I have never said that. All I am saying is that the current system is unfair, because it militates against a family on modest earnings where one person wants to stay at home to look after children. Of course nobody gets married in order to get a little tax allowance, but why should we have an unfair tax system?
Mr Jones
I actually do not understand why all this is unfair, because the new clause would give an advantage to people who are married but do not have children. I do not know how the new clause does what the hon. Gentleman is proposing in terms of keeping family units together and alleviating child poverty.
The important point relates to what was in the Conservative manifesto. What came out of that Conservative think-tank was the idea that marriage was an important point in keeping the family unit together and ensuring that children and wider society were not disadvantaged by a breakdown in the family unit. The manifesto made a commitment to “recognise marriage” in the tax system. It proposed that couples and civil partners who were basic rate taxpayers should be entitled to transfer just part of their allowance—this was worth, in effect, up to £150 a year. That is very different from what is contained in the new clause, because it makes no mention of civil partnerships. Given the names of the people who are supporting this proposals, I suspect that this has come from the wing that has not quite gone all the way in being the new cuddly Conservative party in terms of even envisaging the idea that civil partnerships, with or without children, could constitute a family unit.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned briefly, the policy came unstuck in the coalition agreement because this proposal is clearly not supported by the Liberal Democrats. I believe that during a general election television interview, the Deputy Prime Minister called it “Edwardian”.
Andrew Gwynne
The Deputy Prime Minister did not just say that this proposal was Edwardian. I believe that he went on to say that it was also patronising drivel.
Mr Jones
That is a bit rich coming from the Liberal Democrats, because most of the things that they come out with are patronising drivel. However, they were clearly not happy about this policy, so in the scramble to get the red boxes and cars they had to reach some type of compromise. Thus, the coalition agreement simply states that there will be a provision whereby the Liberal Democrats can abstain at some point in the future when this policy is introduced.
Mr Jones
Possibly. The 22 June Budget made no announcement on where this policy stood and on what was happening to it. I can understand the annoyance felt by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others, who clearly think that this is a vital piece of legislation that was promised to the electorate. It was obviously a key point: I am sure that a lot of people went to the ballot box thinking that if they would get an extra £150, they would vote Conservative. That pales into insignificance when set against what has been taken away from them since this Government came into power.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I expect better of the hon. Gentleman than the trivialisation of this important issue. He is better than that. I know he is probably working up to the filibuster that is usual from him when we do not have a guillotine on our business, but does he concede that low-income families in North Durham who are eligible for working tax credit and in which one parent wishes to stay at home to look after the children will miss out on the child care element of that credit? That is the reality, and he should address those issues rather than trivialising the subject through knockabout.
Mr Jones
I am not trivialising the subject, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that the real difference in North Durham was made by provisions opposed by him and his party, such as tax credits, which raised hundreds of families out of poverty, and the Sure Start initiatives, which were important in poor communities such as Stanley in my constituency and gave real life chances to youngsters from poor backgrounds. I will not take any lectures from a Conservative on alleviating child poverty. I hasten to add that since this coalition Government came to power, many families, including many individuals whom I met the other day at a school in my constituency, will lose the education maintenance allowance. That was not a luxury but a vital part of supporting those children in education and giving them the access to higher education that generations before them had never had.
Mr Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I remember the debates on the minimum wage as a trade union official, as he will too, and we were told that it would wreck the economy, but in the north-east alone 110,000 people got a pay rise thanks to that change. It is interesting that we are now hearing proposals from Conservative Back-Benchers to change the system and that people who are disabled and others should perhaps be offered a lower rate of minimum wage.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
While the hon. Gentleman is patting himself on the back about the great successes of the previous Government, can he tell us which he thinks would have the best effect for working families with low incomes: scrapping the 10p rate or raising the income tax threshold, as this Government are doing?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman must be honest with my electorate in North Durham about the fact that although the Government have increased personal allowances they have taken away money in others ways, such as the increase in VAT and the £140 million of cuts that Durham county council will have to impose over the next three years. Those cuts will have a direct effect on many of those poor families. The Liberal Democrats can claim that they have had great success, but if that is their only claim they should be honest with people and tell them what they have lost, as well, through such vicious policies. The hon. Gentleman should remember that this Conservative Government would be doing nothing without the support of him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Helen Goodman
Another problem with raising the tax thresholds—a provision constantly promoted by the Liberal Democrats—is that, as I am sure my hon. Friend has not forgotten, the biggest beneficiaries are those who are highest up the income scale. The biggest value of the change is not to the people at the margins—those who are just caught or just not caught by the tax boundaries—but to the people higher up the income scale.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but she knows as well as I do that many people in County Durham are facing unemployment as a direct result of the spending cuts. Many of those people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether because they will not have a job. For Members to try to trumpet that policy, not realising the damage they are doing to regions such as the north-east of England, is disingenuous.
I understand the argument made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, which is that marriage is key in ensuring that we have the units that will lead to less crime, less social breakdown and so on, but—I am sorry—I do not accept that. The root cause of many of those issues is poverty. If we consider the examples given by the hon. Gentleman, as well as those given by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he toured his Glasgow housing estate, we can see that £150 will not make a great difference to lifting anyone living on such a council estate out of poverty or giving life chances to the young children who live there. We should address poverty, and, in my opinion, provisions to do with the tax system and marriage are not the way to do that.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Would he care to comment on the UNICEF study, produced in 2007, which showed a league table ranking the well-being of children in 21 developed countries, including their material, educational and subjective well-being, their health and safety, their behaviour and the strength of their family and peer relationships? Under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, Britain came bottom of the league.
Mr Jones
I think that report has been discredited, but I can look at the north-east of England and my constituency and consider the changes in employment that happened under the previous Labour Government as well as the life chances we gave to individuals, the new hospitals we provided and the investment we made in things such as Sure Start centres. Although I accept that such changes will not have benefits straight away, they will have real benefits over the lifetimes of those individuals. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supports is taking away such provision and says that the state is not important in one respect while, in this case, they want the state to engineer people’s private lives socially. I find that a completely contradictory stance, but, again, the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative and is therefore allowed to be contradictory.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way and he is making the point that the state can be family friendly through its policies without having to give away a tax break to people based on their marital status. The previous Labour Government made great changes by giving life chances to young families, in particular, without having to manufacture the tax system in such a way.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. A little later, I shall discuss what our Government did to recognise the fact that if we are to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough about child poverty, the tax system and marriage are not necessarily the way to do it. The way to do it is to ensure that the money goes to the families and children who are affected. That is why the child tax credits and other such provisions were vital in raising people out of poverty. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the minimum wage, which lifted a lot of very poor individuals out of poverty who were getting a pittance. I remember seeing as a trade union official an advertisement in the jobcentre in Newcastle that read, “Night guard, bring your own dog, £1.35 an hour.” That is a thing of the past. I hope that it will remain so, but I do not know, as we hear from Conservative Back Benchers that they might want to change the minimum wage in some way.
Helen Goodman
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) mentioned the UNICEF report, because Denmark came at the top and Britain came very low down. I want to remind hon. Members that Denmark has the highest rate of lone parenthood and the Danish can combine that with good child well-being because they have a strong welfare state. Does not my hon. Friend think that that is far more important in addressing child poverty and well-being?
Mr Jones
It is. To be fair to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, he did say that being a lone parent does not make someone a bad or unfit parent. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) had three children before he got married, but that does not make him a bad parent. [Interruption.] He says, “I don’t know,” but I do not think it makes him a bad parent: it is something that he and his partner chose to do. As he said earlier, the offer of a tax break of £150 a year would not make any difference to whether people decide to have children before or after they marry. Indeed, I have many friends who have children and who have never married and have no intention of doing so.
Barry Gardiner
Has my hon. Friend considered the situation of people like my mother whose husband, my father, died when I was a child? Under the proposed system, she would have found that the support was taken away at the very time when financially she needed it most. That would be the effect of the measure, which pays no real attention to the needs of the family or the needs of the child.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The proposal is not subtle at all and his personal example is a good one. Why should someone who loses a spouse in an accident or through natural causes be penalised because, through no fault of their own, they have lost their spouse? That is the problem with trying to use tax in relation to marriage. As I have said, the measure is very different from what was put forward in the Conservative manifesto because it does not include civil partnerships. It clearly is not what Conservative Back Benchers have read in their own manifesto.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are always winners and losers in any tax system. I am very surprised at him because I know that he has very libertarian views on a whole host of subjects, which we have heard on many occasions in the Chamber. Is he really suggesting that we should use the tax system socially to engineer society by saying that people should marry rather than cohabiting or, as has been mentioned, becoming single through separation or bereavement? I am surprised at him because I thought he was very much against the state doing anything, but the measure has the state wanting to determine or influence exactly what an ideal society should be. I am sorry, but the statistics just do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman proposes. If such tax measures worked as a way of bolstering marriage and keeping families together, we would have expected marriages to rise with the married man’s tax allowance through the 1960s and 1970s, but they did exactly the opposite—we had record levels of divorce and separation. Hon. Members should look at the facts. Tax measures have not succeeded in doing that in the past, and I doubt whether they will in future. They certainly will not encourage anyone to get married for a small financial benefit.
It is important to dispel one myth, which has been put forward again by the Conservative party—the fact that a wicked Labour Government somehow did away with the married couple’s tax allowance and that Labour is responsible for the degeneration of society that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions describes in his report. It is important to recognise what the previous Conservative Government did on this. It was Chancellor Norman Lamont in the 1993 Budget who proposed that the married couple’s tax allowance should be restricted to 20% from April 1994. That was the first time that happened for the basic MCA, which for a couple under 65 was then £1,720, so it was worth something like £608 for those who were on marginal rates of 40%, but only £344 for those on marginal rates of 20%. We then had the argument that it was unfair to have different amounts for people on higher tax rates than for those on lower tax rates. The then Chancellor said:
“There is no good reason why an allowance intended to recognise the responsibilities of marriage should give least to those on low incomes and most to those right at the top of the income scale.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 182.]
In the November 1993 Budget, the current Justice Secretary confirmed that change and went on to announce that the MCA would be further restricted to 15% from April 1995, so there was a slow change in the system. The provision restricting the MCA was made in section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. When this was debated in Committee, there was general support for the idea that the MCA should be the same across the board.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend’s description of what happened in the 1990s reminds me of an issue that I do not think the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) addressed. One of the big debates on this subject was about the fact that transferable allowances reduce any scope for financial privacy within a marriage. A number of people felt very uncomfortable about that. Does my hon. Friend have any comments on that?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a key point and I understand why she makes it. This goes right back to when income tax was introduced in the 1790s, when a spouse’s income was the property of the husband. That was the basis on which income tax was brought in and it continued for centuries. There was no recognition that even within marriages people might have separate tax affairs or sources of income that needed to be recognised.
It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place about the MCA. Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House, argued that the MCA was
“a relic of the days when a husband was taxed on his wife’s income as well as on his own. It contravenes the principle that marriage should be tax neutral.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 344.]
Mr Jones
I am very pleased to hear that but I am not sure that that is very good news for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to whom I understand the Baroness is now married. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Interestingly, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, concurred with Mrs Maddock’s view. The then Chancellor, who is now the Justice Secretary, recognised that and announced in his Budget speech that there would be a two-stage restriction of the MCA, stating:
“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]
The important thing that this demonstrates is that change was taking place under a Conservative Government, and that it was not the wicked previous Labour Government who came up with this idea. However, the change did set off the forces who were arguing that the changes were wrecking marriages. In 1995, a major paper called “Farewell to the Family” appeared. It made much of the fact that the measure would change families and discourage people from marrying.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pretty poor show if a couple united in love and affection for each other decide to get married simply for the sake of some miserable, mean, pusillanimous fiscal mechanism? Would it not be a more healthy world if we could get the accountant out of the couple’s marriage bed, and concentrate on the important thing: two people who love each other, not two people who are trying to save a few bob from the Treasury?
Mr Jones
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. He raises the idea of the accountant in the bed. I do not know of many couples who, when they are ready to get married, sit down with their accountant to work out the financial benefit to them. I am sure that for many, something other than money comes into the decision to marry or start a family—a point that I demonstrated earlier.
Mr Stewart Jackson
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman aspires to be the County Durham filibustering champion; no doubt he will be on his feet for many more minutes. Is he seriously denying the findings of the British household panel survey, which found that the average length of cohabitation is just over three years, and led it to conclude in its paper that, compared to marriage, cohabitation was a significantly more fragile and temporary form of family? Just one in 11 married couples split up before their child’s fifth birthday, compared to one in three unmarried couples. Those are the facts; is he disagreeing with them?
Mr Jones
As for filibustering, this is nothing; I think that my record is two and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman would like to keep intervening, I am sure that I can try to beat that. I do not deny what he says, and it is all right to cite the facts, but should one necessarily go on to say that those facts are a bad thing for society? Is he genuinely saying that the relationships of people who cohabit are any poorer than those of people who are married? Likewise, is he suggesting that if people decide, after marriage or cohabiting, to split up, that makes them bad individuals in some way—or, if they have children, bad parents? I know many cohabiting and divorced couples and single parents who are perfectly good parents and role models and work very hard to ensure that their families contribute to society financially and to local community life. The statistics that he cites are fine, but what is not fine is the next bit—the suggestion that the situation will somehow lead to the breakdown of society, or the idea that the family as a unit is the only answer to people’s lives these days. It is not.
That goes back to a Victorian notion. Before the Victorian period, it was not uncommon for people not to get married for many years. Marriage was a Victorian fashion, but in Georgian times many people did not get married at all, and raised perfectly good families. I am not sure that society came to a grinding halt because people were not married, or because there was not a tax system that encouraged people to marry.
Mr Jackson
Perhaps I might invite the hon. Gentleman to make a causal link, because he is not challenging the substantive point that I made with the figures that I gave. He will know that the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011 found that children who do not grow up in a two-parent family are 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to be a drug addict, 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem, and 35% more likely to experience unemployment. That is not about traducing single-parent families, or besmirching their commitment to their children, but there is a causal link to family breakdown, which the hon. Gentleman denies.
Mr Jones
That is complete nonsense. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition, we saw him walking around the Easterhouse estate, saying how dreadful things were. That is not down to whether people are married; it is down to poverty. That is the key driver of the pressures that people face. It is all very fine talking about drug use, but I have worked with an organisation for parents of drug addicts in Durham, and most of those parents are middle class. They have stable homes, but they have drug-addict sons and daughters. They are not bad parents, and it is not down to whether they are married. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and the Centre for Social Justice report make the mistake of saying that the family units that he describes are the reason for poverty. They are not. Addressing poverty, which we were doing through measures such as tax credits, is the way forward, rather than social engineering, and £150 a year will not go very far in encouraging people to stay married—or, for that matter, alleviate child poverty at all.
Stephen Pound
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not a person in this marvellous, glorious, gorgeous building who fails to accept that couples together often nurture and raise children in a happier and better way, although they are not the only ones? However, we are not arguing about the sanctity of marriage; we are arguing about a backhander from the state—a few bob. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who was a bank manager and may well have interposed himself in a few intimate relationships in his time, is speaking very much from the perspective of the Conservative who sees everything in terms of money and fiscal benefit. Is there not a better way?
Mr Jones
There is, but the new clause that we are debating—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Peterborough would agree with this—refers only to married couples; it does not refer to civil partnerships, for example. I know that the new Conservative party is supposed to be modern and reflective, but what about people in a civil partnership who have children, whether from previous marriages or afterwards? Are we saying that that is a worse family unit than marriage? This debate is not about the tax system for those who are married and those who are not; it is about what is in the best interests of the child. Single parents—they may be separated, or their partner or spouse may have died, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said—work very hard. This is about the child. The problem with the proposal is that it would reward people with no children.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend accept that he has perhaps calumniated Georgian England—inadvertently, I am sure? Does he accept the wisdom of Jane Austen, who of course said:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune”
of £5,000 a year
“must be in want of a wife”?
My hon. Friend’s suggestion that marriage was not as common in Georgian England as in Victorian England is somewhat belied by Austen and other authors of the age.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I fear that we are straying a little far from the point. Any chance of getting back to the 21st century?
Mr Jones
I think this is an important point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The main thrust of the argument that has been made is that marriage, and taxation in marriage, has been consistent throughout history, but it has not. Like a lot of things in this country, it has been looked at through a Victorian prism that seems to bend the reality of what took place way back then. However, I will move on to my next point.
Helen Goodman
I should like to back up what my hon. Friend says. In the major study of marriage in England from 1550 to 1750, Lawrence Stone demonstrated that in a commercial society with a commercial attitude—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We seem to be going even further back. Keep to the 21st century, please.
Mr Jones
It is important to note that income tax was introduced in the 1790s. We need not go back to the 15th century, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) makes a good point, which was made earlier—the tax system treated women and their income as the property of their husbands. The supporters of the new clause argue that it would strengthen society, but there is no evidence for that. The new clause will help many people who have no children. It would apply to married couples and even retired people.
Mr Stewart Jackson
To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that many more people in County Durham, Northumberland and the north-east of England generally are keen on getting married than in, say, the south of England and London? Are his constituents wrong in supporting the institution of marriage?
Mr Jones
No, not at all. Many things in the north-east are obviously better than anywhere else in the country, but the statistics show that the number of people getting married is going down. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seems to think that a tax break of £150 a year will encourage people to get married, but that is not the case at all. He misses the main point.
The MCA was abolished in the Budget speech by the then Chancellor in 1999, and withdrawn in April 2000. Only married couples who reached the age of 65 by that date would be able to continue to claim the MCA. The additional personal allowance was also withdrawn at that time. The allowance equalised the MCA so it was given to lone parents, whether single, divorced or widowed, caring for one or more children under the age of 16.
Importantly, the then Labour Government introduced the child tax credit, which was vital to ensure that support went to the children. The Centre for Social Justice report suggested that marriage was important for keeping families together, but that is not the case. The important thing is how we support children. By introducing the tax credit system, we lifted thousands of children out of poverty by helping the families, whether they were married or not.
The credit took the form of an allowance which was then set at £5,200, on which relief was given at 10%. Families eligible to claim the child tax credit were able to cut their annual income tax not by £150, as is proposed, but by £520 a year. In April 2002 the credit was increased in line with inflation, making it worth £10 a week more. That was the fairest way of supporting families. I do not question the Secretary of State’s intention to help families, but the child tax credit was a far better way of doing it than through the married tax allowance.
The debate tonight has glossed over the cost of the proposal. We are told by the Government that we face hard times and that we must make every penny count. One reason given to explain why the proposal was not brought forward was the coalition Government; another was cost. The IFS estimated the cost of various options for introducing a transferable allowance based on different criteria. On the assumption that the allowance applied only at the basic rate of tax, which was due to be 20% in April 2008, the figures are eye-watering.
If the allowance applied to all married couples, the IFS estimates the cost at £3.2 billion. I am not sure where the Government would get such a sum from. If the allowance applied to all married couples but only half the personal allowance was transferred, that would cost £1.6 billion, so we are not talking about small amounts of money. If the object is to get that money to children, is this the best way? There is no realistic hope of the present Government doing this. I understand the annoyance of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who thinks that he stood on a manifesto which will now not be implemented.
Stephen Pound
No one in this place would begrudge that sum if there was the slightest empirical evidence that it would be of any long-term benefit to society. There is no such evidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that money could be far better spent on a raft of supportive mechanisms for families, particularly families with young children? That would ensure the longevity of the family unit.
Mr Jones
I agree. The money should be directed into Sure Start centres and the child tax credit, for example, but the Government are penalising single parents in some of their benefit proposals.
Another option that the IFS considered was targeting the allowance at married couples with dependant children or those receiving carer's allowance. The estimated cost of that was £1.5 billion. The final and cheapest option was that it would be given only to married couples with children under the age of six, which would cost £900 million. The various options illustrate the complexity of the policy and the questions that arise from it—whether it should apply to everyone or only to the groups that I outlined.
As the hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, whatever system is chosen, there are winners and losers. If we believe, as the hon. Member for Peterborough clearly does, that keeping people married is so important that everyone should get the allowance, the price tag is totally unaffordable, but doing anything less would undermine the main argument put forward.
It is worth recognising what that would translate into in cash terms. If it applied to the full personal allowance, the amount provided as an incentive to remain married would be quite meagre, at about £20 a week, which I am not sure is a great incentive. The rationale is that it needs to be fair and large enough to make a difference, but I do not think that a couple whose marriage is breaking down would stay together for an additional £20 a week. Whatever figure we come up with, I doubt whether it would actually make a real difference in determining not only whether a couple gets married in the first place, but whether they will separate after a period of marriage. When it comes to enabling families to stay together as a unit, clearly the important point is poverty. That pledge was made before the general election by the previous Prime Minister. I think that everyone, even those influenced by the darker forces on the traditional wing of the Conservative party, agrees that the modern family takes many forms.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend is young and has not been around for a enormously long time. When Mrs P and I were married in June 1976, virtually everyone got married just after the beginning of the financial year, which was a nonsensical system, with churches doubling the cost of altar servers. I assure him that one of the disadvantages of the married couple’s allowance was the great logjam of spring weddings. Despite that, Mrs P and I are still together.
Stephen Pound
I appreciate that we are treading on you patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I should note that it was probably a fear of Father Padraig that kept Mrs P and I together for the first three decades, rather than any small financial advantage.
Mr Jones
I understand why my hon. Friend and Mrs P have stayed together. Although the allowance might be an incentive to get married, the important point is that it does nothing to ensure that people will stay together for longer than the tax year. As has been mentioned, what is proposed would be very unfair. What happens if someone loses a spouse though no fault of their own, for example as a result of a tragic accident? Why should someone who finds themselves suddenly bereaved through no fault of their own after an accidental death, possibly with young children, be penalised by the tax system? It would be very difficult to introduce flexibility into this system to take account of that, and if we compare that with the tax credit system we will see that the important point is to support families and their children.
I will turn to some of the statistics on marriage that the Conservative party is putting forward. The hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) are not known as great state interventionists, but by arguing that the tax system should be used to encourage people to marry, they are suggesting that the state should determine a certain model of behaviour. I find that very strange coming from Conservatives who deplore the nanny state and argue that the state should not interfere in people’s lives. There is an inconsistency there that needs to be answered.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The charming Maggie Pound deserves a long-service medal at the very least for putting up with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
On the merits and logic of the argument that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is making, is he suggesting that there is no place for fiscal incentives in directing personal and public policy? If so, does he think that we should not fine motorists for breaking the speed limit, for instance, because that is the logical corollary of his last remark?
Mr Jones
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman, his party and, certainly, the more blue-blooded elements of it very strongly argue that the state should not intervene in people’s lives, including, in some cases, motorists’ lives, but what we have in new clause 5 is the right of the Tory party arguing for direct state intervention in something very personal: somebody’s personal relationship.
Earlier, it was said that a tax system would encourage people to get married, but there is no evidence of that at all. In the late 1960s and ’70s, when the old married man’s tax allowance was in place, there was a record rise in divorces, but that was less to do with the tax system and more to do with the change in society and the law that clearly made it easier to get divorced or to choose not to marry at all. Again, the idea that £20 a week will encourage somebody not to divorce is quite ludicrous. All the studies find that we would need to offer a considerable amount of money to prevent people from divorcing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the issue of international comparisons, somebody else mentioned Denmark and other countries and the hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned the fact that we are one of the few countries not to recognise marriage in the tax system, but there is no evidence to suggest that taxation as an encouragement to get married does anything to hold the family unit together.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have listened to my hon. Friend’s speech with a great deal of interest. On fiscal incentives for people to stay together, does he agree that the cost of running two separate households is a major financial consideration for people living apart? It far outweighs any fiscal benefit that the taxation system could deliver.
Mr Jones
I agree. The changes being made to housing benefit will not do anything to help families stay together. My hon. Friend is a London Member, so he will know that families will be forced to move out of central London because of the Government’s changes to housing benefit rules. That is one of the inconsistencies of this Government. On the one hand they say that a tax break of £150, or £20 a week, will help to keep the social unit together, and on the other they—the same Minister, I hasten to add—pursue policies on housing benefit and other benefit changes that will not help at all to keep families together but will lead to the root cause of most of these issues: the poverty that affects such individuals.
I turn to some of the problems with the Bill as framed, and to what we have before us. New clause 5 is not the measure in the Conservative party’s most recent election manifesto. This proposed change includes married couples but excludes civil partners, who would not be covered by the new clause. When there was an outcry and complaints about what had been proposed at the election, the Prime Minister included civil partners at the last minute.
People would have to opt in to this system and elect to transfer their part of an allowance. That would be very unfair to many people who do not understand tax codes. I have just got my annual tax return and I keep putting it to one side, as most people do, until the deadline arrives. Introducing a system whereby people have to elect to transfer a certain allowance may well help the more articulate middle-class people who can do that when they fill in the form, but I am not sure that some of the people on poor council housing estates in Glasgow whom the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is trying to address will have the wherewithal or knowledge to do it even if they knew that the option was available.
The Government have told us that they wish to simplify the tax system, but the new clause would make it a lot more complicated. In trying to bolster marriage, it would help certain groups of people but not others. Whenever we do anything with the taxation system, we should try to make it as user-friendly as possible. If someone opted to move their allowance around, that would be quite complicated because people’s incomes change throughout the year, so they might have a certain allowance available in one year but not another. The system would incur not only the £3 billion-plus cost of having it open to everyone but the cost of trying to work out how the tax office would administer it. In that respect, the new clause is not well thought out.
The Government have got themselves into a bit of a logjam on this. The Prime Minister is clearly committed to this policy. His Back Benchers are now worried that it cannot be implemented because of the coalition agreement. Huge amounts of public money would be used, but would it have any effect on child poverty? No, it would not, and neither would it affect most families. Moreover, it would help people without any children, including pensioners.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Leaving aside couples where there are no children in the household, does my hon. Friend agree that married couples typically tend to come from the better-off social classes and that, while I am sure that this is not what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) intends, a tax break for marriage would therefore benefit the better-off?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has great experience in this area, and she makes a clear point. People on lower incomes and possibly of lower educational standing than others will not look at the tax system and say, “I’m going to stay married because somehow I will be financially better off.” That is why it is important to simplify the tax system.
If we are looking to help children, this proposal would not do that. Indeed, some aspects would be detrimental to families, especially put alongside the Conservatives’ existing proposals on changes to the tax and benefits system. We need an honest debate on the family, child poverty and how we can build communities. By investing in Sure Start and child tax credit, the last Labour Government raised a whole group of individuals out of poverty. That was the way to do it. If money is tight, it needs to be targeted very carefully.
The approach that has been put forward, which recognises marriage, is not targeted and will not have the effect that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wants. That is unfortunate, because I think that he is well intentioned and has just come to the wrong conclusions. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the new clause. I do not think that they will, because it is not what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined in the manifesto or in the lead-up to the general election. It will be interesting to see how much pressure the Liberal Democrats can bring to bear to ensure that this proposal never sees the light of day. The coalition agreement says that they can sit on their hands if it is brought forward.
In conclusion, the individuals who are trying to address this issue, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough who is well intentioned and thoughtful in trying to do the best for families, have got it wrong in thinking that the answer is marriage. The root cause of social breakdown is not that people are not married, but poverty. We need to ensure that not only the tax system, but the benefits system and everything else, supports families, whether the parents are married, single, in a civil partnership or whatever. As has been said, and as the modern part of the Conservative party recognises, the modern family comes in all shapes and sizes. One size does not fit all and one solution does not fit all. Giving a pathetic sum of money to support marriage will not relieve child poverty; nor will it ensure that people stay together longer if the taxman will raid their savings or income if they do not. I do not think that this is the answer, and if it goes to a vote I will oppose it.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Only a few days ago, on father’s day, the Prime Minister stated:
“I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment”.
I believe that the Government’s commitment to introduce such a provision is genuine. It was in the Conservative manifesto, it is in the coalition agreement, and I trust that the Government will introduce it in this Parliament, just as they are addressing the couple penalty. I warmly congratulate the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the work being done to address this subject.
Kate Green
I know that the hon. Lady and her colleagues feel strongly about the couple penalty. Does she not accept that the design of the benefits cap that her Government are proposing will bring in a couple penalty—something that I thought they were trying to remove?
Fiona Bruce
The Government are seeking to support families and stable communities. In supporting marriage, that is what we are seeking to do.
Fiona Bruce
Committed relationships.
Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain recognised marriage in the tax system. The Labour Government did away with that in their first term. Britain’s fiscal arrangements effectively made it more challenging for people to marry than was the case in most other developed countries. Today we still live with that legacy. Apart from those in the UK, only 18% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system. Most of them live in Turkey and Mexico. Our failure to recognise marriage puts us out of line with fellow developed countries, and that arrangement continues to be a cause for concern, for a number of reasons relating to both fairness and social well-being.
Barry Gardiner
I notice from the amendment paper that new clause 5 is in the hon. Lady’s name. Could she explain to the House why she did not move it?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) kindly moved it in my stead.
Is it fair—
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish in any way to dispute the hon. Lady’s version of events, but I am quite sure that I distinctly heard her—maybe the official record will show this—say “not moved” when she was asked about new clause 5. Am I wrong in my recollection of that?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read Hansard and work it out for himself tomorrow. As a matter of record, as he knows, it is open to any Member to move a new clause, despite the fact that the Member who tabled it has decided not to move it.
Fiona Bruce
Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children—
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I heard the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) say “not moved”. I think that I saw one of the Tory Whips at her beforehand, so I do not know whether they tried to persuade her not to have this debate, but I think we need to clarify this point before we move on.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The position has been made absolutely clear. Now can we please continue with the speech that is being made?
Fiona Bruce
Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children, on the average male wage, find themselves thrust into the poorer half of the population in income?
Chris Leslie
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady’s flow, but this is really quite important. Did she or did she not say “not moved” at the beginning of the debate on new clause 5?
Fiona Bruce
I have already indicated that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough kindly moved the new clause in my stead. I am very pleased that he did so.
Fiona Bruce
If I may, I will move on.
On the subject of young people’s aspirations, it is striking that surveys demonstrate that approximately 90% of young people aspire to marry, yet that is not reflected in the marriage figures. I am not suggesting for a minute that fiscal considerations are the only factor, but the Government should at least ensure that it is not more financially detrimental to marry in this country than in other developed OECD countries, if we are to be true to our determination to become the most family-friendly country in Europe.
As a Government, we should send out a clear and credible signal to young people that we value marriage and encourage their aspirations in that respect, particularly as marriage acts as a stabiliser not just for the individuals within it but for the wider community. The prevalence, for example, of the isolation and exclusion of the elderly is influenced by the wider breakdown of family and community networks, as the Centre for Social Justice stated in its “Fractured Families” report.
On social well-being, the current problems in our local communities resulting from our failure to recognise marriage are pressing. As we have already heard, in December 2006 the CSJ’s report “Breakdown Britain” clearly resonated with the public. One of the key drivers of social challenges is family breakdown.
Fiona Bruce
No, I am going to continue now, because I have given way so many times that, as has been pointed out, it has interrupted the flow of my speech.
Family breakdown is an incredibly important challenge for the Government. The cost in human terms, especially in terms of children failing to fulfil their potential, is far too high. Although most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and deserve support as they do so, the evidence is that on average, the children of married parents do better on significant measures such as educational attainment, health, likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse.
The crucial thing to understand about British family breakdown is that the key is not only divorce, but the break-up of cohabiting relationships, which are far less stable than marriage. The CSJ report states:
“While marriage accounts for 54 per cent of births, the failure of marriages—ie divorce—accounts for only 20 per cent of break-ups and 14 per cent of the costs of family breakdown, among all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80 per cent of the break-ups and 86 per cent of the costs.”
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful case. Does she agree that Conservative Members are not denigrating forms of family other than those that involve marriage, but saying that we believe that marriage makes for a powerful start in life for children, and leads to better social outcomes on average?
Fiona Bruce
I agree with my hon. Friend in that respect—nor are Conservatives seeking to take away the support that we give to other family groups such as single parents. We are saying that there should be a tangible affirmation of the very important relationship of marriage.
A child born to cohabiting parents has nearly a one in two chance of living in a single-parent family by the time they reach the age of five, but a child born to married parents has only a one in 12 chance of finding themselves in that situation at that age.
Fiona Bruce
No, because I took interventions from Opposition Members earlier.
The direct costs of family breakdown are variously calculated at between £24 billion and £41.6 billion per annum—a huge amount of money that cannot be ignored, especially in times such as these. When faced with such enormous figures, a provision such as the transferable tax allowance to support marriage, and in turn to support stable families, who in turn form an important element of promoting the stable communities that we all want and that are so very much needed today, is surely worth considering.
I am aware of the argument that the principal cause for those different life outcomes is not marriage but family income, but that analysis is too simplistic. No one is trying to argue that family income is not relevant—it is—but in my view, insufficient recognition has been given in recent years to the importance of family stability in promoting the health and well-being of children.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
In my hon. Friend’s careful preparation for her speech, did she analyse whether other countries have given similar recognition to marriage?
Fiona Bruce
I did indeed, and I shall refer to that before I close my speech.
The CSJ report “Fractured Families” demonstrates significant differences in family stability between married and unmarried couples in the early years of parenthood, after discounting other factors such as age, income, education and race. Even the least well-off 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.
It is appreciated that we do not need to preach or moralise, but if we are to be truly family-friendly we must ensure that choosing to marry is no more difficult in this country than it is in any other developed country.
Fiona Bruce
I will give way—[Hon. Members: “No!”]
Moreover, if we rise to that challenge through the provision of a transferable allowance, as suggested by the new clause, we would do so in a way that makes it easier for one parent to stay at home for the children, which parents value and from which children benefit. That is also a matter of women’s rights, for it is often women who will exercise greater choice and flexibility. Women want that choice.
A 2008 YouGov poll found that 88% of parents think that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home and bring up their children in the early years, and 97% of them agree that the Government should do more in this area. Furthermore—this is of huge importance—the relative costs of introducing a transferable allowance are small when compared with the huge costs of family breakdown. I quoted those figures earlier.
Fiona Bruce
The transferable allowance would help to reduce those costs, and would therefore be an investment very well made. The £550 million cost of the partially transferable allowance proposed by the Conservatives prior to the general election represents just 1.3% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the Relationships Foundation—[Interruption.] And just 2.16% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the same organisation—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Fiona Bruce has made it absolutely clear that she has no intention of giving way at this stage. I am sure that she will make it clear if she changes her mind.
Fiona Bruce
I fully accept that the Government’s priority has been to clean up the terrible financial mess left by the previous Administration, which has necessarily involved difficult decisions, and I want to put on record today my support for the Government, who have not been afraid to grasp the nettle and make the difficult decisions that the previous Administration were incapable of making. Britain is on a much sounder footing today than was ever the case under the previous Administration, and I pay tribute to the Government’s hard work in this respect. However, even in the current economic environment, I believe that new clause 5 would, as I have outlined, be an investment well worth making both fiscally and socially. The Government have said that they will recognise marriage in the tax system at the appropriate time. I suggest that that time is now, particularly given that it would still take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs some considerable time to implement a transferable tax allowance, because of the IT and other implications.
Does the Minister agree that the increased tax burden on one-earner married couples on an average wage—it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average burden on such families—commends the early introduction of the transferable allowance if we are to be, as we aspire to be, the most family-friendly country in Europe? What assessment has he made of the time it will take to make the necessary IT and other changes to give effect to the Government’s commitment to introduce the transferable allowance? If he has not made such an assessment, will he do so? I ask the Government to bring forward this legislation not when they are ready, but sufficiently in advance of that, so that all IT and planning changes can be made first, and when the money is available, transferable allowances can become operational quickly, not one or more years later.
The transferable personal allowance was a key election commitment from many of us in the House and an important reason why people voted for the Conservative party. They are now looking for action. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, and I will conclude with a quotation from a speech given by the Chief Rabbi in another place earlier this year:
“If the Jewish experience has anything to say to Britain today it is: recognise marriage, not just cohabitation, as in the best interests of the child. Do so in the tax system. Do so in the educational system. Do so in relationship support. Otherwise, our children will pay the price—financial, educational, medical and psychological—for generations to come. Without stable marriages we will not have strong families, and without strong families we will not have a big society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 366-7.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the first time in what I suppose is a long time, I will be at odds with some of my colleagues sitting on the Opposition Benches. They are surrounding me at the moment, and I suspect that I will say something that they might not be entirely happy with. None the less, that will not stop me making my point of view heard.
Kate Green
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason why children from married relationships so often do better is that their parents come from higher socio-economic backgrounds, not the fact of marriage itself?
Jim Shannon
The evidence from the constituency that I represent would indicate that that is not necessarily the case. Those who are perhaps worse off financially are in stable relationships as well. The reason I am speaking on this issue tonight is that I am reflecting not only my personal views, but—I believe—those of a large majority of the people whom I represent. I am here as the MP for Strangford to put that on the record and ensure that that opinion is well heard this evening. Many people might not like what I have to say, but hon. Members will have to accept that it is my opinion.
Barry Gardiner
I, too, believe that marriage is good for society, but surely what we have to consider this evening is whether the proposals before us would do anything to incentivise marriage and increase the number of people going into wedlock, and I do not believe for a moment that they will.
Jim Shannon
I do not believe that that is the intention of those who have put these proposals forward. I believe that they are about the unfairness in the taxation system that impacts directly on those in marital relationships. That is the reason. This is not about creating a financial incentive—other Members have suggested that it is about encouraging people to get married for an extra £150—and I do not believe for a second that it is.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals are not about incentivising or encouraging people to get married, but about saying to people who are married, “You will not be penalised financially”? Marriage is good for society, good for relationships and good for children, and it should be encouraged. We should not as a House try to pour scorn on the many married couples out there, whether they are unemployed married couples or wealthy married couples.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the passion in his voice.
Mindful of those points, it is a minimal responsibility of policy makers to remove all obstacles to marriage resulting from fiscal policy. Indeed, there is a good case for considering what steps could be taken to support marriage. I believe that the proposal before us is one suggestion that we should be considering. In the light of that, I am delighted by what the Prime Minister has said. Some people in this Chamber would say, “If the Prime Minister supports it, we don’t,” but if the Prime Minister says something good, let us support it, whether he is the Prime Minister or not—and if one of my colleagues says that something is good, then that is good as well.
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Gentleman is making the case on behalf of his constituents and presenting his own personal view, but does he also recognise that a strong case has been made in those countries that recognise marriage in a way that this country does not?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly that is the issue, because there are many countries right across the world that have tax breaks. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said:
“Britain is almost the only country in Europe that doesn’t recognise marriage in the tax system.”
That was his comment back in 2007, but he reiterated the point in 2008 and 2010. There is clearly an issue to be addressed if we are to make comparisons with tax systems in other countries across Europe.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being extremely generous. I am delighted that he believes that this should not be about incentivising—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please could the hon. Gentleman direct his comments through the Chair? That will also mean that I can hear what he is saying.
Barry Gardiner
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said that this measure is not about incentivising marriage, or about penalising people. Can he therefore explain why, under the proposals, a woman with children who has recently been widowed would suffer a financial loss at precisely the time when the family needed the money the most? That seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the proposals.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman made that comment earlier to other speakers, and they responded to it. I accept that there are anomalies in all systems. In the short time that I have been in the House, I have spoken on many issues, and each one was something that my constituents told me that they wanted me to deal with. I am on record as having opposed changes to the education maintenance allowance, the employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit. I am also on record as opposing changes to the disability living allowance, among other changes in the benefit system. I have done that in this Chamber; if I see something wrong, I will take a stand on it. If I see an anomaly, I will do my best to address it. I cannot necessarily tell the House every detail of the matter, because I might not be aware of them, but if there is a wrong, it must be righted.
Ian Paisley
Does my hon. Friend also accept that it is all very well to say that there are anomalies, but that sometimes straw men are put up in these arguments? The fact is that if a pensioner, for example, loses a loved one, their tax credits and allowances go up, not down. We should not allow these straw men to be introduced into the debate.
Yasmin Qureshi
No one is saying that there is anything wrong with marriage. Of course, one should encourage it. My parents were married, and I am married. No one is objecting to people getting married or saying that we should be telling people to get married. However, a fundamental problem with the new clause is that it effectively discriminates against one set of people. Why should a man and a woman who live together and have children be less well off or be discriminated against, compared with a married couple? Why would we wish to create discrimination between those groups of people?
Jim Shannon
People’s interpretations of these issues are different; we see things in different ways and have different opinions. I do not necessarily agree with what the hon. Lady has said, but there are issues to be addressed.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is inconsistency among Conservative Members, in that they want to support marriage while taking away huge amounts of financial support from ordinary families?
Jim Shannon
I do not believe that there is an inconsistency in relation to this matter, although, with respect, I would disagree with certain other proposals relating to the benefit system.
Michael Connarty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I regard him as such—for giving way. I share his warmth about marriage, having spent the past 41 years married, although I am not sure that my wife would be quite so enthusiastic. He has, however, strayed beyond his own guidelines. He said that the provision was not about people marrying for a payment, yet he is now arguing that that is what he supports. Surely this should be about the responsibilities that people take on as a couple, especially when they have children, because that is the most burdensome time when they need the most help from the tax system. This is not about whether they decide to have one kind of a relationship or another. Whether they are married or unmarried, if they decide to be together and have children, they will be burdened with other costs.
Jim Shannon
I can tell the House that when I married, I married for love. I am one of those old-fashioned boys; that is just the way I am.
Mr Leigh
In the light of the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), it is important to point out that we are not trying to penalise single-parent families or families in which there are two earners. All we are trying to do is remove the severe penalty on families in which there is only one earner, because our system is totally out of step with most of the rest of the world in that regard.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for providing a bit of focus to this debate.
Given that the agreement pertains to a full Parliament, one ordinarily would not be concerned at the failure to action a commitment in just over a year. What we need is for legislative change to be approved by the coalition Government, to move forward and perhaps see this legislation coming through in two years. The latest publication of the international tax comparison, CARE’s “The Taxation of Families 2009-10” puts things in a very different light. It demonstrates that we are now headed to a place where the tax burden on a married family with children with one earner on an average wage is growing so much that it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average. That breaks new ground, taking us into territory that not even new Labour dreamt of occupying.
Some will no doubt respond by saying that this is a result of the tax burden having to increase on everyone in the context of the debt crisis. I understand that, but it is not exactly the case. Let me quote a director of an influential think-tank, who said:
“Given that it will take some time between changing the law and implementing the actual recognition of marriage in the tax system, it is important that the Government makes this a priority, takes swift action. The change, or at least a recognition of it, should be made”.
I very much hope that that report can be taken seriously, that the Government can look further at the issue and perhaps bring it forward in future legislation.
Kate Green
I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman which report he is referring to and which think-tank?
Jim Shannon
The think-tank is ResPublica.
As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said earlier, the tax burden on single people with no dependants on the same wage has been falling and far from being 50% above the OECD average, it is now actually below it. That is reflected in the fact that the tax burden on a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children is projected to rise from 73% to 80% of that of a single person on the same wage by 2012-13, while the equivalent average burden among OECD nations is 52%.
In this context, it is strange that the Government have started investing what will probably end up being almost £12 billion on increasing individual allowances to £10,000. There is a cost factor there and an agreement within the coalition on how that is going to happen. That will cost us all. It is a measure that will have a disproportionately positive effect on single people, yet the Government will not have brought forward a much cheaper transferable allowance policy.
I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. It is now urgent that the Government introduce legislation to give effect to the transferable allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide robust assurances on this point and a commitment to ensure that as the tax burden increases in the context of the current financial difficulties, it is allocated in a way that is fair, sensitive to family responsibilities and recognises the real strengths that marriage brings to society. I also trust that the Minister will address the important points raised by other hon. Members, including the need urgently to address the IT implications of recognising marriage in the tax system. There are changes to be made, there are costs and a system will need to be set up.
I urge Members to support new clause 5. I believe it is worthy of support. I understand that there are differences of opinion. This is probably the first time that I have disagreed with many colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but I believe in my heart that this is an issue of some importance.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does hon. Friend accept that no one here needs to apologise for believing that this nation was richly blessed whenever it honoured marriage in legislation?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for putting the issue into perspective. We have no apologies to make; we believe in the sanctity of marriage; we believe it is important. Long may this House subscribe to that belief; we need to provide help and assistance to support marriage. We urge Members to support new clause 5.
Dan Rogerson
This has been a fascinating debate. It has been broad in its coverage of issues relating to marriage and social policy—although I must say that at times it has been as long as it has been broad—and it has strayed back into recent centuries in examining the institution of marriage. One common factor has emerged from it: Members in all parts of the House recognise the hugely beneficial effect of marriage on wider society in keeping families together and improving the quality of life, although some evidence presented by Members has raised questions about the quality of life during marriage.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the transferability for which the new clause provides would enable parents, particularly women, to choose how they spend their time—to choose whether to work or to stay at home to look after children—and does he not think that providing that choice is a good idea?
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman has raised a useful point. However, given the existing pressures on families I do not think that the new clause is sufficient to allow that to happen, although it may be a step in the right direction. The argument presented by, mainly, Members in a particular corner of the Chamber is that on one hand that this is about incentives and on the other hand that it would make a financial difference, and I think there is a weakness at the heart of that argument.
Members have produced evidence relating to what happened at the time of the change in the tax system. My own marriage took place in 1999 and was not related to tax considerations; I am pleased to say that other factors were operating. I suspect that, given the way in which tax has risen and fallen in every Budget, if such decisions were based on tax policy we would see a huge flux in the nature of relationships and marriage.
Mr Leigh
The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly honourable speech and his party’s position is entirely consistent, but, as possibly the only Liberal Democrat speaking in the debate, will he confirm that, given the coalition agreement, he would be perfectly relaxed if our Government produced such a transferable allowance? Surely the Liberal Democrats could simply abstain.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am generally a relaxed person. We in Cornwall are famed for being laid back and not wanting the hectic pace of life that some other constituencies thrive on. I am focusing on the debate about the Government’s policy in the Bill and whether the Government will choose to accept the new clause that the hon. Gentleman proposed in such an able and distinguished manner. I hope that the Government will not at this juncture look to act on the proposal in the new clause.
I am happy to update the House that during the course of the debate news reached me that Julia Goldsworthy, the former Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has announced her engagement, which I am delighted to hear. Whether she and Chris have been watching the debate and decided that this was it is unclear. I think it is unlikely, but I am delighted that the institution of marriage is taking a step forward in terms of our political life in Cornwall.
Hon. Members’ speeches have made it clear that the new clause is an attempt to send a signal to a group of people in society, but I am not convinced that we should use the tax system to send a signal. There are other ways in which we could support marriage.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I concur that 1999 was a vintage year for nuptials, having been married myself that year. Surely there is a discrepancy in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. By increments, he is seeking to direct fiscal policy in terms of taking poorer people out of tax—it is his party’s policy, shared by many in my party, and it is in the coalition agreement. Surely he must recognise that there are perfectly good fiscal reasons for us to prevail on the Government to pursue the married tax allowance.
Dan Rogerson
There is certainly an important debate to be had, but it is not based on income or the tackling of poverty. It is a different argument, although of course an entirely legitimate one. It is just one that has failed to convince me at this juncture.
In our long debate this evening we have explored the issues in some depth. Despite the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, he has failed to convince me that the Government should act on his new clause.
Kate Green
This is an important debate and one that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in. The first thing to say is that it is important that we take great care with what the evidence tells us. That is in two respects.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is interrupting before I have even begun to expand on the evidence, but I shall be delighted to hear what evidence he has.
Mr Jackson
I merely had the temerity to point out that the hon. Lady did not grace us with her presence until about 20 minutes ago, so she was not in a position to hear the extremely articulate and well-made arguments made by my hon. Friend.
Kate Green
I am very sorry to have missed the contribution of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), but I should point out my own credentials—something that I do not often do. I bring to the House, if not exactly an interest, probably a bias. For four years I was proud to be the director of the National Council for One Parent Families. I worked with hon. Members, including Conservative Members, on what happens when relationships break down and children are involved. I know that I speak for hon. Members across the House when I say that our fundamental concern in this debate must be the well-being of children. I know that we come at that from different positions, but it is the debate that I think it is important we have this evening. The debate is not—however much hon. Members may, with the best of motives, care about it—about the social role of marriage and the societal messages that we send. I am interested in the well-being of children. It is incredibly important that we examine what we know about what marriage means for the well-being of children, what drives the factors that improve the well-being of children and the role of the financial position of families, and particularly of mothers, in the well-being of children.
I have had the pleasure of talking to hon. Members about this over many years, including Conservative Members. It is important for us as a House that we put it on record that this is what we really care about.
Kate Green
I will with great pleasure give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had many important conversations on this point.
Andrew Selous
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s considerable expertise, as I have been the beneficiary of some of it in the past. Does she agree that we should not set up a position of false opposition on this matter, and that many single parents are probably passionate supporters of marriage and might well like to get married again? We need to be a bit careful how we relate to this issue.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, because the majority of people, including young people, want to be married. Most people who become lone parents never set out to do so; they did not enter into relationships expecting or wanting those relationships to break down. However, people often find themselves, at least for a time, bringing up children on their own. My point is that the well-being of children when that relationship breaks down must be a priority for this House. He probably feels as strongly as I do about that, and I hope that hon. Members will focus their attention on it when considering the new clause.
I want to say two things about the evidence that has been mentioned and debated by hon. Members this evening, the first of which relates to the cause and effect evidence. I perhaps raised this clumsily in earlier interventions, when I sought to point out that, to some degree at least, married couples are a bit of a self-selecting category. There is a preponderance of marriage among those who already had more financial and social resources before they married. Our policy should adjust to that where children who come from different social backgrounds may be disadvantaged, rather than seek to reinforce some of the societal disadvantages which mean that there is a prevalence of marriage among higher socio-economic groups.
Dr McCrea
As a minister, I have been marrying couples for the past 42 years and I do not know where the hon. Lady is getting her statistics from, as they certainly do not reflect the reality in the Province. She gives the idea that people who enter into marriage are at the upper end of the financial stability scale, but the vast majority of people who have been married have been at the lower end of the scale or in between. The reality is certainly not what she is describing to the House tonight.
Kate Green
I cannot question the hon. Gentleman’s evidence about Northern Ireland, but I can say that the position across the United Kingdom as a whole is that a higher rate of marriage correlates with people in higher socio-economic groups. We were helpfully reminded by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) of an important question, which relates to the second point about the evidence: even if we could do something to spread the advantages of marriage across wider society, would a tax break do this? I have seen and heard no evidence, either this evening or during the many years that I have studied this subject, to show that a tax break persuades people to get married or to stay married. In that sense, particularly in these constrained fiscal circumstances, it seems extraordinary to spend public money on a mechanism that has no evidence to prove that it works effectively. There are real issues to address in respect of what the evidence shows us. Saying that does not devalue, in any way, the importance of marriage; I merely say that when we spend money, we need to know what outcome we expect it to achieve.
Mr Burrowes
I, too, recognise the hon. Lady’s expertise. It is difficult in these debates to unite on what we are for. She opened her contribution by discussing children’s well-being, and surely she would agree that there is evidence to suggest a correlation between children’s well-being and marriage. This issue should not just be the preserve of the few and the privileged; it should be an issue of social justice and extending it to the poorest, who can benefit from incentives and support in relation to marriage. That is what we are about, so surely we should unite in this House on that issue.
Kate Green
With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman—I understand what he says—we do not know and we have no evidence to tell us that it is the fact of marriage that gives those children that advantage. That is where the evidence falls down, with the greatest of respect to the strongly held views of Conservative Members and of DUP Members, too. The evidence does not tell us that the fact and existence of a marital relationship, if we strip out all other social and economic factors, makes the difference for children. Commitment might be one important factor but there is another important factor: conflict. We know that conflict, in married relationships or outside them, is extremely damaging for children, so it is dangerous for us pick out one aspect of relationships or familial structures and to say that it makes or breaks children’s well-being. The evidence simply does not stack up to tell us that.
I said at the beginning of my speech that my concern was about the well-being of children in the context of the proposal to spend public money on supporting a particular kind of familial structure. I am concerned that we are diverting resources to families who are economically better off rather than to those who face the greatest risk of poverty.
The families who face the greatest risk of poverty today—hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on this point—are lone parent families. There are two possible policy responses to that, one of which is to try to stop those lone parent families becoming lone parent families. Saying that we should have fewer single parent families could be a policy response if we could see the mechanisms to achieve it and if we thought that it would genuinely work for children’s well-being. In the absence of evidence that this tax break or other mechanisms can compel families to stay together, we must also consider the second policy response mechanism, which is how to improve the economic prospects of children growing up in single parent families, particularly in light of the fact that one in four children in this country will spend some time in such a family. I suggest that if we are considering where the pressure of public resources need to be focused, protecting the best interests of those children, irrespective of the marital situation of their parents, ought to be our priority.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Lady is very generous in giving way, but surely she is avoiding one central fact. We alone in Europe have a tax system that is biased against families with caring responsibilities in which one member chooses to stay at home to look after the children. That is the central fact that she is avoiding.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. First, I have been struck this evening by the interventions by Government Members about the opportunity for couples to make a choice—particularly that which many of them would like to see, which is for one parent in the couple, often the mother, to take some time out of the workplace to stay at home and care for children. They seem willing to spend money on offering that choice to mothers in couple relationships and to spend more on offering it to mothers in married couple relationships, but not to offer it to single mothers. The economic pressure on single mothers to go out to work to support their children is being ratcheted up by this Government. If it is right for children to have a parent at home for a time, not necessarily just when the children are very young, it must be right irrespective of the marital status of the parents. Government Members must think about the child-focused approach to deploying resources. If we think it right that parents should have the choice to be at home with their children, all parents must have that choice, not just those in married relationships.
In response to the interesting and important point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about what goes on in other European countries, let me say that one of the distinguishing factors is that the experience of poverty among lone parent families in this country and the much lower experience of such poverty in other European countries shows that one can design a fiscal system so that lone parenthood need not be a determinant of poverty. It need not lead families and children into poverty. This is about the redistributive choices that we make in our fiscal system. When we have such pressure on the public finances, making a choice to spend money on favouring a group of families, many of whom are already economically advantaged, rather than focusing spending on those who are most economically disadvantaged is a strange priority, particularly given that we have no evidence of the efficacy of spending money on keeping people married as a route to keeping them out of economic disadvantage.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend talks about international comparisons, but does she agree that there is also no evidence in European countries or anywhere else that having a tax system that encourages marriage leads to more stable marriages or more coherent family units?
Kate Green
It is very clear that putting the weight of expectation for supporting marriage on the fiscal system is a very unrealistic and unlikely way of providing adequate support for strong couple relationships. Of course everybody wants strong couple relationships to be sustained and of course it is right to use every instrument of public policy that we can—cost-effectively and in terms of outcome—to do so, but the evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is not that we should give tax breaks to the already better-off, and particularly not to the already better-off who do not have children, if we are concerned about child well-being. The evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is about a much broader landscape of social and emotional support. It is about early relationship and social education in schools and ensuring we have strong services to support families in the community, including the universally welcome Sure Start services and the very good-quality child care and play facilities that can be available to support parents in raising their children.
To isolate money and spend it in the fiscal system rather than direct our attention to what genuinely supports strong family relationships and children in whatever family structure they are growing up is in my view a misapplication of public funds, particularly at a time when those public funds are constrained. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is particularly strange to spend money on couples who have no children if we are concerned about child well-being, rather than to spend money in a way that specifically focuses on the well-being of kids. I am very concerned that the new clause would take money from those with higher levels of need and give it to many couples in lesser need. I accept that, as hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches have said, some married couples are in low-income groups and in straitened circumstances, but in general we would be diverting resources to better-off families from lower-income families, and particularly from lower-income families with children.
Finally, let me address the issue of the couple penalty, about which we have heard a great deal and about which I am deeply sceptical. Let us start by remembering that there are economies of scale of living with another adult in one’s household. It does not cost twice as much for two adults to live in a household as it costs one. The couple penalty that has been much talked about by Conservative Members fails to identify that the material circumstances of children in lone-parent families are measurably worse than those of children in couple families. Whatever the intellectual and fiscal modelling might suggest about a financial couple penalty, the reality—the outcome—is that there is no such couple penalty. Indeed, the penalty works in quite the opposite way. To seek to extend the material advantage that couples enjoy at the expense of single parents seems to me a strange choice for a Government who are particularly concerned about social mobility and improving the prospects of the most disadvantaged children.
I hope that hon. Members will consider the new clause very carefully and the fact that it simply fails to achieve the laudable goals of Members on the Government Benches to improve the prospects of some of our most disadvantaged children. I hope that they will look instead at how best we can direct resources to support parents who are bringing up children on their own, usually through no choice or fault of their own. I hope that they will relieve what is often a burden from the parents who are often proud to take on that burden and who deserve to be rewarded for taking it on, as they are the parents who stay and make the commitment. Surely they are the parents to whom we should be giving extra financial support if there is extra financial support to be made available. I really do plead with Members on the Conservative Benches, and with DUP Members who I think are giving them some support this evening, to think again about the likely effect of such a new clause and about the children who would lose out. I am sure that their intentions are honourable, but I am afraid that the results will be anything but.
Mr Stewart Jackson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who always makes an intelligent, cogent and reasonable case, but she is completely wrong. I had not intended to trouble the scorers this evening, but it is important that we have a proper debate on new clause 5, that it is not rushed through, and that this is not treated as a procedural issue that the House can dismiss lightly. It goes to the kernel of what my hon. Friends and I believe in. We did not come into politics at any level—in my case, more than 20 years ago—to make people poorer, to embed disadvantage, or to have a tax system that favours some over others.
My party has a strong tradition of small “l” liberal and progressive social reform, from Disraeli onwards. One of the more depressing aspects of the debate is the straw men—or straw people, I should say—who have been set up, and the caricatures of the Conservative party that have been paraded before us.
Mr Jackson
Not at the moment; I may do so later. If a reasonable person from any other European country stumbled into the Chamber tonight, they would wonder why we were debating the issue. It is an existential issue of what we believe as public servants—as politicians—about the institution of marriage. That is not to traduce or do down the massive contribution that those who are, for a variety of reasons, single parents make to their family. They love their children and care about their family, and they are a part of the community. However, it is incumbent on us to say what we think is right. I commend the courage and dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who is willing to be unfashionable sometimes and speak out on what he believes is right.
This is a totemic issue, because my party put it in its election manifesto. It recapitulated that point in the coalition agreement and has argued for this specific policy, so it is not one that we can lightly cast aside as irrelevant now that we are in a coalition in which there must be give and take. Many of us have always believed that it is vital to take poorer working people out of tax. We heard about a cornucopia of so-called Tory errors, going back to the minimum wage. Let me remind Opposition Members that the gap between the richest and poorest 10% widened under the Labour Government. A former very senior Government member professed that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”;
that is a fact. No one has a monopoly on care and compassion for people.
It cannot be wrong to look at examples in other European countries, see that their fiscal policy decisions work, and decide to look at a similar policy. I like, respect and trust the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury; he is a decent man of his word. He will have heard the strength of views and the passion on the Conservative Benches. He will also have heard the filibustering by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which reached a nadir when he effectively said in his final remarks that people were essentially too thick to fill in their tax forms. I know that filibustering is an art form, and he has perfected it, but that is gilding the lily and taking things to a ludicrous length. This is not a subject for knockabout politics; it is about real changes to support people.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good and important case. Many people quite properly raise concerns about the gap between the rich and the poor growing over the years, but why do the same people not also raise concerns about the position of one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children? Their tax burden has increased over the years, too. Why are people not rising up and expressing concern about that discrimination, which will lead to real child poverty if we do not deal with it?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend has a long tradition of concentrating on this issue in his professional work in family law before he came to the House, and he knows what he is talking about. He is right and astute in his observation. The proposal is about ameliorating unfairness, as well as having a progressive tax policy to reward what we think is right. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in her usual decorous way, skipped the key issue, which is that European countries are making such tax changes or have established them, and we have not. It is incumbent on her to make the case why they are all wrong and we are right.
Andrew Selous
Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case the United Kingdom is the odd country out? As he so powerfully said, we need to join the mainstream of Europe on this matter.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Reference was made earlier to the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011. The hon. Member for North Durham, who is ambling along the Back Benches towards his place, did not refute the causal link and the difference between marriage and cohabitation and some of their negative socio-economic impacts.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening; I said nothing of the sort. I said that a possible reason for marriage break-up was poverty, but the link that he is making by suggesting that marriage break-down somehow leads to poverty is not the point that I was making at all.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. We will have a look at Hansard tomorrow to see what he said. He did not refute the details and facts that I put before the House in my interventions on him and others.
Mr Jones
I know the hon. Gentleman is not a good listener. He is drawing the conclusion that poverty, and things such as drug abuse among children of single parents and others, is a result of the fact that their parents are not married. What I said, and what is clear from the work of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is that the root cause is poverty, not whether people are married or not married.
Mr Jackson
My capacity to listen is in inverse proportion to the length of the hon. Gentleman’s peroration. Given that he spoke for an hour, at the end, like many others, I lost the will to live. I expect better of the hon. Gentleman because he has given some very informative speeches over the years. Sadly, that was not the case tonight. I am sure he is distressed at my observations.
The hon. Gentleman failed to take on board any of the comments that were made or the facts that were presented. A study by the Bristol Community Family Trust in December 2010 demonstrated that cohabiting couples accounted for 80% of family break-ups, whereas divorce accounted for only 20% of break-ups. He did not specifically seek to break the causal link that I was making. One in 11 married couples break up before their child is five, compared with one in three unmarried couples. None of us wants to see the dire social consequences of family breakdown. There is a consensus across this country about it, from the Prime Minister down.
Kate Green
Accepting at face value what the hon. Gentleman says—that cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than married couples—what evidence can he give us that a financial inducement would work to keep those cohabiting couples together?
Mr Jackson
I expected better of the hon. Lady, who is learned, intelligent and usually erudite, than rejigging the caricature, “Put a ring on your finger and get an extra 20 quid a week.” That has never been our argument. We seek to influence private behaviour with public policy, and I used the example of speeding fines and points on a licence as policies that are likely to influence future behaviour. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who is no longer in his place, the Liberal Democrats made a manifesto commitment, which we have accepted, to take more poorer working people out of tax. That commitment was made on the same basis. The point I keep coming back to, and which I repeat for the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, is that the international comparators support my case and not hers.
Mr Jackson
I will not give way for the time being.
We all wish to deal with the problem of family breakdown, and I genuinely believe that this would be an important pointer and signal that we are in line with other countries and cognisant of international comparators. The hon. Member for North Durham painted a picture of a wonderful land of milk and honey, a Valhalla, after 13 years of the Labour Government, but it is worth repeating that in 2007, under a Labour Administration, a UNICEF report on child well-being placed Britain bottom in a league table of 21 countries. Members should listen not only to me on that point but to Mr Justice Coleridge from the family division of the High Court, who in 2009 summarised the position thus:
“The breakdown of families in this country is on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago… almost all of society’s ills can be traced directly to the collapse of family life… it is a never ending carnival of human misery.”
The Whips are imploring me to conclude my comments—I know it is not my aftershave—so I will do so, as I am always receptive to the admonitions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We have had an excellent debate and I believe that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has listened. This is an important point of principle for Members on this side of the House and for many others, including hon. Gentlemen and Ladies from Northern Ireland on the other side of the Chamber. It is a totemic issue, and this Conservative-led coalition Government must, and I believe will, deliver on this promise.
Michael Connarty
In the contributions that I have heard via the live feed and in the Chamber, sadly there seem to have been moral overtones that echo speeches in a Victorian Parliament. If moral judgments are behind those arguments and people think that they this is a moral vote, I am quite sad about that. It might be a political strategy, however. Many political strategies were put forward by the Conservative leadership at the election, but hopefully they will not be reflected in the legislation put though this House. I hope that the contribution from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is more reflective of the coalition, which means that the Government will not do what the new clause proposes.
It is very important that people listening to this debate realise what the proposals are. After the advances that this country has made, in the recognition of civil partnerships, for example, this proposal is about spouses and spouses alone, not civil partners. It is attacking the progress that has been made, which is now being copied across Europe. It does not relate to people of the same gender in firm and committed relationships, which shows that it is not a forward movement at all. It is an attempt to throw out and make a moral judgment on the things that have been done by the joint agreement of this House to advance society’s value of firm and committed partnerships. That is what is important.
Michael Connarty
Not yet.
It is not just a matter of putting a marriage partnership or a firm partnership ahead of any other. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke strongly and has worked hard on single parenthood, but I happen to believe, in most cases but not all, that a partnership provides a much stronger place for children to grow up in than that provided by any single person—male or female—who has to go it alone. Therefore, our society has a lot of value when we can encourage partnerships.
We still have the oddest situation in Europe—and among many other countries outside Europe—because we do not recognise de facto partnerships. De facto partnerships are not civil marriages but agreements by people without either a civil or Church marriage to remain in a relationship and to commit to themselves and to any offspring.
My son lives in Australia, and he shared a de facto partnership for a number of years, recognising that if he or his partner had died their pension would have transferred to the other. In this country I have friends who, like me and my spouse, have been together for 41 years. They have had to get married because they might be coming to the end of their lives—not for a long time, I hope—and their pensions would have died with them.
That was a moral judgment which the previous Labour Government made, and it was shameful, because we should have had civil partnerships for all who wished to have them, and we should have recognised de facto partnerships as much as same-gender partnerships. That is how we should have looked at things, but we should not give cash incentives, as the new clause seeks. Indeed, that was the contradiction in the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he said that he was not about incentivising partnerships through finances and then spoke on behalf of the new clause—which would incentivise partnerships.
Michael Connarty
I have a call from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) first.
That is what is wrong with the new clause. It is about spouses, it is backward looking and moralistic and it will not help children at all. It is sad that one in five marriages breaks down and that civil partnerships break down, so we must encourage people through the way we finance them and help them to keep their relationships together, because finances as much as personal fall-outs break down relationships.
Andrew Gwynne
I agree wholeheartedly that families come in different shapes and sizes, and we need to respect and reflect that in public policy. Is not that why the previous Labour Government were absolutely right to target limited resources on tackling child poverty, irrespective of the child’s family background?
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend has made that point before, and he puts it better than I could.
My mother, who now has sadly passed away, was soured by the Labour Government very early on when we took away the additional money for single parents. From then on, every time I went to her house on a Sunday, she would start by saying, “Welcome,” and then she would say, “You and your Tony Blair,” and for the rest of my visit berate me for what we had not got right. She was a great touchstone, however, because she saw that the defence of children and the future of children were important, not the rest.
The new clause is a backwards step, but I am hopeful that the Minister will not support it and that such legislation will never get through. It states that only marriage—not any other relationship—is good enough or as good as we would wish.
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Gentleman is experienced in European affairs, given his chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee and his general interest in European matters, so I have a question. Why do France, Germany and Italy all recognise marriage in the taxation system? Indeed, let us widen that question. Why do only 24% of OECD citizens live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the taxation system? Has he ever asked why our European neighbours recognise marriage but we do not?
Michael Connarty
People must ask those Governments, but many recognise de facto partnerships as well, and their recognition is based on not just the marriage to which the new clause refers with “spouses”. That is the point. This is about one small group that we in this country used to see as a backward thing. We have moved beyond that now, and it is time we put it behind us. Perhaps others will catch up with us soon enough when they realise that it is partnerships that matter, not specifically spouses in a formal marriage.
Mr Chope
In making a brief contribution to this very important debate, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on getting it going. It came as a bit of surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did not speak to the new clause, but I am delighted that she subsequently joined the debate to speak in support of it.
I come at this subject on the basis that the Prime Minister supports exactly what I support: recognising marriage in the tax system. He promised that the Government would recognise marriage in the tax system after the general election, and this debate rightly puts the focus on how that commitment will be implemented. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say exactly when that is going to happen. Over a year ago, on 2 June 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]
Those were excellent words from my right hon. Friend. Then, some three or four months later—
Mr Chope
No, I am not going to allow anybody to interfere with the words of the Prime Minister.
On 5 October 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”
That is where my hon. Friend’s new clause comes in, because it calls for just that. One is entitled to ask why, having had two Budgets since the general election, we still do not have proposals to implement that very important pledge.
Labour Members are misrepresenting this proposal as an attempt to build new privileges for those who are in a marital relationship, but, as has been brought out time and again during the debate, the question is what we are going to do to prevent those who are married from suffering disadvantage under the tax system. That is what we are trying to put right with the new clause.
Helen Goodman
Labour Members would be far more sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are making in saying that they do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families if they had not voted for the Welfare Reform Bill, which requires lone parents to pay to get the services of the Child Support Agency.
Mr Chope
Speaking for myself, I do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families, but I do feel that single-parent families should not be advantaged in the tax system as compared with married families. That is the problem that we have at the moment, and that is what we are trying to put right in the new clause.
I am lucky in that my constituency is in an area described thus in a headline in last week’s local paper: “East Dorset is a place for love and marriage”. The article says:
“Married couples in East Dorset stick together. Latest…figures show that 65 per cent of marriages in the area last, well above the national average”,
with the seventh highest rate of marriage survival in the country. Even so, fewer than two out of three marriages survive, but that is a lot better than in many other parts of the country.
I am not suggesting that the tax system is causing marital breakdown, but I am saying that we should follow the very strong lead of our Prime Minister and put pressure on the coalition Government to implement their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Is not the real issue the calibration of the compromise? Most new Government Back Benchers recognise that in a coalition there has to be compromise. At the same time as we see moves forward on the individual allowance for our Liberal Democrat colleagues, we need to see some progress along the lines that my hon. Friend is setting out. The key issue is that there appears to be an imbalance in the compromise.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking a route towards a destination. The Prime Minister set out the clear destination, but so far we do not seem to have made any progress towards achieving it. What was set out in detail on the Conservative website at the time of the election was a very modest proposal, which talked about a small proportion of the tax allowance being transferable, with quite a tight maximum income threshold in order for people to be eligible. Even that modest proposal has not yet been put forward by the Government in the Finance Bill so that we can support it and implement it.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Prime Minister’s support for this proposal. Does he recognise that the Prime Minister included civil partnerships in what he said? If we agreed to this proposal tonight, civil partnerships would be excluded, which is clearly at odds with what the Prime Minister wants.
Mr Chope
If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.
Mr Leigh
I am happy to make the concession to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who spoke at some length on this point, that if the new clause is defective, I am happy to withdraw it and for the Government to bring back a new clause that includes civil partnerships. I make it absolutely clear that we have nothing against civil partnerships.
Mr Chope
My final point is that there is a read-across between the new clause and the conundrum that the Government face in the debate about the withdrawal of child benefit from families that comprise at least one higher rate taxpayer. That issue is causing a lot of angst among our constituents, particularly for parents in single income households in which one parent stays at home to look after the children. As I have said in correspondence with the Minister, in some cases one parent stays at home to look after a disabled child. If there is one parent who is the breadwinner and he is a higher rate taxpayer on an income of about £45,000 or £50,000, he will be above the threshold and will be deprived of his child benefit.
Mr Chope
I will give way in a minute.
In comparison, a household with two people earning between £35,000 and £40,000 each, which has a much higher income, will keep its child benefit. That is not fair. In response to correspondence, the Minister has said that there has to be a bit of rough justice and that to introduce a system of transferability of allowances and entitlements would be very complicated. However, that is exactly what was proposed by the Prime Minister with the transferability of tax allowances, and that is what is proposed in the new clause. That is of significance, because there is a read-across from this other thorny policy issue that faces the Government.
I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister, and that he will spell out in detail when and how the Prime Minister’s pledges to the country will be implemented.
Chris Leslie
What on earth is going on with the Tories this evening? It is a perplexing situation, because Conservative Members usually accuse Labour Members of filibustering in an open-ended Finance Bill debate, but not at all this evening. Instead we seem to have a private family dispute breaking out.
Chris Leslie
There could be, who knows? We had the unedifying spectacle, at the beginning of the debate, of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in whose name the new clause was tabled, not moving it, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) swiftly getting to his feet and deciding to move it. Three hours later, here we are. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Congleton had reached some sort of deal with the Whips—it did not look like a particularly friendly deal at the time, but maybe she had a concession from Ministers and they are going to announce, finally, some movement on their election pledges. It is all very strange behaviour.
As my hon. Friends have said, it is very peculiar, at a time when millions of families, pensioners and others are being hit hard by deep spending cuts and tax rises, that the first priority of so many Conservative Members is to advocate an unfair tax cut with no apparent benefit to society. It would be a multi-billion-pound marriage tax break that would penalise those who are separated, widowed or divorced, many of whom are already being hit hard by cuts to tax credits and child care.
Mr Jackson
On the subject of unfairness, would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise for the fact that in the financial year 2007-08, under his party’s Government, the tax burden on one-earner married couples with two children, on the average wage, rose to 44% greater than the OECD average? That is a matter of fairness. Does he think any responsible party should ignore it?
Chris Leslie
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. Maybe in the cool light of day that intervention will have more light shed on it. In his contribution earlier, he asserted that there was a causal link between marriage and the socio-economic well-being of society, child well-being and so forth. He may well have a set of statistics in which he sees a correlation, but I am sure he understands the difference between causal and correlative effect. It may well be that car ownership has a similar correlation with child well-being, but that does not mean that setting up the tax system to the advantage of a particular institution will necessarily have the outcome that he seeks.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others have overwhelmingly proved that we need a tax and benefits system focused on need and on poverty alleviation, particularly poverty among children. That must be the driving force behind a sane and rational tax system. We do not want a system with the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies that Conservative Members advocate.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one causal link might be with poverty? The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) says that couples in Dorset stay together longer, but might that not have a lot to do with the affluent nature of that part of the world compared with, say, inner-city Glasgow?
Chris Leslie
Absolutely. Of course that is the case. It is so obvious that it is surprising that Conservative Members cannot see it. What is worse is that the new clause that they have moved—or rather, that one of them has moved—would cost more than £4 billion. It would cost £4.1 billion to create a personal allowance transferable between all couples, married and unmarried. That would be the price tag of new clause 5. That is the equivalent of a penny on income tax, a penny on employee national insurance rates, a 1% increase in VAT or putting VAT on fuel and power, as we know the Government sometimes like to do. If Conservative Members advocate spending that amount of money, surely it would be better to target it on the basis of need and where it would have the best and most direct benefit to society.
There is a long history of the transferability of personal allowances, and I will not go through it.
Chris Leslie
I know that many of my hon. Friends would like to me to elucidate some of that history, but we have already been through various centuries in this evening’s debate. Suffice it to say that it was a Conservative Government who eventually phased out the married couple’s allowance, and indeed the current Lord Chancellor who said:
“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple’s allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston was absolutely right when she highlighted Labour’s policy shift towards helping the children and families in greatest need, particularly through the tax credit system. That was one of the greatest changes made by the previous Labour Government, and one that we should be proudest of.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman could have speeded that up by not intervening.
I shall finish by saying that, clearly, there are major problems with the transferable allowance. It is costly and not targeted, and it is unfair to those without a marriage certificate, whether they are divorced, widowed, single or in a couple. There are a host of anomalies and unintended consequences, as several of my hon. Friends have said. For instance, if a husband is killed in a tragic road accident, his widow and children will be left without support, and so on. The proposal undermines the principle of independent taxation, but most of all, we should focus our tax and benefits system on need and on the alleviation of poverty. I sincerely hope that the House will reject new clause 5.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
As we have heard, new clause 5 would introduce transferable personal allowances for married couples, allowing one spouse in all married couples to transfer unused personal allowance to the other. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for tabling the new clause. It highlights an important point: that marriage is a positive institution, and one that the Government are committed to support.
We are keen to send a clear message that family and marriage matters, and that strong and healthy families help to create a strong and healthy society. In little more than a year, this Government have proved our determination to tackle the wider issues that can affect family stability.
Fiona O'Donnell
What message would the measure send to the woman who came my surgery on Friday, fleeing an abusive relationship to keep herself and her children safe?
Mr Gauke
It is of course important that we, as a society, do everything that we can for a woman in the circumstances that the hon. Lady describes. However, the Government also believe that the institution of marriage provides something to society that should be recognised. That is the thinking behind our policy. Of course we must help those in abusive relationships and do all we can to support them, but that does not preclude taking steps to support the institution of marriage. The Government recognise that.
Thomas Docherty
Like the Minister, I am a fan of the institution of marriage, but what does it say about the institution that the Government feel that they need to support it like this?
Mr Gauke
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to be patient, I will set out the Government’s position.
If we are to address poverty, it is important that we address not just poverty but the causes of poverty—to coin a phrase—and ensure that work pays, and that is what our welfare reform programme is designed to do. It is also important that we take steps to ensure that the family and marriage are recognised, and that we do what we can to support stable relationships.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Under the Minister’s proposals, if a man abandoned his wife and children and got remarried, would he continue to receive the tax allowance? If a woman were widowed, would she lose it?
Mr Gauke
Let me set out—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Let me set out the point. As has been said many times during this debate, marriage is recognised in the vast majority of countries. The previous Government introduced the transferable nil-rate band for inheritance, which was specifically designed to assist married couples and civil partnerships. If the Labour party is against any kind of recognition of marriage within the tax system—
Ian Austin
Would a woman whose husband was killed in Afghanistan lose this benefit?
Mr Gauke
As I sat down to give way to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the shadow Chancellor said, “You don’t have to be married to benefit from the transferable nil-rate band.” He is absolutely right. As I said, it applies to married couples and those in a civil partnership. That is exactly what I said earlier. As the hon. Member for Dudley North pointed out, it is important that we support widows in the circumstances he mentioned. Does that mean, though, that we should never do anything for married couples? It does not necessarily follow.
I want to put this in the wider context of what we are doing to help strong and stable families. For example, the Department for Education has announced plans to spend £30 million on relationship support to deliver better support for couples in relationship distress. However, as hon. Members will be aware, the Government have made it clear that we intend to introduce proposals to recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system. As the Prime Minister said recently, this will show that as a country we value commitment. I certainly agree, therefore, with the intentions behind the new clause.
Although the Government support the principle behind the new clause, now is not the appropriate time to bring forward such a measure. It would entail significant and immediate costs to the Exchequer, its scope is wider than the Conservative party manifesto pledge and the cost, we estimate, would be more than £4 billion. It would also necessitate substantial implementation costs.
Clive Efford
Will the Minister comment on what message this sends to teachers planning to strike on Thursday? On the day when the Secretary of State for Education was dragged to the House to explain what he was doing to avoid the strike, the priority of Back-Bench Conservative MPs is to propose a motion that would cost more than £4 billion a year, yet teachers are being told that the Government will not negotiate over increases in their pension fund contributions. What message does that send to those teachers?
Mr Gauke
We have heard a lot in this debate about single parents. One group that will be affected if teachers go on strike and schools close on Thursday will be single working parents, who will face substantial disruption in dealing with child care. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will strongly urge teachers to go to work on Thursday.
Mr Leigh
I am quite prepared to accept that we are only Back Benchers and that the new clause may be defective, but I would be prepared not to force it to a vote if my hon. Friend now gives a firm and solemn pledge that during this Parliament the Government will honour our manifesto pledge to recognise marriage in the tax system. If my hon. Friend gives me that pledge, I will not force the new clause to a vote; if he does not give that pledge now, I will force it to a vote.
Mr Gauke
I am going to make some progress.
Clearly, £4 billion is a significant amount of money. Any decision to introduce a mechanism to recognise marriage in the tax system will need to be taken in the context of the wider public finances, so whatever proposals the Government make will balance the benefit to society with the cost to the Exchequer. We will consider a range of options.
There are also some issues with the drafting of new clause 5. Some seemingly minor elements, such as the lack of a commencement date, make the new clause administratively difficult for two reasons. First, lead-in times for an effectively implemented mechanism will be lengthy because HMRC will need to design and put in place new processes—a point that a number of hon. Members have recognised. We will factor that into our thinking. The Government and HMRC understand the need for a workable way of delivering this, and we are actively engaged in that process. Secondly, the lack of a commencement date means that those who qualify could, technically, claim for at least the last four years, which could substantially increase the cost.
As we have heard, the new clause also makes no mention of civil partnerships, which we believe must be included. There is much that HMRC will need to prepare before the Government are able to meet their commitment, but hon. Members can rest assured that the Government are considering all those points. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that the Government remain committed to exactly what we said in the coalition agreement. I support the principle behind the new clause.
Labour introduced a mechanism in the tax system to recognise the advantages of cycling to work, and although I have nothing against cycling to work, it seems to me that marriage is more important to society, so the idea that the proposal before us would somehow represent a strange or unusual element in the tax system is, I am afraid, wrong. However, it is not practical to implement it at this time, and such changes need to be made within the boundaries of improved fiscal stability. Therefore, although I will reluctantly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw new clause 5, I can assure my hon. Friends that this is not an issue that we have forgotten about; rather, it is a commitment that we will keep.
Mr Leigh
I am afraid that the Minister has not answered the specific question that I asked him. It is not good enough to say that we will honour a commitment, but then give no date for when that commitment will be honoured. I am very sorry, but there is not a cigarette paper between what my hon. Friends and I are proposing in new clause 5 and what the Prime Minister said, which I shall repeat:
“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition”—
notice that he mentioned the coalition, because this is about now, in this Parliament; he was not talking about some time in the future—
“will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]
Mr Leigh
I will not be shouted down by the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for most of the debate anyway.
We made that pledge, and we should now respect it. I was hoping to be able to say that the new clause was defective, and that we would be quite happy to withdraw it and to redraft it to enable civil partnerships to be recognised. We would be quite happy if the Minister then said that it could be introduced during the course of this Parliament. However, he has not said that. I am afraid that he has not answered the points that we have put to him. We had an hour’s speech by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), most of which did not address what we are trying to say. I want to end by saying that none of us is trying to penalise two-earner families or single parents. We are simply trying to remove the severe penalty that this country imposes on one-earner families. The United Kingdom is completely out of step with most of the world in that regard. Nothing in our proposal is radical; it is sensible and it is right, and I think that we should now have a Division on it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
Order. Open the doors for a further minute, owing to the extreme congestion in one Division Lobby.
Mr Bone
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very unusual thing just occurred during the Division. I was one of the tellers. The doors were locked at the appropriate time, then unbelievably, they were unlocked again. Given the closeness of the result, do you think that the vote should be taken again?
Mr Speaker
I see no reason for it to be taken again, but I am strikingly impressed by the fact that, although it is three minutes past 11 o’clock, the sense of humour for which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is renowned throughout the House has not deserted him. However, it is only fair to say that the Chair has discretion to allow the vote to continue for slightly longer in particular circumstances. A very large number of Members were seeking to get through one Lobby so I extended the time. I think we will leave it there, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has raised his point of order.
New Clause 6
Rate of value added tax
‘(1) In section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (rate of VAT), for “20 per cent” substitute “17.5 per cent”.
(2) In section 21(4) of that Act (restriction on value of imported goods), for “25 per cent” substitute “28.58 per cent”.
(3) The amendment made by subsections (1) and (2) has effect in relation to any supply made on or after 30 August 2011 and any acquisition or importation taking place on or after that date.’.—(Jonathan Edwards.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) Order 2011—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make an order under the powers conferred by sections 2(2) and 21(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that in section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (rate of VAT), the rate of tax charged by virtue of that section shall be decreased by 12.5 per cent.
(2) In section 21(4) (value of imported goods) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for “25” substitute “28.58”.
(3) This Order shall be known as The Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) Order 2011 and shall come into force on 30 August 2011.’.
New clause 10—VAT—
‘The Treasury shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, report to Parliament its assessment of the impact of the rate of VAT on UK economic growth.’.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. I had an hour-long speech prepared for this debate, but as it is going well past my bedtime, I will try to keep my remarks as short as possible.
I move this new clause with a sense of déjà vu, as only last July I closed a Finance Bill debate on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that aimed to overturn the decision in the emergency Budget to raise VAT to 20% from January this year. Many of the arguments I made then remain relevant, but I will resist the temptation to air the same speech twice. Interestingly, that debate [Interruption]—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Too many conversations are going on in the Chamber, and I am sure that everybody wants to hear the hon. Gentleman.
Jonathan Edwards
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Interestingly, when the House divided on that amendments the Labour party abstained. Since then, it seems that the official Opposition’s main critique of the UK Government’s economic policy has been based on the Treasury’s VAT policy. I hope that when we divide later the Labour Front-Bench team will set aside its usual partisan approach to votes in this place and will walk through the Lobby with us. As I see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), grinning, I hope that that will be the case.
In the 2010 general election, Plaid Cymru campaigned against a VAT increase—unlike the Liberal Democrats, who had their tax bombshell poster, we meant it. That is why we tabled an amendment to prevent the increase last year and why we have done the same again this year. Last year, I said that there was both a social and economic reason why the increase in VAT was a bad idea, and I hope to concentrate on those reasons during my speech. We are against the ideological cuts and the rush to achieve a zero deficit within one parliamentary term with the net result of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and unimaginable pain across our communities. We have consistently expressed our concern at the possibility of what the former Monetary Policy Committee member, David Blanchflower, called a “death spiral”, whereby cuts in expenditure become cuts in receipts.
A country’s economy is not like a family budget. Although it is good public relations, making misleading references of this sort is a very dangerous game for the UK Government to continue to play. In the case of the state there is a direct link between expenditure and income. Indeed, an overt reduction in expenditure can lead to a reduction in income and an increase in the deficit. Some would argue that we are in that situation already, even before the real cuts start to bite.
The state cannot cut its expenditure and assume that its income will remain constant. We are talking about intrinsic fine balances, which is why it always makes more sense for a state to change its expenditure levels modestly, rather than go cold turkey, as is favoured by the current Government. Four main elements drive economic growth: public sector expenditure; exports; private investment; and the key element as far as today’s debate on VAT is concerned, which is household spending.
VAT is, in essence, a tax on consumption. Economic growth in the Labour years was largely driven by consumer spending, resulting in a situation whereby personal debt levels in the UK have rocketed to an unsustainable 100% of gross value added, at £1.4 trillion.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Given that cutting VAT appears to be the only economic policy of the Labour party, is he not surprised that the party tabled its amendment so late that it was not selected and that the leader of the Labour party did not sign up to its amendment?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and I hope that the shadow Minister will be able to address it much better than I could.
Debt charities such as Citizens Advice report that the amount of debt problems dealt with by the service continues to increase, as the human cost of the recession feeds into the system. There is a long-term economic case for addressing this unsustainable situation by reducing the personal debt caused by consumption in the economy. My preference, however, would be to change the banking code and make it more difficult for lenders to seduce consumers into debts that they cannot service, rather than directly to reduce the purchasing powers of individuals via the use of VAT. I note that new clause 11 has been selected for debate and it covers associated matters.
The major issue faced by the economy is a lack of demand. Personal household debt, built up during the last decade, will be a severe economic headwind facing the UK economy for the foreseeable future. The increase in VAT exacerbates the situation, as we can see today from the revised growth figures for the first three months of 2011, which show that consumer spending is falling at its fastest rate since the second quarter of 2009, a decline of 0.6%. Real household disposable income is 2.7% lower than it was last year, the biggest annual fall since 1977.
Growth in consumer spending will be key if the UK Government are to meet the economic growth forecasts they have set in order to achieve their fiscal consolidation targets. The January VAT increase will stymie the consumer-led growth on which the Government depend.
In the past, my party has argued against VAT being used as an economic stimulus, which was the aim of the previous Labour Government when they cut VAT by 2.5% in 2008-09. In our view, there were more effective ways of stimulating the economy, not least investing in capital infrastructure and putting proper money in people’s pockets and in their pay packets rather than just hoping that they would spend the small change from VAT. With the increase in standard VAT from 17.5% to 20% and the stagnating economic recovery from the recession, the circumstances have changed. This is no longer about merely keeping the tills ringing, but about keeping families in their homes.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I have listened carefully and with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. Can he tell the House when he informed the shadow Cabinet that he was going to table this clause and whether he has had any advice on it from the shadow Chancellor?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am in a different party from those on the shadow Front Bench and we do not normally negotiate on the clauses we table. I can only assume that my staff are more effective.
Richard Banks, the chief executive of UK Asset Resolution, said that the UK economy faced a tsunami of repossessions once interest rates rise. Increases will come sooner rather than later, partly as a result of the VAT increase. The increase in inflation has come about for a variety of international reasons, including the slow devaluation of the pound and increases in basic food and oil prices, but we have a 2.1% increase in prices across the board and I am sure that many businesses have racked up their prices by greater amounts. The increase in VAT is adding to the inflationary pressures on the economy and it therefore seems strange that the Treasury is using a fiscal measure that is playing its part in increasing inflation and will inevitably at some stage lead to a tightening of monetary policy, creating a further major headwind for the economy. It is the economic equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot.
John Hemming
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being more efficient than the official Opposition. However, he is proposing to reduce VAT in this financial year, which would mean an increase in the deficit and therefore an increase in the borrowing. Where would we borrow the money from and how much interest would we pay?
Jonathan Edwards
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, I am proposing a temporary cut and I am endeavouring to convey that the priority of the Treasury should be securing sustained economic growth. In my view, the increase in VAT is hindering that. That is my key point.
Older people and pensioners who thought that they had enough to live comfortably for the rest of their lives now find themselves with very little interest but high inflationary costs in their everyday life. The Government’s attempts to save money by changing indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index means that any benefits people receive are lower than the real world cost, rather than keeping up with it.
Families who are stretched by the costs of their daily living are dealing with wage freezes but finding that the cost of living is rising dramatically. Young families find it hard to save to buy a house, and others live in worry about the base rate increasing and being unable to cover their mortgage. The VAT change last year is reported to have taken £450 from each family with children across the UK.
Alun Cairns
I give the hon. Gentleman and his party credit for having had consistent policy on this matter, but has he had any indication about where the official Opposition stand on his amendment? There has been some indecision within the official Opposition, with policies being announced without the shadow Cabinet knowing about them.
Jonathan Edwards
We will have to wait and see. I just hope that my words are powerful enough to entice them to come through the Lobby with us, but I am afraid we will have to wait until a little later in the evening.
I was talking about one positive reason for a temporary VAT cut, but that would not be my main, or only, consideration. The purpose behind the cut would be to help the millions of ordinary people who would benefit from not having to pay those extra pennies and pounds every day to the Government, which they could then use to spend or save elsewhere as they saw fit. They could spend them on other goods and stimulate the economy in that way or they could keep them to pay off their debts. At the moment, many costs have been factored into the margins of businesses and many businesses have not yet raised their prices to meet this new inflation from both VAT and other spending increases. If we can keep prices down through the use of a temporary VAT cut and keep high street prices down with it, we will help families. On the other hand, if we can secure the margins for shops and companies, we will help business. I hope that Government Members will agree with that point. Either scenario would be a win-win situation for families and business. Negating a key element of inflationary pressure would also enable monetary policy to be kept loose for longer, which I would imagine is a key objective for the Treasury and the Monetary Policy Committee.
In closing last year’s debate on the effect that the VAT increase would have on the budgets of public sector organisations, the devolved Governments and charities, I asked the Government what analysis they had made of the impact that increasing VAT would have on the operating costs of those bodies, as one study had estimated that increasing VAT would cost charities alone an extra £150 million per annum. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that specific point in winding up. We will be pushing for a division on new clause 9, as it would introduce a temporary reduction and is more likely to generate support across the House. New clause 6 would be our preferred solution in the long term, but I will not push it to a vote tonight.
Ian Swales
I rise to speak against new clause 6 and I note that we have had no costings from its proposer, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I would be interested to find out what he thinks the policy would cost. I can report that there was no dancing in the streets of Redcar when the VAT was reduced from 17.5% to 15%, and neither have we had riots in the streets about the rises from 15% to 17.5% and then to 20%.
Ian Lucas
There may not have been dancing in the streets, but after that reduction in VAT there was economic growth—something that has not happened as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s new-found friends’ policy, which he is now following, but which he refuted and rejected in order to get elected.
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I believe that the policy that his Government followed cost £12 billion; it would be difficult to spend £12 billion and not give some stimulus to the economy. I shall come to my view on that in a moment.
There was hysteria about the VAT rate among Labour Members, but if people in the street were not shouting about it, it is worth asking why. Our predecessors in this place knew that putting VAT on everything would be a very regressive measure, so they did not do that. They recognised that the basic costs of living should be VAT-free. In fact, when it was first introduced in 1979, some reporters described it as a luxury tax. Let us just think about all the things that are VAT-free: rent, mortgages, council tax, water costs, fares on buses, trains and planes, prescriptions, dental and optical care, newspapers, magazines, books, betting, bingo, the lottery, postage, TV licences, children’s clothes and shoes and, above all, food. Although gas and electricity were originally VAT-free, they now have a fixed VAT rate of 5%.
Ian Swales
Yes, absolutely. This Government have made no changes on any of those items, nor will the new clause lower the cost of those items. Of course, that list covers the vast bulk of the weekly bills of lower-income families and pensioners. In fact, I am sure that many pensioners do not pay any standard VAT in many a typical week.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is hard to know where to start, given the number of areas on which the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but let me just point out one. The increase in VAT affects the cost of absolutely everything. As it is on fuel, it adds to the cost of getting food to our properties. VAT impacts on the cost of every single thing. It is an indiscriminate tax that hits the pensioner, the unemployed, and the single mother just the same is it does the millionaire in his castle.
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I just read out a long list of items that are VAT-free; that was the point of what I was saying.
Clive Efford
Those items were VAT-free when the hon. Gentleman made his pledge at the general election. When he stood for election, he said that the poorest people in society were affected most by increases in VAT, and that it was therefore a regressive tax. He was right then, and that point is still right now. Why, then, is it correct and appropriate for the poorest people in our communities to pay for the deficit that was run up by the richest bankers in the country?
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman has strayed off the topic of the new clause, but on my party’s policy on VAT, obviously we are between a rock and a hard place, due to the economic state of the country. We had some very difficult choices to make, and a progressive expenditure tax is the right answer.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend points out that difficult choices had to be made; indeed, they would undoubtedly have had to be made if a Labour Government had been returned. Does he recall that it was the policy of the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise VAT to 19%?
Ian Swales
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of that fact. One of the things that have been absent from Labour Members is alternative policies to those being pursued by the Government.
The week after VAT was reduced by 2.5%, Cristiano Ronaldo, the premiership footballer, saved £4,000 on the cost of his new Ferrari. He will also have made massive savings on many of his other purchases during that period. I doubt whether any constituent of mine saved £4,000 as a result of VAT being reduced.
VAT as applied in this country is a progressive tax on spending. The more people spend, the more they pay, so the inconvenient truth is that cuts in VAT benefit people in proportion to how wealthy they are.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that when Save the Children says that
“the discount rate and exemptions doesn’t take into account the incomes of people buying goods and services—so they are not enough to make VAT fairer”,
Save the Children has got it wrong?
Ian Swales
I understand that charities have an issue with VAT, and I understand that Save the Children is right in its analysis. I am talking about the effect on personal spending.
The concept of a progressive spending tax is well understood across Europe. New clause 6 would take VAT in the UK back to a level where, among EU countries, only Cyprus and Luxembourg would have a lower rate. We have not heard from the Opposition parties how they plan to finance the cut in VAT.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman think of any other way in which people who can afford a Ferrari could contribute to the tax system?
Ian Swales
Well, £4,000 extra VAT is obviously one way that they are contributing as a result of this Government’s policies.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the previous debate that the important focus of the tax and benefit system is on need and alleviation of poverty. I believe that VAT increases, which impact on the wealthy more than on the poor, are a good way of doing that.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to VAT as a progressive tax. It is a flat tax, proportionate all the way up the income scale. Progressive taxes have increasing rates at higher incomes.
Ian Swales
Technically, VAT is a progressive spending tax because the average rate paid increases the more one spends. That is the definition of a progressive tax.
Kate Green
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in relation to the proportion of a household income rather than its expenditure, VAT is a regressive tax? That is why we on the Opposition Benches are opposed to it.
Ian Swales
No, I do not accept that, because of the long list of items that are VAT-free. If everything had VAT applied, I would agree with the hon. Lady.
We have had no view about how the Opposition would fund the proposed cut in VAT. If they wished to borrow, which presumably is the answer, there are many options which are fairer to pensioners and the less well-off and more likely to encourage economic growth. Reducing VAT would be a flawed policy, just as it was last time, and I urge the House to reject new clause 6.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I shall speak to new clause 10, but before I do so, may I remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that he fought an election on the Tory tax bombshell? I remember pictures of the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), standing in front of a poster that referred to a Tory tax bombshell—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want to speak through the Chair.
Mr Hanson
I remember the hon. Member for Redcar standing with the Deputy Prime Minister in front of a poster that said “Tory tax bombshell”. I find it amazing to hear the hon. Gentleman speak this evening as an apologist for the Conservative Government’s imposition of VAT on people in Britain.
New clause 10 calls for a review of the assessment of the impact of VAT on UK economic growth over the next three months. As Members know, last Tuesday we voted on a Labour motion, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, to cut VAT on a temporary basis to 17.5% while economic growth is restored. The Conservative party voted against that motion, which would have ensured that we had the VAT cut proposed today.
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that tax law is made in Finance Bills. Given that we are debating such a Bill, will he explain why the official Opposition have not brought forward their own proposals, in a form that could be selected, to cut VAT on a temporary basis, or have they abandoned that policy?
Mr Hanson
The policy is clear. If the Exchequer Secretary looks at new clause 10, he will see that we want an assessment of the impact of VAT that looks at how we should deal with the question of VAT across the whole UK. Let me start by saying that we have a deficit reduction plan, as he knows, and a plan to save resources to tackle the deficit, and we have a plan to ensure that we meet the needs of this country. He will know that we have consistently supported opposition to the Government’s VAT rise since they brought it forward.
Alun Cairns
I note that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to new clause 10, which is very different from the proposal made to the House only a week ago. Is this yet another shift in official Opposition policy?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that he has imposed a VAT rise on businesses, families and hard-working people in Vale of Glamorgan and elsewhere in the UK, and he could have avoided that tax in different ways. On the same evening that the Conservative party has proposed tax relief on support for private medical insurance—[Interruption.] Well, I may be mistaken, but I believe that the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) are Conservative Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has imposed a VAT rise on his constituents that is unfair, damaging business and will damage the UK economy.
Christopher Pincher
We all feel very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, sitting there having to speak to new clause 10. Last week he proposed cutting VAT, but this week he simply wants to assess it. What will his policy be next week?
Mr Hanson
The policy is exactly the same week in, week out. We have opposed the VAT increase and the hon. Gentleman has voted for it. Last week we supported a temporary cut to help the economy and he opposed it. We are calling for a review of the impact of VAT on businesses and families, and tonight he will oppose it. This is an important debate and we have an opportunity tonight to assess the impact of VAT and look at the issues that affect constituents.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
New clause 16, which is on the amendment paper in the right hon. Gentleman’s name, has not been selected for debate. Will he explain why it was late and unable to be selected?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Lady will know that we have tabled several amendments to the Finance Bill. Mr Speaker chose not to select new clause 16, but he did select new clause 10, which calls for a review of the impact of VAT on things that are important to my hon. Friends’ constituents and hers: family incomes, businesses and jobs. If she looks at what the leader of her party said during the general election—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) should listen to this, because during the general election the then Leader of the Opposition said during the Cameron Direct campaign in Exeter:
“You could try, as you say, to put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest.”
I agree with the Prime Minister. Does the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham agree with his right hon. Friend?
John Hemming
On the point about hitting the poorest hardest, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the poorest people, those on means-tested benefits, receive an up-rating for the cost of living, which is in fact in excess of the extra VAT, and so benefit by 1% in excess of the extra cost of VAT?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Hemming, you have had one intervention. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, you should respect that.
Mr Hanson
When the Conservative party, supported by Liberals who at the general election opposed VAT increases, imposes VAT increases, it does so on businesses and on jobs and hardest on the poorest people in our society. I will now give way to the Minister so that he can explain that.
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman says that every Labour Member opposes the increase in VAT. Will he explain, first, why so few of them voted against it last year and, secondly, why the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), according to Peter Mandelson’s memoirs, was in favour of raising VAT to 19%?
Mr Hanson
I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), and he is a very good friend of mine, but the issue tonight is that no Labour Government increased VAT above 17.5%. Indeed, the same Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend, in similar circumstances to those that we face now, when there is pressure on jobs, on businesses and on incomes, temporarily reduced VAT to help hard-working families to cope.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to new clause 10. All it asks for is an impact assessment of the rate of VAT on UK economic growth. Is it not the case that, since the VAT rate was increased, consumer confidence has flatlined and retail sales have fallen?
Mr Hanson
It is very interesting that my hon. Friend makes that point about the VAT increase, because following that reckless gamble, inflation, which was 3.1% in September, was 4.5% in April and May, hitting savings, pensions, incomes, jobs and people’s livelihoods. He will know that confidence is important and that consumer confidence is now at minus 31%. Overall confidence was three points lower in April than in March, and lower than at any time since spring 2009.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Confidence is a measure of sentiment and opinion, but spending power is a fact, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain how in January, February, March and April consumer expenditure went up?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility and every independent forecaster have already shown that growth in the economy has flatlined over the past 12 months, following the impact of the Labour Government’s measures at the end of their time in office at the beginning of 2010. Since then, growth has flatlined and unemployment is projected to increase by 200,000 over the next year.
Stephen Williams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a second chance to pose my question to him. The Library’s statistics show that, in the four months since VAT was increased, consumer expenditure in shops increased month after month, so how can he say that consumer confidence has declined? That is not about economic growth, which is how he answered my first question; it is about consumer confidence and spending. Will he deal with that point, please?
Mr Hanson
I suppose that is why the Federation of Master Builders only today—[Interruption.] Just for the record, on my uttering “Federation of Master Builders”, Conservative Members fell about with laughter, but the FMB’s members build houses and employ people in the construction industry. Only today—in a brief dated today—it stated:
“The situation for small construction firms has been made more perilous by the VAT increase at the start of the year,”
and that we risk
“11,400 construction job losses and 34,000 total potential job losses”
because of the VAT increase. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and his colleagues may recall that the OBR expects some 200,000 additional people to become unemployed this year. The lack of consumer confidence, the impact of VAT and the lack of consumer spending will be critical to those potential job losses in the community.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Tories have a track record on this. My right hon. Friend may recall that in 1979 they raised VAT from 8% to 15%, massively deflating the economy. Unemployment rose by 2 million and a fifth of manufacturing industry disappeared, and it was all down to that policy.
Alun Cairns
I seem to remember that Labour opposed all those increases in VAT, but not once did it reverse them. Is that true?
Ian Lucas
Government Members seem to view the British construction industry with some levity. In a debate this morning on the crisis in the construction industry, no Liberal Democrats turned up and one Tory Back Bencher turned up 20 minutes late. The increase in VAT has had a massive impact on the construction industry, as one will hear from any representative group and anyone involved in the sector. Government Members are in complete denial about the madness of the policy that they are pursuing and the firms that they are driving into bankruptcy.
Mr Hanson
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to try to make some progress. I have been very generous in giving way so far.
Although unemployment has fallen by a couple of hundred thousand in the past few months, and that is very welcome, the OBR has said that the lack of consumer confidence, the impact of VAT increases and the long-term lack of economic growth will hit employment hard. Average UK unemployment at the moment is about 7.7%, but for those of us who represent seats in Wales, the east midlands, Scotland, the north-west, London, Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands and the north-east, it is well above that level. That is partly because of the impact of the VAT increase on retail sales and manufacturing in our communities. When the Government introduced the increase in January this year, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, John Walker, said:
“A recent FSB survey shows that 70% of businesses are worried about the VAT increase, with almost half of respondents going to have to increase prices as a result and 45% believing it will decrease their turnover”.
The situation with regard to jobs is very important.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In my constituency, 85 claimants of jobseeker’s allowance are chasing every vacancy. Would not a reduction in VAT assist those people?
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend’s region of Yorkshire and Humberside has a 9.2% unemployment rate overall, compared with 5.7% in the south-east of England. For someone who is unemployed, the figure is 100% wherever they are. Nevertheless, there are regions of the United Kingdom where many people are chasing jobs, there is a lack of consumer confidence, traditional manufacturing and the retail industry are being hit by a lack of demand, and growth is not occurring, and the VAT increase has been damaging to all those things.
Ian Swales
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). Neither has contained details of the cost of such a reduction in VAT. Once we know that figure, we will be able to give many ways in which our economy could be stimulated with such an amount of money. We are still not sure where it is coming from. Reducing the price of Italian sports cars and round-the-world cruises is only one option.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman shows his complete ignorance of the impact that value added tax has on ordinary working people and their families. The rise in VAT is costing ordinary working people in Redcar and every other constituency an additional £450 each this year. Low-paid people will bear the brunt of that. I look forward to going back to Redcar with hon. Friends from the north-east and explaining what the hon. Gentleman is doing about those concerns.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Labour party is keen on cutting taxes and on opposing cuts in expenditure. Consequently, it would widen the deficit, which is already at record levels. The consequence of that would be an increase in interest rates. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the retail trade and consumers would be more concerned about an increase in interest rates than a rise in VAT?
Mr Hanson
At the beginning of my speech, I said that we had a deficit reduction plan at the last election. When I was a Minister at the Home Office in the previous Government, we forwarded plans for £1.5 billion-worth of expenditure cuts. The Conservative-led Government are cutting £2.5 billion in that Department, which is why we are losing police officers and police community support officers, and why I fear that crime will go up. There was a plan. There were certainly issues that we had to tackle, and we will tackle them. The way in which the Government propose to tackle the deficit goes too far, too fast and too deep. It is being done in an unfair way that hits the poorest people hardest, and it will damage the long-term business interests of the United Kingdom.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the coalition Government’s policies will deflate the economy, but that they are missing their own deficit reduction targets? They are so far from meeting them that they will have to borrow £46 billion more than it forecast, although they have not yet corrected the figure.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Conservative-Liberal Government are missing their borrowing targets and will have to increase borrowing by £46 billion because unemployment will rise over the next year and because we have lower growth. There is lower growth, in part, because of a lack of confidence, which has happened, in part, because of the rise in value added tax. It is an unfair tax that hits the poorest people hardest.
Mr Hanson
Before I let the hon. Gentleman intervene, I ask him whether he will contradict the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said:
“I hope we don’t have a VAT increase because it is the most regressive form of tax, it penalises the poor at the same rate as the rich.”
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with his right hon. Friend.
John Hemming
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who is an accountant, that on the basis of expenditure deciles VAT is a mildly progressive tax. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whose name appears above unselected new clause, 16, which would put VAT up to 20% once things improve, why the Labour party, having opposed VAT at 20%, now believes that it should be at 20% in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are not going to get bogged down in the VAT figures. We need to talk about the new clauses in the group. We are drifting into parts where we should not be.
Mr Hanson
I remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) that new clause 10 calls for a review of the impact of value added tax on businesses and families over the next three months. Labour Members voted last week for a temporary reduction in VAT. Labour policy is to have a temporary reduction to tackle the real issues that we all face in our constituencies in relation to jobs, living standards and the future of our businesses.
Toby Perkins
I am listening to the debate with tremendous interest. There is a determined gaggle of Liberal Democrats here, arguing in the strongest possible terms that the manifesto that they have just fought an election on was totally wrong. Has my right hon. Friend ever known such a passionate rejection of a policy by Members who told us only a year earlier that we should be voting for it?
Mr Hanson
The most passionate rejection that I have seen in recent years was in Chesterfield, of my hon. Friend’s predecessor. He stood just next to where I am now before the election, when I was Police Minister, calling for more police and more expenditure. Yet now, the Liberal Democrats are saying that we should have had less expenditure.
I accept that I am going slightly wide of the issue of VAT, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will return to it. VAT hits not just families or businesses but public services. The national health service in England will be hit by an extra £250 million a year because of the rise in VAT. A CT body scanner that cost £700,000 before the rise in VAT will now cost £17,500 more. A fully equipped ambulance that would have cost £225,000 will cost an extra £5,500. There is about £3 million a year of expenditure by each NHS trust on locum doctors, which will increase by £75,000. A Government who want to cut public spending are levying additional costs on the health service in England.
In my own region, in Wales, the actual cost of the increase in VAT to NHS budgets since 1 January is estimated at £13.2 million. For colleagues in Scotland, I add that Scottish health boards have been saddled with an extra £71 million of costs because of the VAT increase. At a time of decreasing public spending and squeezed budgets, we need to review the matter over the next few months and consider whether the VAT increase is causing even more difficulty.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is explaining in incredible detail the danger that the VAT increase is causing. I wish to bring to his attention the effect that it is having on pensioners in my constituency, one of whom wrote to me to express his outrage. I cannot repeat what he said, because he swore in his e-mail, but he said that
“if these costs were not so damaging it could be laughable.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Ian Lucas
There is another sector that is being hit extremely hard by the VAT increase—the third sector, the charitable sector. Government Members regularly profess to support hospices, but hospices in my constituency are having to raise more money to pay the extra costs that that lot have imposed upon them.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just charities and the voluntary sector that are affected, but Welsh and other universities. In Wales alone, there will be £3.5 million extra VAT for universities to pay this year. Housing associations are affected, and the chief executives of the National Housing Federation and of the Homes and Communities Agency have said that the rise will cost an additional half a million a year in VAT.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem for charities, which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned, would exist whether VAT was 17.5% or 20%? The Labour party did not attend to the problem when it was in government.
Mr Hanson
Not just Labour MPs are concerned about this increase. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), a Lib Dem MP, said in a debate last year that he wants to help charities that have been hit by this move.
We all accept that VAT is a difficult issue for charities, but it has been made more difficult by an extra 2.5% increase at a time of squeezed budgets, and when the Government are asking more of the charitable sector by cutting public sector spending generally. That issue of great concern was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).
Mr Hanson
I do. My hon. Friend spent many a happy hour in Committee discussing those very issues.
If the Government are not interested in master builders and the voluntary sector, and if they are not interested in the impact on public sector operations such as hospitals, schools and universities, perhaps they will listen to the British Retail Consortium, which states:
“Increasing the VAT rate to 20 per cent would cost 163,000 jobs over four years and reduce consumer spending by £3.6 billion over the same period.”
Only today, there were job losses at Jane Norman. There have been job losses at Habitat, Focus DIY, HMV, Mothercare, Comet and HomeForm.
Stephen Williams
I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say Borders, but Borders went bust under the previous Labour Government. Would he like to retract that?
Mr Hanson
I misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). I thought he said Borders, but he said Thorntons, which has today lost 10,000 jobs. It may be of some interest to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) that those jobs have been hit, as has the confidence in the retail sector, by VAT increases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned charities. Earlier this year, Sue Ryder, the charity, stated:
“Today's rise in VAT to 20% will cut the amount of social care that charities can deliver”.
That has an impact.
What is the impact on fuel of the VAT rise? People with a typical family car will pay £1.35 more to fill up their tank, as will people moving goods around the country. The VAT increase has hit the retail sector and we see job losses across the board, but there is also concern from the tourism sector. Just recently, on 6 June, the British Hospitality Association stated that the high level of UK VAT is a deterrent to tourism growth. Once again, those are the impacts on growth, jobs and public services.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My right hon. Friend refers to the impact of the higher rate of VAT on the tourism sector. Of course, in Ireland, from next week for 18 months, VAT in the tourism sector will be reduced to 9%. It has already been reduced to 7% in Germany and 5.5% in France. Is that an argument for taking a more sector-targeted approach to VAT reductions? Will the assessment proposed in new clause 10 allow for consideration to be given to a more articulate way of applying VAT, rather than having general, standard reductions across the board on all products, regardless of whether they are imports or the products of home businesses?
Mr Hanson
If my hon. Friend looks at new clause 10, he will see that it calls for a general review of VAT and the impact on the economy. Out of that review could come, for example, a temporary reduction to 17.5%, as was called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), or there could be changes for certain sectors. The review could look at a range of issues to assess the impact of the increase on growth, jobs and living standards.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Given the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman is making, how does he intend to vote on the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Caernarfon?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Member for Caernarfon has not moved a new clause—the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) moved it. However, we will not be supporting it because it does not give an end date for the potential VAT reduction. It would be a permanent reduction. We want a review of the impact of VAT on business, jobs and living standards.
Mr Gauke
I am trying to understand the Labour party’s position. If it believed in the policy announced by the shadow Chancellor a week or so ago, it would want first to reduce VAT, and then to make a decision on when to increase it. I do not understand, therefore, why it is not supporting the new clause, which takes that first step—it does what the Labour party want to do.
Mr Hanson
I will try again, slowly. The new clause calls for a permanent cut in VAT to 17.5%. It does not do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood wishes to do—what we voted on last Tuesday—which is to implement a temporary cut in VAT until we secure strong growth.
Mr Hanson
In a moment. The new clause does not do what we said we would do, which is implement a temporary reduction. We have tried, through new clause 10, to ensure that we have a review of all the issues I have mentioned—of tourism, business, jobs and families—so that we can come to conclusions about sectoral reductions and a temporary reduction to help employment.
Jonathan Edwards
May I clarify my position? I have a note from the House of Commons Library to me:
“NC9 finds an alternative way of doing the same thing as NC6 (i.e. decreasing the rate of VAT), only on an exclusively temporary basis. It does this by means of the Economic Regulator, which is a mechanism that allows for changing the rate of excise duties like VAT on a temporary basis without having to use primary legislation.”
Surely, it cannot be clearer than that.
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman says that new clause 10 will make the VAT cut permanent. Is he saying, therefore, that there will never be another Budget before this House? Not only does he seem to have no policy, he does not understand parliamentary procedure.
Mr Hanson
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been here 19 years and three months. I have been here long enough to understand a few matters of parliamentary procedure. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to Tamworth and explain to his constituents why, by increasing VAT, he is adding £450 to people’s annual VAT bill; why he is hitting retail sales and retail shops in his constituency; why he is impacting on businesses in his constituency; and why the VAT increase in his constituency will put up the cost of the health service, education, housing and jobs. He needs to reflect on those issues as part of this debate.
In conclusion, we have today an opportunity to vote for new clause 10, which would give us a chance to consider the impact of VAT, to come to conclusions on the points I have made today and to ensure that we can properly assess the best way to implement our VAT reduction so that it helps create jobs, build growth and not stifle our economy. This Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have not only broken their promises on VAT to the electorate, but put at risk growth, jobs and family living standards. Most abominably of all, however, with this rise they have hit the poorest hardest. We have consistently opposed the rise to 20%, and we want it reviewed. We ask hon. Members to vote for new clause 10 tonight, and I look forward to my right hon. and hon. Friends joining me in the Lobby at the end of the debate.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I want to outline my support for new clause 10, and for reviewing the impact of VAT within three months of passing the Bill. The increase in VAT is having a real impact on the spending power of people in my constituency, many of whom are really feeling the pinch of inflation, pay freezes, and rising energy and food bills, and for thousands of people across the north-east, this all comes at a time when many of them are facing redundancy.
The previous Labour Government’s decision to reduce VAT temporarily to 15% was judged by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies to be an effective stimulus, putting additional money into people’s pockets, and helping to support an increase in consumer confidence, a return to economic growth and a fall in unemployment, all of which are needed now. Of course we must reduce the deficit, but I do not accept that the right way to do so is on such a scale and at such an intensity that ideological deficit reduction is delivered at the expense of economic growth and job creation. Indeed, there is widespread and well founded concern that this will only make it harder to get the deficit down in the long term. Finding ways to kick-start economic growth must therefore be a priority. It is therefore vital that the impact of VAT be kept under review.
Finding a means of kick-starting growth is vital, particularly for regions such as the north-east, where I fear we risk a lost generation of young people if new economic and employment opportunities are not created, and created quickly. A key concern in my region remains the level of youth unemployment, with around 19% of 16 to 24-year-olds in the north-east not in education, employment or training, compared with the national rate of around 15%. Of particular concern is the fact that over the last 12 months the north-east has seen a 10% increase in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Only Northern Ireland, Scotland and London have also experienced such rises over the same period, and then only to a maximum of 4%. With measures such as the previous Government’s future jobs fund axed by the coalition and nothing lined up to take its place specifically to support the long-term unemployed into work, we need to consider as many steps as possible to kick-start economic growth and increase employment opportunities for young people. Keeping VAT under review is vital to ensuring that.
The coalition’s decision to increase VAT to 20% in January has hit many businesses hard, particularly as that VAT hike helped to push fuel prices up to record levels. Let me take just one example from my constituency. The owner of a small electrical services company in Gosforth has made clear to me the impact of high fuel prices on his firm, which he says have hit the small business sector hardest. From its base in Newcastle upon Tyne North, his company carries out most aspects of domestic electrical work and small commercial work, travelling across the Tyneside, Northumberland and Durham areas.
Catherine McKinnell
I will give way in one moment.
The owner of the company has an expanding network of clients from the private and voluntary sectors, and he would therefore like to be able to take on his first employees within the next 12 months. However, he has said that the cost of fuel and running a second van will be a significant influence on whether he decides to take on new staff, which he would like to do, thereby doing his bit to help the economy recover. That is just one example of a local company in my constituency really feeling the impact of high fuel prices, which are hugely affected by the rise in VAT, but there are others. They include the small driving school in Lemington that saw fuel costs rise by £20 a week over the last year, the self-employed businessman from Fawdon whose work requires him to travel around 10,000 miles a year, and the young man from Gosforth who set up a Facebook page on the issue and has 475,000 supporters. All those companies are affected by the rise in VAT. The Government must make a commitment to keep it under review, to ensure that all steps are taken to help businesses survive and thrive through these difficult times, and to support those that wish to expand and create new employment opportunities to be able to do so.
Chris Ruane
You’re doing their dirty work! Look! There’s three times as many of them—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We cannot have any shouting. We want to listen to Catherine McKinnell.
Catherine McKinnell
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to one of my friends from the north-east, who I am sure has something relevant to say.
Ian Swales
As a fellow north-east Member, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech. I believe that the previous VAT cut cost £12 billion. She makes a persuasive case for the need to stimulate the economy. Does she think that borrowing £12 billion and then cutting VAT is the best option from all the choices available?
Catherine McKinnell
The fact is that the current rate of 20% is hurting, and it is not working. Growth has stalled. We need to return to growth, particularly in the north-east, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support such a move.
A sector that has faced particular difficulties over recent months and years is the construction industry. It is thought that one in five of the firms going into administration are from that sector, and research recently undertaken by the Financial Times has found that construction orders have fallen by 40% in the past 12 months. That is an alarming figure. It is really worrying, when we consider that construction makes up around 10% of the UK economy, and that some 80% of the materials used by the industry are procured from within the UK, creating an economic stimulus and jobs in other sectors.
The construction industry is one clear example of how public spending can support private sector growth and jobs. Indeed, it is estimated that every £1 spent on construction leads to an increase in gross domestic product of nearly £3 and stimulates growth elsewhere in the economy worth nearly £2. The maths is simple. It is widely accepted that coalition decisions to cancel projects such as Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme, to cut the housing and regeneration budget by 70%, to end the HomeBuy Direct scheme, and to scrap regional spatial strategies, are having, and will continue to have, a seriously detrimental effect on the construction sector.
The coalition’s VAT rise is also having a considerable adverse impact on many small and medium-sized construction firms, particularly when combined with the draconian cuts that the Government are imposing on public spending. Indeed, at the time of the VAT rise the Federation of Master Builders—an organisation to be taken very seriously—expressed its concern that 11,400 jobs would be lost in the construction sector alone over the next decade as a direct result of the coalition’s decision to hike VAT to 20%. The impact of VAT must be kept under review.
Household income in the north-east is the lowest in England, and a temporary reduction in VAT would have a positive impact on the spending power of people living in my city and region, helping to support local businesses, local economic growth and local jobs. Such a reduction could not come at a more apposite time, given that my region is facing the policies of what Kevin Rowan, the regional secretary of the Northern TUC, has recently described as a “profoundly anti-Northern Government”.
That is a description I would agree with, in the light of the impact of some of the coalition’s policies highlighted by Mr Rowan. They include the abolition of One North East and the planned sale of its assets to finance national Government administration—something that is not happening in London. Furthermore, job creation is simply not keeping up with job losses, with up to 19 jobseekers applying for every vacancy in some areas of the region. The north has the highest unemployment rates in the UK, and it is seeing cuts in disability benefits that will have a disproportionate impact on former industrial heartlands, as well as cuts in tax credits, the abolition of area-based grants and local government cuts significantly higher than those in many councils in the south-east. It is for those reasons that I support the proposal for the Government to undertake an assessment of the impact on UK growth of the rise in the rate of VAT.
John Hemming
Well, here we are: the Opposition have said that they really hate the idea of having VAT at 20%, and that that is a dreadful proposal. What are they proposing instead? They are proposing a review.
Thomas Docherty
Can the hon. Gentleman remind me whether he agreed with his party leader when he said, during the election campaign, that a VAT rise would hit families the hardest?
John Hemming
My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) was quite clear when he said that the party did not rule out an increase in VAT, when he was asked that specific question—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] The then Chancellor supported an increase in VAT to 19%, and the present Opposition now support a long-term VAT rate of 20%. The reason why they will not support new clause 9 is that the change it proposes is not temporary but permanent. Labour Members cannot criticise us for accepting a long-term VAT rate of 20% if they want the same long-term rate themselves. There is an argument about whether the stimulus that would, admittedly, result from a temporary cut in VAT would be in the long-term interests of the country, but it is a complex one. However, it is clear that we need to keep the deficit under control.
We have heard criticism from the Opposition today that the Office for Budget Responsibility has indicated that we might be borrowing more money than was originally forecast. The Opposition criticise us for the fact that the OBR forecasts higher borrowing. The Opposition’s solution, however, is even higher borrowing. They identify a problem and then put forward a policy proposal to make that problem worse. It is an absurd situation.
Ian Lucas
The hon. Gentleman ought to have listened to the debate earlier, particularly to the very good speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who explained that for every pound that is spent in the construction sector, £3 is injected into the economy. That would lead to three times as much being put into the economy for every pound spent in the construction sector. That means we should encourage that sector, not decimate it as the Conservatives are doing as we speak.
John Hemming
We should remember that VAT does not apply. I declare an interest, as a VAT-registered person. People who understand how VAT works will know that people who charge VAT can reclaim it on their inputs. We have to look at the details. On the hon. Gentleman’s further point, yes, there is an economic multiplier that has an effect. As demand is increased, there is a multiplier effect. At the same time, we have to look at the long-term effect on the deficit, the debt and the interest paid. As interest rates go up, wider damage is done to the whole of society.
It is true that in an ideal world we would not have higher rates of VAT. In an ideal world everything would be nice, and there would no problems and no difficult decisions to take. We have to get a balance. It is very pleasing to see that the official Opposition now accept that VAT should be 20% in the long term.
Clive Efford
There used to be a time when the hon. Gentleman was fond of quoting the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which called the VAT cut “an effective stimulus”. As for the construction industry, does he not recognise the figures showing a 19% increase in the number of business failures in the construction industry in the first three months of this year—since the increase was imposed?
John Hemming
There is no VAT on new build. The hon. Gentleman’s party believes that the VAT rate should be 20% in the long term; I thank him for agreeing with us about that.
The Government, essentially, have to bring the deficit under control to keep interest rates under control—and that is what we are doing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the hon. Member giving way, or has he finished?
Nia Griffith
I am delighted to be given this opportunity to speak, perhaps a little sooner than anticipated. I shall speak to new clause 10 and I specifically remind Members that it is about having an assessment of the impact of the VAT rate on UK economic growth. That is the area on which I shall focus; it is what we need to talk about if we want to get this country back on its feet.
We are not asking for a knee-jerk reaction. We recognise that there is a complex relationship between the various different fiscal measures that can be taken—between VAT and all the other types of fiscal measures. We also recognise the importance of a changing environment, as events elsewhere might affect our ability to export, for example, and economic events in different countries will impact on our economy in all sorts of ways.
Let us look at what has happened recently. We have massive inflation and businesses are having real difficulty. They are being badly squeezed. They are experiencing rising costs, rising costs and more rising costs, and they are having to make difficult judgments about how many of those costs they can pass on to consumers before they begin losing sales. Their difficulties have been compounded by the fact that they have had to contend with a higher VAT rate since January. They are making calculations daily. The costs of their raw materials are changing constantly. They must keep asking themselves, “What must we do in order to keep afloat?”, but the problem is, of course, that many of them are going under.
Nia Griffith
I will if the hon. Gentleman is going to ask a sensible question.
Gordon Birtwistle
Does the hon. Lady agree that businesses—[Interruption.] I was asking the hon. Lady, not the animal in front of her. Does the hon. Lady agree that businesses can reclaim the VAT that they are charged?
Nia Griffith
I fully understand that businesses reclaim the VAT, but the consumer purchases the end product for a composite price that reflects everything that has been done to produce the thing in the first place, as well as the transport costs—that was explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)—and, of course, the VAT. The customer pays the VAT in the end, but the business has already been affected by the rise in costs that it is incurring, which do not include VAT. The price of raw materials, particularly fuel, has risen, and every business is being squeezed to the limit. Every penny counts, and businesses are asking themselves, “At what point can I put the price up? At what point does the purchaser not buy?”
Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the impact on hard-pressed families, and they have indeed been hit very hard. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) recited a long list of goods that do not attract VAT. Was he suggesting that every middle-income and lower-income family should exist solely on food and children’s clothing? Has he not thought of the numerous household items—
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleague, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said that there would be a £450 increase per “hard-pressed family”, if I may use her phrase. That means that families would have to spend £18,000 a year on VATable items—not VAT-exempt or zero-rateable items. Can the hon. Lady give us an example of the sort of items on which those hard-pressed families would spend £18,000 a year?
Nia Griffith
When we arrived at the £450 figure, we were taking account of the total impact of all the tax changes introduced in the emergency Budget last June. However, if Members look around their bathrooms and kitchens, they will see numerous items that do not last for ever and need to be repaired. For example, adults will need to replace some items of clothing.
Catherine McKinnell
Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about the fact that during the election the Liberal Democrats campaigned against the Tory VAT bombshell, yet tonight they seem to be the only Members present who are defending the Tories’ increase in VAT?
Nia Griffith
I find that extraordinary, and I also find it extraordinary that the Tories seem to have so little comprehension of the impact of the increase. As I have said, many household items need to be replaced.
Andrew Gwynne
Is not the real purpose of new clause 10 to enable us to assess whether the impact of the VAT increase is indeed returning growth to the economy, and does not the evidence so far suggest that the economy is going into reverse as a result of the Government’s measures?
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend, like myself, is a Welsh Member of Parliament. May I draw her attention to a press release last year entitled “Welsh Lib Dem MPs want VAT rise impact to be assessed”. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said:
“we are worried about the proposed increase in VAT. … We need to carry out this work so that we can lessen the impact of any increase in VAT.”
The hon. Gentleman said that they were
“particularly concerned about the impact on the voluntary sector”
and on hard-pressed rural areas.
Nia Griffith
That is an extraordinary statement, especially as I can remember the most surreal experience of being in a studio in Cardiff and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) popping up on a screen from some distant place to defend the increase in VAT. So what is the position of the Liberal Democrats? I really do not know. One minute they say one thing about an assessment, the next minute they pop up on a screen defending to the hilt every statement in the Budget last June. I do not know what the position of Welsh Liberal Democrat Members is.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a strong point about small businesses being unable to absorb the VAT increase. She asked about the position of the Liberal Democrats. They are on the wrong side of the argument and they are here tonight to defend the Tory rise in VAT. It is an absolute disgrace, and Welsh businesses and businesses throughout the UK will punish them at the next election.
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend is right.
Let us move on from the small items such as mobile phone bills and the VAT on them—it might be someone’s only phone if they do not have a landline. Let us move to the other end of the scale and what are called the big ticket purchases such as replacing a car or refurbishing a kitchen. They are things that people do not have to do now, but they may choose to do; perhaps they intend to do them in the next few years. The Labour Government introduced the car scrappage scheme, which spurred on people who were thinking of replacing their car in the next couple of years to bring that purchase forward. It meant that money that was available, which some people had put by in savings, was fed into the economy and made a difference.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend remember that the car scrappage scheme was particularly effective in Wales, where the Ford factory found that the majority of cars bought under the scheme were Fords. So jobs were kept in Wales? The Welsh Liberal Democrats want to take those jobs away from Welsh workers.
Nia Griffith
The whole point of an active Government who take an interest in re-igniting the economy was absolutely that—to create jobs and ensure wealth creation so that we would be in a better position to pay back quickly—
Ian Swales
Can the hon. Lady confirm that she is now proposing a cut in VAT and car scrappage schemes and other measures to stimulate the economy? Or is she offering a choice?
Nia Griffith
I am asking about the Government’s growth strategies. I am trying to explain by giving some examples of how Governments can stimulate the economy and make a difference. They can choose to kick-start the economy or to allow it to go spiralling down and unemployment to increase. These are active choices that a Government can make. We are asking in our new clause for a proper assessment of the effect of the increase in VAT on what is happening now in the economy.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. She talks about the Government’s growth strategy. It appears to me that they have neither a coherent strategy nor, apparently, growth.
Nia Griffith
That is precisely the problem. In spring 2010 we were beginning to come out of the recession, the economy was growing, inflation was low, and unemployment was coming down. Under Labour’s plan, the economy was set to grow strongly. In fact, as more people were getting back into work, borrowing ended up £21 billion lower last year than had been forecast.
Bill Esterson
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Treasury is set to borrow £46 billion more than it planned last autumn as a result of slower growth. I am sure that she agrees that without growth the deficit will continue to rise. Surely that is why we are right in the new clause to call for an investigation of the impact of the measures on growth. Clearly, the Liberal Democrats do not understand the impact of the rise in VAT.
Nia Griffith
That is precisely the point. There is a huge contrast between an economy that was growing and doing better than the forecasts had predicted, and a situation where there has been no growth since last October. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Office for Budget Responsibility now predicts that the Government will have to borrow £46 billion more over the coming years than was forecast last autumn after the spending review. Worse, they are failing to get Britain back to work, which is probably pushing up the benefits bill this Parliament by more than £12 billion. That not only makes the deficit worse, but makes the lives of the people involved infinitely more miserable.
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend cannot have failed to notice that only one Back-Bench Conservative Member is present—
Clive Efford
Yes, he is a PPS. By contrast, nearly a dozen Liberal Democrat Members have been present. That is nearly as many Liberal MPs as positions their party has taken on VAT. I have here positions set out by not only the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), but the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who called for a review, and a Liberal Democrat activist, who called for a cut in VAT on tourism in that part of the world. Just how many positions do the Liberal Democrats have on VAT?
Nia Griffith
The whole point is that our new clause calls for a proper assessment to be made to see what the actual effect of the current VAT rate is on the economy, given the lack of growth and the lack of a plan for growth. The important thing is to carry out that impact assessment and work out the best growth strategy, because nothing is coming from this Government in order to put things right.
What has been happening in the news recently? Everybody must be aware of the crisis we are facing on our high streets and in store after store. This is happening to TJ Hughes and its 57 stores, to Jane Norman’s 90 stores and 100-plus concessions, to Habitat, and to HomeForm, which covers Möben Kitchens and Dolphin Bathrooms. Some 5,300 jobs are in the balance, and now we hear about what is happening to Thorntons and Comet. Judith McKenna, chair of the CBI’s distributive trades panel, has commented:
“After a year of growth, high street sales volumes fizzled out in June….Shoppers are budgeting hard and cutting back on their discretionary spending, such as on clothes and big ticket household goods.”
She is the CBI’s chief financial officer.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning TJ Hughes in her speech, because all this will have a great impact on its home in Merseyside. Does she agree that it demonstrates a problem with the Government’s approach to VAT, which is that the inflationary expectations they have built into the economy are damaging not only the people who will lose their jobs at TJ Hughes, but high streets throughout Merseyside and up and down our country?
Nia Griffith
I wish to correct what I said, because Judith McKenna is chair of the CBI distributive trades panel and ASDA’s chief financial officer.
The point is that the message is being given clearly from all our retail people. The CBI’s retail sales index fell to its weakest level in a year. Why was that? It was because anxious shoppers are cutting back on purchases of clothing, groceries and big-ticket items, as everybody is being squeezed.
Mr Robinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the gist of what she is a saying in a general and good contribution is that the Government have managed to combine a deflationary economic policy with inflation at double the rate they forecast? Such a policy does not stand up. Is not the core of this their overall deflationary policy, of which an increase in VAT was the central part?
Nia Griffith
Absolutely. That is now having a devastating impact on the economy, on businesses and on individual families. In our new clause, we are asking for a proper impact assessment of the effect of the VAT rate on growth in the UK. Let us see whether the Government can come up with something more constructive and find a way to drive the economy forward.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. Is she saying that the evidence is already there that the VAT rise is hurting the economy, as I believe it is, or that we need a review to see whether it is doing so?
Nia Griffith
I am saying that any fiscal measure is interdependent on other fiscal measures and the Government need to decide how their growth strategy will work and how the VAT rate will fit into that, in addition to any other fiscal measures they wish to take. I am not promoting any one particular measure, but there needs to be some form of stimulus because at the moment we are spiralling downwards and seeing increases in the debt and the deficit, in the benefits bill and in the number of people who are out of work. We would like to see increases in the number of jobs and in the number of businesses that are picking up and we would like to see the deficit come down so that we can get Britain back to work and get people back into jobs. The problem at the moment is that the policies with which we are being presented seem to do precisely the opposite, as was ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) a moment ago.
We need a proper assessment and we need proper decisions to be made on the basis of it to help our economy to grow.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I want to support new clause 10. It is very important that the assessment of VAT considers the effects of the rise on both individuals and businesses. We need to consider both categories to understand fully the impact that the rise could have on economic growth. I know from sitting through the last debate that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have no understanding and no idea of the pressures that are being placed on family budgets. This debate seems to be showing that they do not have any understanding of the stresses and strains being put on businesses in constituencies such as mine. In fact, as my hon. Friends have said, the Government seem to have very little understanding of what is happening to businesses across the north of this country.
I know from my constituency postbag and I hear from my local citizens advice bureau that more and more people are looking for advice not only because they are concerned that they might lose their jobs, which is affecting a large number of people in my constituency and the neighbouring areas, but because those who are in work are experiencing increasing rises in food, energy and petrol prices while facing a cut in wages in order to keep themselves in employment. If we add those factors together, we can see that consumers are concerned about the future, which is affecting what they purchase on the high street. That has a huge impact on all our constituencies and we have heard tonight of many examples of businesses in the retail sector that are falling daily.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that a vivid example of that can be seen when one walks through the centre of the fine city of Durham? An increasing number of shops are closed with no trade taking place at all.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and I shall come to the city of Durham in just a moment or two.
The situation that I am describing, with reducing consumer confidence and increasing stresses on business, would definitely be helped by a reduction in VAT, even if it were temporary.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on making such a fine and powerful case in favour of the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)? Given the case that she is making, why do we need yet another review?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is an interesting point, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said earlier from the Front Bench, we would like to see a time scale and an end point.
As I was saying, we need a full assessment about whether a reduction in VAT would really help to turn around areas such as the one I represent. I also want to know exactly what the impact is on growth, and I will come to that in a moment or two. I want to take up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made point about retail, but my argument is that almost every single sector in Durham is being affected by the rise in VAT that was brought in by the parties in government. We are a constituency that has a large public sector not because it is crowding out the private sector, which is the mantra we always hear from the Government parties, but because it is an administrative centre and so has a large number of public sector jobs. However, the public sector is being hit by public expenditure cuts as well as by the rise in VAT.
Bill Esterson
The situation that my hon. Friend describes is also typical of my constituency, where we have a very high level of people working in the public sector who are threatened with job losses from the parties in government. We also have a large number of small businesses that depend on those public sector workers for their custom. Those businesss are finding, as other Members have mentioned, that the VAT rise makes it very difficult for them to keep prices at the same level, and that has made it very difficult for them to trade effectively.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which clearly demonstrates a major problem in the economic strategy of the parties in government, which show no understanding of the links between spending in the public sector and private sector businesses. That is a very great shame and is to the detriment of business in many areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has talked about the great impact on retail businesses in my constituency, and I am concerned about the ability of some businesses in the city centre to keep going. I have been talking to the head of one of the construction businesses in my constituency, which has been a very vibrant business in the past, and he told me that it is not only flatlining but might be about to go bust. That is extraordinary because it is a major company, but jobs in the construction sector are drying up. Other hon. Members have made this important point, which shows the lack of growth strategy from the parties in government. I would like there to be some consideration about whether a reduction in VAT could help to push down inflation and could lead to a boost in job creation, particularly in areas such as mine.
Mrs Moon
Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem is that some of the smaller construction companies do not feel able to take on a young apprentice and help them to train, thereby giving them that initial start in business that might help them to see a future? Instead, those people cannot find work and feel that there is no hope, and that desperation is placing a huge depression over many of our communities.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As a result of the insecurity that a number of businesses face, they are more reluctant than they were to give young people—and older workers—apprenticeships.
Roger Williams
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the construction industry, but does she agree that some of the problems in that industry were due to the previous Government’s abolition of the industrial buildings tax allowance, and indeed the agricultural buildings tax allowance, which led to a contraction in the construction industry?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The previous Government’s investment in the economy led in my constituency to a huge growth in construction jobs for those working on not only fine public-sector projects such as our new hospital and our new school, but new housing. That has just disappeared. The really serious point that I am making is that there is no growth strategy from the Government parties to ensure growth in construction jobs in my constituency—in fact, quite the opposite. We know from national figures that there is an effect on the construction sector right across the country.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Lady agree that there are a number of cash-flow issues that affect the entire business sector, and particularly the construction industry? There is a lack of cash flow from banks to business; from business to business, which means that debts are not paid; and of course from business to consumer, and from consumer back to business. Does she agree that the measures that are being proposed are among a cocktail of measures that need to be introduced if we are to start to address the nation’s economic crisis?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He describes very well the downward spiral that businesses can get into unless there is a clear strategy in place to counter the deflationary measures in the economy, and we are simply not seeing that from the Government parties.
Mr Robinson
Does my hon. Friend agree, having listened to the minor carps of Liberal Members, that the essential difference between our policy and theirs seems to be on the issue of aggregate demand in the economy? All that the Government have done is reduce it by cancelling overnight Building Schools for the Future. That has halved the demand for construction in my constituency, and denied two crucial schools new buildings that they desperately need.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and reduced demand, not just from sectors but from individuals, appears to be very damaging for communities such as mine.
I want to talk about tourism in my constituency. Tourism was mentioned earlier; we know that VAT rises have really had an impact on the tourism industry, and cities such as mine are suffering because of that. People do not have as much disposable income as they did, so they are not spending as much on leisure, and that has an impact on tourism.
Mr Kevan Jones
It took the Minister with responsibility for tourism a year to visit the north-east; he finally turned up in the north-east last week. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am not just about the effect of VAT on tourism in Durham, but about the fact that the Minister had no answers whatever when it came to the issue of replacing One North East’s marketing campaign to promote tourism? He basically said to local businesses that they had to get on with it themselves.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am not sure that I am surprised that that was the answer from the Minister with responsibility for tourism. I shall come on to the regional development agency in a moment or two.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
For the past 10 minutes, the hon. Lady has been making a very good speech. She has said that virtually every sector in her constituency is under pressure. She was worried that businesses might not even be able to keep going. She spoke about a construction company that is under huge pressure. She described the inflationary impact of the VAT rise. She spoke about the downward spiral for businesses, and the impact of the VAT rise on tourism. Would she please explain, then, why she will not vote tonight for a temporary decrease? Has Labour changed its position? Does the shadow Chancellor not know what he is doing? Is he having a fight with his party’s leader, or is this just the normal Labour shambles?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I can only suppose that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the answer that I gave earlier to his colleague, who made the same point.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I had better make progress as others want to speak. I have been quite generous in giving way.
In conclusion, I shall deal with the issue of growth and why it is so necessary for us to monitor the impact of the rise in VAT on the economy, on families and on the whole country. I make a plea for the Government to look particularly at how that is impacting on growth in the north. It was reckless of the Government to get rid of a regional development agency in the north-east that had a very good plan in place for promoting growth and identifying sectors of the economy that would benefit from public sector investment that would lever in private sector investment. We have no growth strategy in place from the Government, and that is having a huge impact. I would like that to be examined alongside the impact of the VAT increase.
Toby Perkins
This is not the first time that I have been involved in passionate debate at 12.50 am, but under normal circumstances it has taken place in a rather less rarefied environment than we are currently enjoying. I shall speak to new clause 10 and the need to assess the impact of VAT on a range of things. We should remember that the Bill follows the Budget for growth, as it was described at the time. One has to ask whether that has been investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority, because since the Budget for growth we have seen growth continuing to flatline.
We saw three months of negative growth at the back end of 2010, which was blamed on the wrong kind of snow. In early 2011, we were expecting a huge boom, with all the people who had been unable to get out to the shops in December rushing out in January and getting the economy moving, but of course it did not happen. The Chancellor’s Budget for growth was a damp squib.
At every level the Chancellor has demonstrated that he just does not get it. He does not get the challenges facing working people or the challenges facing business. He does not understand the cause of the banking crisis and the collapse of the banking model. He does not understand the need for growth and how the Government can stimulate it. Most importantly, he does not understand that the public and the private sector need to co-exist and depend on each other in a constructive economy.
There is no taxation that does not have knock-on effects. The knock-on effects of VAT are phenomenal. The Institute of Economic Affairs described the VAT increase as “bad economics”. If people do not choose to listen to the Institute of Economic Affairs, perhaps they want to listen instead to the economic genius who was advising Norman Lamont when we were led into black Monday. In January this year, the Prime Minister said about VAT:
“If you look at the effect as compared with people’s income then, yes, it is regressive.”
That was at least consistent—it was exactly what he had said in opposition. But what about the Deputy Prime Minister? We all remember him. Back in the old days, when he was still pretending to be a progressive, we remember him with his giant Tory tax bombshell. We have been told tonight that those signs did not mean that he was against a VAT rise, or that the Liberal Democrats would not introduce such a tax bombshell; he was simply warning us that it was coming and that we should beware. A lot of Liberal Democrat leaflets were delivered in Chesterfield, and I thought at the time that they were describing the impact of the VAT increase as a bad thing, but today those of us who have never visited Planet Clegg have been put straight. The impact of VAT on the cost of living is significant, and increasing the cost of living has a dramatic impact on people’s capacity to spend money and support the economic growth that we need.
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
One of the effects of the VAT increase is its contribution to inflation, which is currently running at twice the rate of earnings growth. The Bank of England has suggested that inflation will hit 5% later this year because of increases in utility prices, which are a result of the VAT increase. Many of my constituents are feeling particularly hit by that. Is that also the case in Chesterfield?
Toby Perkins
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The impact is being felt on the cost of everything, even items on which VAT is not charged, because businesses and members of the public are having to spend more on others items. There is the impact on fuel and heating costs and the downward pressure on wages, as we see the failure to achieve economic growth and the public sector being told that it will have no wage increases for two years and that pension contributions will increase. All those impacts are contributing to people spending more on VAT and having less money.
Andrew Gwynne
New clause 10 proposes an assessment of the impact of VAT on the economy, and of course we can now make a direct comparison with a fairly recent period when the previous Labour Government introduced a temporary cut in VAT and got the economy growing again. Is it not the case that we need to make that assessment so that we can see where this Government are getting it so badly wrong?
Toby Perkins
Absolutely. The new clause could not be more reasonable. It is impossible to imagine even having a vote on it, because I cannot see how anyone could argue against the need for an assessment when there is so little growth in our economy.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a much more strategic approach to this? We have the ludicrous situation that our taxation policies affect even our international relations. For example, we have lent £7 billion to our nearest and dearest—by which I mean expensive—neighbour, the Irish Republic, which allows it to reduce its internal taxation and reduce to a matter of pennies its aviation tax, yet our taxation continues to increase, which ruins business opportunities in our country. We need a more strategic approach so that if we lend money overseas we can ensure that it does not undermine taxation policy in this country.
Toby Perkins
That is an interesting point. We had the ludicrous situation of the Chancellor claiming that our country was on the verge of bankruptcy, but at the same time giving money to a country that was genuinely in a very difficult position. His credibility is really damaged when, for political gain, he says things that he knows are not true, and that every serious economist knows are not true. No one seriously believes that he would have lent money to the Irish if he thought that this country was on the verge of bankruptcy. What we saw in Ireland was what would have happened if we had followed the dangerous policies that the Conservative party proposed in 2008, which were to start cutting when the recession was at its worst. It is precisely for that reason that there is now so little economic confidence.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Having tried on three occasions to intervene on speeches by Conservative Members, and on each occasion been told no, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting this intervention.
On VAT, Conservative Members bleat that it is not possible to secure any rebate on VAT because the Europeans will not let us, but does my hon. Friend recall that the French managed to do so for their own restaurateurs? What is it about Conservative Members’ being so gutless and spineless that they will not argue our case in Europe in order to do something that would actually improve life for people in this country—especially as they brought in the VAT increase in the first place?
Toby Perkins
If I had had any idea that my hon. Friend so desperately wanted to intervene I would have given way earlier, but I am pleased to have been able to make her dream come true. The strong point that she makes, and on which Members should reflect, is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) suggests that we assess the impact of the VAT increase.
I am not trying to get into a class war thing, but one reason why the Chancellor has got things so wrong and why so many of his policies seem so out of kilter is that he has no concept of what people can actually buy with a half-decent salary. That is one reason why, at the drop of a hat, he introduced the changes to child benefit. As someone who was loaded the day he was born, he has no idea of the difference between a salary of £50,000 a year, £20,000 a year or £12,000 a year; he just knows that they are a lot less than he has, and that people on £50,000 seem to earn more than the average so they are probably okay.
Mr Kevan Jones
Has my hon. Friend noticed that the same applies to the majority of the Cabinet? I understand that among both its Conservative and Liberal Democrat members there are some 20 millionaires, so they say that we are all in it together, but they are clearly not.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. No one is suggesting that because someone is wealthy they do not have a right to go into politics, just as we would never keep someone out of politics because they were poor—[Interruption.] Well, we would never do so! The central point, however, is that when the policies that the Government pursue seem so directly to hit the most deprived people, to attack pensioners and, particularly, to attack women as they have on so many different occasions, people will understandably look at the background of the people making those decisions. When people hear them in opposition say that they recognise that VAT is a regressive tax, but see them go into government and try to claim something different, they will understandably question their credibility.
VAT hits the poor, the workless and pensioners. Are those really the people the Chancellor wants in his sights?
Toby Perkins
Absolutely. The VAT cut, like so many other Government policies, is hitting women hardest.
I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you ever have the opportunity to visit the Conservativehome website, but if anyone does so today they will see an article entitled “The Conservatives are losing female supporters. Why?” We have had many debates that could have given them the answer, but basically every single economic policy that they have introduced has had an adverse effect on women. Women are more likely to be public sector workers; women have been badly hit by the pension changes; women are more likely to be impacted by the VAT increase; and women often manage the family budget and have noticed acutely the increase in and squeeze on the amount that they have to spend. The Conservatives are trying to analyse why women are deserting them, and we can lead them to the answer without the need for them to do much research at all.
The challenges that business face are significant. Before coming to this place, I was running my own business. Confidence is low. When customers are worried about whether they will be able to afford to pay their mortgage, they will not be spending money on anything that they do not need. The banks are not lending, public sector organisations are not buying from the private sector because they have less money, and IT suppliers are finding that they are not getting the business they relied on from the public sector. At the same time, public sector employees are not contributing to the private sector by buying all the things they would be buying if they had confidence in the security of their jobs. The cuts to the public sector are having a dramatic effect on the private sector.
We have had a Budget for growth that has led to no growth. We now need an assessment of the impact of the VAT increase so that we can understand fully the reasons we are not getting growth in the economy. We need to make decisions based on getting people back to work, getting money in people’s pockets, and seeing the economy grow back in the way that every single one of us wants it to.
Kate Green
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and to echo many of his remarks.
I appreciate that it is late, and I will keep my remarks brief, but it would be remiss of me not to speak up on behalf of my constituents to express the genuine concerns about the impact on businesses and families of the Government’s fiscal policies, including, in particular, their policy on VAT.
The impact on families, especially the poorest families, of the Government’s fiscal measures is a cause of considerable concern. The other day, the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us that inflation is having a 60% greater impact on poorer families than on better-off households. The poorest fifth of families now face an inflation rate of 4.3%, compared with the richest fifth, for whom it is only 2.7%, and the higher rate is hitting pensioners especially harshly. I suspect that we all know this from standing on the doorsteps in our constituencies and listening to families talk about the pressures they are facing in managing the rising cost of living and the difficulties they are experiencing in making ends meet. Families across the piece are beginning to feel the squeeze that is resulting from the Government’s policies, and there is no doubt that the VAT increase is a significant element in that.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) is not in the Chamber, because there are one or two important points about VAT that we need to ensure that Conservative Members understand. First, VAT is a regressive tax because it hits the lowest income deciles disproportionately harshly. That is because it is a flat-rate tax that it is taken away from the poorest families at the same rate as from the better-off. All the sleight of hand that looks at expenditure deciles misses the point that families with lower disposable incomes are seeing more of their income eaten up on non-discretionary spend, where costs are rising.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) rightly pointed out that we are talking about spend not on luxuries but on household basics. We recognise that food and children’s clothes are exempt from VAT, but let us remember all the other household basics that families will still have to go out and buy: soap powder, washing-up liquid, shampoo, shoe repairs. These are not items of frivolous luxury but everyday expenditures that families have to meet. In addition, as families rightly seek to enter or stay in the labour market, there are the costs for adults of buying clothes and equipment for work. VAT is a regressive tax that harshly hits ordinary families on tight budgets, and that is an important first consideration for Conservative Members to bear in mind.
Secondly, as many of my hon. Friends have said, we need to think about the impact that the VAT rise is having on the economy as a whole. That is the thrust of new clause 10. Here again, there is a basic lesson in economics that my hon. Friends have been trying to get across. Some Government Members have said that businesses can reclaim VAT. That neglects the fact that VAT, wherever it is applied in the product chain, ends up being charged somewhere. It ends up being charged when the consumer goes out and buys the goods. It does not somehow disappear in the course of VAT recovery, but is charged ultimately to the customer, who is now faced with spending more on essential items and having less to spend on additional items. That is having a damaging effect on business, manufacturing, retail and jobs. That is the point that I and my hon. Friends have been trying to get across.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Redcar has only just arrived as I finish this helpful, if rather basic lesson in elementary economics. You will not want me to repeat it all at this time of night, Mr Speaker, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can read the Official Report tomorrow to gain the benefit of what I and my hon. Friends have been trying to get across.
As I said, I want to make a few remarks about the impact that this policy is having in my constituency. I have talked about the impact that it is having on families in my constituency. Hon. Members have alluded to the impact that it has had on HomeForm, which is a substantial business based in Old Trafford in my constituency. It has been forced into financial difficulties, and I am very concerned about that. I am also concerned about an exceptionally important and large retail centre in my constituency, the Trafford centre, with which hon. Members may be familiar. I am concerned about jobs at the Trafford centre, particularly because of the nature of those jobs. They are exactly the kind of jobs that low-income families and those who can manage only a few hours of work are reliant on: part-time jobs, shift jobs and low-skilled jobs. Those are the jobs that are being put at risk and those are the jobs that do something—not very much, but something—to keep families on modest incomes afloat.
I am concerned that there is an impact on families, an impact on industry, an impact on retail and an impact on jobs. As my colleagues have said, that translates into a fall in consumer confidence and a fall in retail growth. We are concerned therefore about the damaging effect on the economy overall.
As the House is aware, we are asking simply for an assessment of the economic impact of the Government’s VAT rise. I think that that is a reasonable thing to ask for, particularly given the Chancellor’s apparent greater open-mindedness towards the economic impact of the 50% income tax rate introduced by the last Labour Government for those with incomes of more than £150,000. It was interesting to hear him say explicitly in his Budget statement in March this year that he regards that as “a temporary measure” and that he is concerned about what its broader impact may be. We are asking simply that VAT—a tax that affects all families, all households, all businesses and our economy as a whole—be subject to the same degree of scrutiny and review. I am at a loss to understand why a responsible Government would not want to take on board new clause 10 and support us in the Lobby this evening.
Mr Gauke
We have had an interesting debate. I must admit that I am surprised that on the subject of VAT cuts I am responding principally to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and that it is he who tabled the new clause calling for a VAT cut. After all, it was only on 16 June that, with much fanfare, the shadow Chancellor announced the Opposition’s flagship policy of a cut in VAT—the first paragraph to appear on the blank sheet that is Labour policy. Yet with an opportunity to legislate for that very policy today, the official Opposition failed to get around to tabling their new clause until the day before the debate—too late for selection.
Mr Robinson
How can the Exchequer Secretary say that the economy is working and growing? It flatlined for six months, and according to his own Office for Budget Responsibility, the prognosis is that we will borrow £46 billion more over the period of the deficit reduction plan, and that unemployment will rise by 200,000 over the same period. How can he pretend that the plan is working?
Mr Gauke
The fact is, the economy grew in the first quarter of this year, after the VAT increase, unemployment fell this year at the fastest rate since 2000, and borrowing is falling. The plan is working. I am afraid that Opposition attempts to talk the economy down are not working. In difficult international conditions, the economy is growing.
Raising the rate of VAT was a difficult decision to take, but it was the right decision, and the responsible thing to do. The Opposition proposal is reckless: an unfunded VAT cut to the tune of £12 billion a year, and £51 billion over the Parliament. How do the Opposition propose to fill that gap? Would they revert to their tax on jobs? Do they think that that would stimulate growth?
Deficit reduction, in which the VAT increase plays an important role, is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth. At the June Budget and in the spending review, the Chancellor set out a credible plan to reduce the deficit. According the OBR, the plan is consistent with medium-term growth, achieving the mandate in 2014-15, a year earlier than required. The International Monetary Fund continues to back the Government’s consolidation plans, and to advise against changing course. It considered whether it is time to adjust macro-economic policy, and its conclusion is that the answer is no.
Events in Europe and around the world in the past few weeks have shown how important it is for countries with large deficits, such as the UK, to have a credible plan to deal with their debts. The Government have a credible plan. The British economy is recovering, output is growing and new private sector jobs are being created. We have set out why we have made those changes and explained what is required. We are putting our economy on a path of sustainable growth. I urge hon. Members not to press the new clauses to Divisions, and to support the Government’s plans for this country.
Jonathan Edwards
We have had a very interesting debate, although I find myself somewhat confused by the voting intentions of hon. Members. We will see in a few moments.
I shall not press new clause 6 to a Division, because it proposes a permanent reduction in VAT. New clause 9, however, proposes a temporary reduction, no matter what Labour Front Benchers say, and I will press that to a Division. Those who do not join us in the Lobby for the Division on new clause 9 will not be able to say with any credibility that they oppose the January VAT increase.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) Order 2011
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make an order under the powers conferred by sections 2(2) and 21(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that in section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (rate of VAT), the rate of tax charged by virtue of that section shall be decreased by 12.5 per cent.
(2) In section 21(4) (value of imported goods) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for “25” substitute “28.58”.
(3) This Order shall be known as The Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) Order 2011 and shall come into force on 30 August 2011.’.—(Jonathan Edwards.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Leave to Remain (Sam Fontana Wright)
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to present my petition, Mr Speaker.
Sam, a constituent of mine, has had his application for a long-term visa refused by the UK Border Agency, which plans to send him back to America within days.
The Petition of residents of Pendle, Lancashire, and others,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that Sam Fontana Wright should be allowed leave to remain in Britain.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the UK Border Agency to halt his deportation and reconsider his case.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000932]
Employment (Livingston)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I believe that both you and I have drawn the short straw tonight, Mr Speaker, but I am delighted to be able to initiate the debate, and I am very pleased that it concerns employment in my constituency.
One of the key issues that motivated me—along with many other Labour Members—to become more actively engaged in politics was the corrosive effect of mass unemployment, which reached 22% in my local authority area of West Lothian in the mid-1980s. Action to create job opportunities, especially for young people, in the communities I grew up in and went on to serve as a councillor, a council leader and now an MP, has always been central to my political outlook and activity.
But before I move on to specifics on the future jobs fund and employment in my constituency, it is important to set this debate within the current national context. Youth unemployment in the UK is alarmingly high, with unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds higher than at any time since 1992. West Lothian also has a higher proportion, at 7.4%, of youth unemployment than the Scottish average of 6.5%.
The House explored the effects of those record levels of youth unemployment in a debate last week, so I will not dwell for long on the details now. However, I was amazed to read in the Library briefing for that debate about the results of a recent poll conducted for The Independent on Sunday. It found that eight out 10 people think it is harder for young people to get a job now than it was 20 years ago under the previous Conservative Government. It also reported that two thirds of the public think that the coalition’s economic policy threatens to
“leave a generation of young people jobless”
and that there is not enough being done to help youngsters into work. That is a damning public verdict on the coalition’s failure to get a grip on this vital issue. It is now clear that jobs are one of the biggest costs of the Government’s cutting too far and too fast.
As we came out of recession, Labour’s No. 1 priority was creating jobs, and by spring 2010 we were turning the corner and unemployment was coming down. Putting young people on the dole is not only a waste of money but a waste of their potential. We believe that getting people back into work is the best way to reduce the deficit. Yet the Government’s poorly targeted spending cuts have led them to axe programmes such as the future jobs fund, resulting in higher unemployment and more people claiming benefits. This, in turn, is making it harder to get the deficit down.
I will now turn to my main points in this evening’s debate—the future jobs fund and employment in Livingston constituency. During my time as the leader of West Lothian council I made economic regeneration and job creation top priorities. As part of that work, I oversaw the establishment of Access2employment, a council service to extend essential employability support to people who need help to get back into work. The Access2employment team delivers employability support to all residents of West Lothian, but with a priority focus on specific groups who have been identified as disadvantaged. They have very strict and challenging targets, which to date have been consistently achieved or exceeded.
On average, the team will work with 1,500 residents of West Lothian each year and will move at least 50% of them into work or training. There are three dedicated locations where the service can be accessed, including two in my constituency at Craigshill and Broxburn. The team also has lead responsibility for PACE—partnership action for continuous employment—in West Lothian, a partnership of key organisations which provide an immediate response for organisations when redundancies occur.
Support is tailored around the individual so that they are equipped with the employability skills that meet the needs of employers, recognising that one size does not fit all. The service has really come into its own during the difficult economic period, experiencing significant increases in the number of clients it works with over the last few years. In October 2009, the Department for Work and Pensions awarded West Lothian council a future jobs fund contract to create more than 200 jobs for young people by March 2011.
Access2employment has led the delivery of that contract and 211 people aged 18 to 24 have now been found employment opportunities, achieving the FJF target. The fund has supported those young people to gain the confidence and skills boost that they needed to find jobs.
One of those who found employment through the future jobs fund in Livingston was Aileen Ross, who was employed by the West Lothian chamber of commerce. She said of her own experience:
“I feel as though the Future Jobs Fund position gave me the chance I needed, to not just get myself back into work but change my career path in a positive direction. On the whole my experience over the last few months with the future jobs fund has been a positive one and I am very grateful for the opportunity I was given.”
Amber Lees was the 211th, and last, employee under the contract. She is now employed by The Pitstop community facility in Addiewell, a former mining community in my constituency, as a community assistant. She said:
“I really enjoy working at The Pitstop and know that I would not have been able to find a job like this without the future jobs fund.”
Margaret Pow, the manager of The Pitstop, which has been highly supportive of the delivery of the FJF contract, commented:
“The Pitstop would not be able to operate in the way it does without the hard work and dedication of the future jobs funded staff we have here.”
There are dozens of similar success stories, with young people in my constituency and across West Lothian who had struggled to find work after leaving school having now, through the FJF and the expert assistance of Access2employment, found work.
Most crucially, the overall success rate in West Lothian has been remarkable, with about 65% of the young people who completed the programme moving into jobs or training—some 15% more than the national average. The added value provided by Access2employment, and its long-established expertise and contacts, has clearly been vital in achieving such significant success. The council’s FJF will end completely in September, but where does the scrapping of the FJF leave Aileen, Amber and thousands more like them?
It is clear that the Government moved to axe the FJF at an indecently hasty pace, before all the evidence on its outcomes was available. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions report on youth unemployment and the FJF, published in December last year, concluded:
“While we accept the Government’s need to make savings to address the public spending deficit, it is our view that insufficient information was available to allow the Department to make a decision to terminate the FJF if this decision was based on its relative cost-effectiveness.”
In fact, there is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that the FJF has generally been successful and has produced positive results for those who have participated in it. Indeed, a new qualitative study backing the success of the FJF was published last month, albeit with little fanfare, by the Department for Work and Pensions itself.
“Customer Experience of the Future Jobs Fund”, a DWP in-house research report, found that the quality of jobs on the FJF was often high, that Jobcentre Plus generally managed it well, and that the programme had been a huge help in securing jobs for the young people who have been through it. The report states:
“A widespread view amongst respondents who had not found work was that their six month post would help to secure another job in the future. Some of the respondents who had been unemployed for many months plus prior to starting FJF described how their frustration and despair had changed into a real sense of hope for their prospects.”
It goes on to conclude:
“Overall, the evidence from this study suggests that FJF has been successful in up-skilling and preparing customers for work, particularly in terms of increased confidence and belief in capabilities.”
It also states:
“for many participants their reported experiences had been to such a high standard, that they could not think of any improvements to the scheme.”
That hardly sounds like a description of an ineffective scheme, as the Government tried to claim the FJF was a year ago when they announced that they were shutting the programme down.
Support for the FJF has also come from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which led the Third Sector Consortium in Scotland, one of the largest third sector providers of the FJF in the UK. Its “Future Jobs: Future Communities” report showed that the FJF helped to support vulnerable people, increase recycling, involve more children in sport and support financial inclusion projects. The report highlighted many specific examples of successful placements in the voluntary sector, including three at Cyrenians Farm, a social enterprise, based in Kirknewton in my constituency.
Martin Sime, chief executive of the SCVO, said the FJF was an example of successful public service delivery. In evidence to the Select Committee inquiry last year, the SCVO also stated:
“We are disappointed that the Coalition Government has chosen to end the FJF early, particularly as this decision was taken so swiftly and without being informed by thorough analysis or evaluation of the outcomes achieved by the programme, which we believe to be favourable when compared to mainstream employment initiatives designed for this client group.”
What of the Government’s alternative, the Work programme? It has been dogged by criticism from all quarters, including from the head of a leading welfare-to-work charity, who also happens to be a Conservative peer. Baroness Stedman-Scott of the Tomorrow’s People charity last week publicly expressed strong concerns about how the Work programme is being implemented, and not least about how voluntary sector providers have been treated. She was voicing the widespread concerns of work charities, many of which have lost out to commercial providers in the bidding process for Work programme contracts.
Earlier this month, Tomorrow’s People and the Centre for Public Service Partnerships published a report that suggested that the Work programme will fail if commercial providers do not help jobless people with the worst social disadvantage. Neil Lee, senior economist at the Work Foundation, has supported this concern. He said:
“As the Work Programme is based on payment-by-results, contractors carry the initial risk. There is therefore the danger that private contractors will focus on investing in places where they are more likely to get people into work to secure a return on investment.”
Perhaps the most disturbing concern has been raised by the Employment Related Services Association, which represents most of the organisations awarded prime contracts to run the Work programme. It has claimed that the welfare-to-work industry could shrink by up to a third in the years ahead, with up to 10,000 jobs at risk. That is because the Government’s own predictions suggest that fewer people will be referred to the Work programme than were referred to similar schemes under the Labour Government.
The ERSA’s chief executive, Kirsty McHugh, said that although she and her members support the Work programme and want it to succeed, there is “huge concern” about its implementation. She said:
“The big unknown is quite how many customers are going to be going through the Work Programme. If, as we think it will, that number turns out to be quite low, our estimate is that the workforce employed to deal with those customers will shrink by 25 to 33%.”
That is breaking new ground even for a Tory Government: a jobs programme that is putting those responsible for running it out of work before it has even begun. On a serious note, that highlights the Government’s lack of ambition in tackling youth unemployment.
Labour believes that a repeat of last year’s bankers’ bonus tax, which brought in £3.5 billion, could, on a cautious estimate, raise £2 billion, which should be used to help create 100,000 jobs, build 25,000 affordable homes, rescue construction apprenticeships and boost investment in businesses. The coalition Government’s decision not to repeat last year’s bonus tax means that even with the increase in the levy announced earlier this year, the banks are still getting a tax cut this year as youth unemployment increases.
In Scotland, Labour adopted an incremental and evidence-based approach to the issue before last month’s Scottish Parliament elections. We consulted with relevant organisations on a £40 million Scottish future jobs fund, which would have built on the strengths of the UK Future Jobs Fund and sought to learn from examples of best practice such as those displayed in my local authority area, West Lothian. That approach, which involves working with experts and local communities, contrasts starkly with that of the coalition Government. At a national level, instead of consulting those who know best how to get young people into work—the people on the ground, such as the dedicated staff at Access2employment—the Government have shut down a programme that is now proving its value and that could easily have been adapted and further improved. Thousands of young people in Livingston, the rest of West Lothian and up and down the country will wonder why the Government have pulled the rug out from under them in this way just when they are in the greatest need of extra support.
In conclusion, I would like the Minister, who I know has drawn the short straw this evening in having to respond to the debate at this late hour, to tell us why the Government acted in such a precipitous way in axing the future jobs fund before all the evidence was available to make an informed decision. Furthermore, what will the Government do now to ensure that the best aspects of the future jobs fund, as so effectively evidenced in my constituency, in the rest of West Lothian and across the length and breadth of the country, are not lost as the Work programme is rolled out, so that young people in Livingston constituency can continue to benefit from expert support in helping them to find work? I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the two Members who have remained in the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) has, as he rightly said, drawn the short straw this evening, and I am sure that he would have chosen a slightly earlier hour to debate what are certainly important issues. However, I think that, quite appositely, we have finished this evening with a bit of a fairy story, because much of what the hon. Gentleman said was, although well-meaning I am sure, complete nonsense. Let me explain why. Having listened to his remarks for the past few minutes, one would not believe that youth unemployment today is actually 25,000 lower than it was at the general election, that the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance in his constituency has fallen since the general election or that the trends in the labour market have seen an increase in employment in Scotland. One would not believe that across the country as a whole there are 500,000 more people in employment than there were a year ago and that, very gratifyingly at what are difficult times for the public sector, the private sector is creating jobs at a rate that is significantly faster than the loss of jobs in the public sector. I simply do not recognise the bleak picture that he portrays.
I fully accept that with the challenging youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country we still have a lot of work to do. That remains a big problem and a big challenge for us. Of course, the figures are somewhat distorted by the bizarre situation that the overall headline youth unemployment figure includes almost 300,000 young people who are in full-time education and who happen to be looking for a part-time job alongside their studies. I do not classify those people as unemployed and I do not think that most reasonable people would. However, the reality is that we still have more than 600,000 young people across the country—many in his constituency, some in mine and some in the constituencies of all hon. Members—who are struggling to get into work in what remains a challenging labour market. I accept that there is a job to be done. The progress that has been made is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is only a small step on a long journey to tackling a real problem.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the future jobs fund. I know that Labour Members believe strongly that that policy was a significant strategy for dealing with youth unemployment, but I disagree. I do not deny that a number of young people benefited from what were six-month placements—it is important to get the jargon right. “Future jobs fund” was not an honest and accurate title for the programme. They are not jobs, but six-month placements almost entirely in the public, voluntary and community sectors. Because of rules relating to European state aid, it was not possible in almost all cases to provide jobs in the private sector. At a time when it is the private sector that is creating job opportunities, that was a big flaw in the future jobs fund.
The other big flaw was cost: it was massively expensive. It cost four times as much to achieve a job outcome as did the Labour party’s own new deal for young people. It was a hugely expensive programme that did not deliver results significantly out of line with previous programmes at a cost that was comparable to previous programmes. At a time when the Government were dealing with a massive deficit—a huge challenge—we had to take some hard decisions, and those hard decisions were about value for money. Early on, we took a straightforward decision that I stand by to this day and which I believe was absolutely the right one: to focus our attention on apprenticeships. I accept that in Scotland, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, responsibility for apprenticeships has been devolved to the Scottish Administration. I admired his bravery in referring to the Labour party’s plans prior to the Scottish parliamentary elections, because I am not sure that they were entirely welcomed by the electorate north of the border.
Graeme Morrice
It is probably true to say that the Scottish Labour party was not quite successful in last month’s Scottish parliamentary elections, but that was not because of our policies on jobs, employment, or apprenticeships; most people recognised that those were our top priority. There were other reasons why we did not quite win. I do not think that it was because of our position on getting young people back into employment.
Chris Grayling
Of course the hon. Gentleman knows more about Scottish political affairs than I do. Looking at the issues from south of the border, I simply observe that it is quite clear that the Labour manifesto for those elections did not capture the attention of those north of the border in the way that he and his colleagues might have wished it to. However, it is certainly the policy of the Administration in Edinburgh to pursue an apprenticeship route. It is very much the view of the Government that apprenticeships offer a much better option for young people. They offer a pathway to much longer-term skill building, and to a real job that can last a number of years. We all hope that in most cases it will carry on beyond the apprenticeship period and become long-term employment—in an organisation in the private sector, in most cases, where there is a real chance of growth and opportunity. Sadly, right now, for reasons that we all know and understand, the same growth and opportunity is not shared in the public sector.
That was a very conscious decision, and I was pleased when, earlier this week, my colleague the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, published figures on the Government’s progress on apprenticeships and set out a quite remarkable increase in the take-up of apprenticeships over the past 12 months. When we add to that the additional apprenticeship places that were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, we find that the package of apprenticeships that we are offering, together with the package of apprenticeships that will be set up in Scotland and Wales, will offer young people across the United Kingdom a better option than the future jobs fund.
Graeme Morrice
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene a second time. Certainly, I would welcome any increase in the number of apprenticeships for young people. Of course, the Government are building on the strengths of the modern apprenticeship scheme introduced by the Labour Government in this place and the Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament. What does the Minister say in response to my comments about the criticisms made of the Government’s Work programme by a series of people, including Baroness Stedman-Scott, who was particularly critical of the scheme?
Chris Grayling
I shall go on to talk about the Work programme in a moment, but first let me touch briefly on one other important part of our strategy: the work experience scheme that is being organised through Jobcentre Plus. We believe that one of the key barriers to employment for young people is that age-old problem—they cannot get a job unless they have experience, but they cannot get the experience unless they have a job. We discovered very soon after taking office that under the previous Government, any young person who did a period of work experience would lose their benefits. We have changed that; young people can now do up to eight weeks’ work experience while continuing to claim jobseeker’s allowance. That allows them to get into a company, demonstrate their potential, and get to know the employer and vice versa. We believe that in many cases that will be a bridge into an apprenticeship or full-time employment.
There are already many thousands of young people going into work experience placements under a scheme that we launched about three months ago. We have commitments from employers to tens of thousands of placements over the next 12 months. We believe that that scheme can be a simple, quick vehicle that opens up opportunities for apprenticeships and other employment for young people, and allows them effectively to demonstrate to an employer what they can do, and break down that initial barrier. An employer may say, “Actually, I like this young person; they are doing something for my organisation, and they can make a difference.” That is the second part of our strategy.
As the hon. Member for Livingston rightly said, for those who have been unemployed for a longer period, or who come from a more challenged background, we have the Work programme. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the pessimistic view that he portrays of the programme.
It is undoubtedly the case that there are some issues for voluntary sector organisations in the negotiations with prime contractors, sorting out the best possible deals for themselves. I have been very clear, and I am very clear again tonight on the record, that as far as I am concerned we have recruited a good team led by prime contractors and backed up by teams of organisations—specialist, community, voluntary sector, smaller private sector and public sector, such as local colleges—to deliver the Work programme across the country. We expect those teams to remain intact.
I have no doubt that there will be some to-ings and fro-ings in the negotiations between prime contractors and subcontractors over the next few weeks, but it will not be acceptable for prime contractors to treat their subcontractors as what has been called “bid candy” and to drop them. Any prime contractor that does that can expect to lose its contract. So I do not recognise that there is a deep-rooted problem. Yes, of course there are some to-ings and fro-ings in negotiations; that always happens in a big contractual changeover.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a lack of referrals to the Work programme. I can tell him that already many tens of thousands of people are on the Work programme and are starting to receive support from the providers. One of the bits of feedback that we are getting from providers is how pleased they are that we have delivered the volumes that we promised at the time we promised, in stark contrast to the flexible new deal programme under the previous Government, which was a disaster when it started. The people who were promised to providers did not materialise. Providers found that they did not have the people they had expected. That is not happening under the Work programme. The feedback that we are getting is that providers are pleased with the volumes of people who are waiting for support.
This is the most ambitious back-to-work support programme that this country has ever seen. In terms of numbers, it is bigger than any previous programme. I do not accept any figures that say otherwise. It is available to every single person who is claiming employment and support allowance, and it is available to every single person on jobseeker’s allowance who crosses the threshold of 12 months for an adult jobseeker, nine months for a young person, and three months for somebody who comes from a challenged background. Every single one of the people in those categories has access to the Work programme on a scale that has not been seen before in a previous programme.
This radical new approach—payment by results—says to provider organisations large and small, from big multinational companies down to small community projects, all working as a team, “You deliver the support that will work best for the people you are helping, get them back into the workplace, help them stay in work for a period of time that can be as long as two years and three months, and we will pay you on the basis of your success.” I am confident that that will unleash best practice around the industry. These organisations can succeed only if they are excellent at what they do.
The voluntary sector organisations that have real skills have a first-rate opportunity because if they are the best at helping these people into work, they will succeed in the Work programme because their skills will be very much in demand. We have in total 500 voluntary sector organisations across the country which have all signed up to the Work programme. As part of the tendering process, they have signed pieces of paper to say that they are happy with what is on the table. They will now deliver support and expertise to the prime contractors to help the long-term unemployed get back into the workplace in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in my constituency and in the constituency of every hon. Member throughout the country.
As of this Thursday, every single part of the country will have been covered by the Work programme on time, as planned. The contracting process has taken place in a very short time by public standards and in many parts of the country is already starting to help people into work. The package of support includes the work experience scheme, our real focus on expanding the number of apprenticeships, the intensive personalised support through the Work programme, and a greater devolution of flexibility and responsibility to the front line in Jobcentre Plus to tailor support in areas where those individual staff are working to the realities of those areas. To be able to look at a constituency like the hon. Gentleman’s and say, “For the shorter-term jobseekers who have not yet accessed the Work programme, what are the extra things we need to do in our area to help our own client base—
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Housing (England)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, for the first time.
I sought to have this debate for a number of reasons. The first is that housing, particularly social housing, is an important part of the lives of people in this country, so much so that it ought to be the subject of frequent debate in this House. I might be wrong, but I do not recall a full, major debate on housing in the main Chamber so far in this Parliament. The second reason is that housing, particularly social housing, affects and is affected by so many other areas of Government policy that it needs constant attention at a time when other policy is changing rapidly. The third reason is that I am a new Member, and as such housing forms a substantial part of my constituency case load.
I am no housing expert, but I am fortunate enough to have an excellent senior caseworker, Pauline Ingall, who has made it her business to work with my constituents and with local social housing providers to solve problems, bringing to my attention inconsistencies and unintended consequences of policy that cause distress in people’s lives. Some constituents, in particular John Turner whom I thank for his encouragement to seek this debate, have also pointed out anomalies, and I pay tribute to Karen Armitage, chief executive of Stafford and Rural Homes, for bringing a number of matters to my attention.
I know that other Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I will therefore seek to limit my remarks to certain areas of this vast subject. I am sure that they will be able to fill in the gaps and add much local detail from their own experience. I will not tackle the question of supported housing, not because it is unimportant—far from it—but in the hope that others will refer to it. However, I will make, as I am sure will others, a number of suggestions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. I know that he will take them seriously in his usual generous manner.
It will continue to be the case that most people in this country will wish to, and be able to, buy their own homes, or rent them in the private sector. It is also clear, however, that increasing pressures will mean that demand for social and affordable rented housing will continue to rise. I say “continue to” rise because despite the relatively strong economic growth between 1997 and 2007, the numbers on council waiting lists rose from 1.02 million to 1.67 million, and by 31 March 2010 they had reached 1.75 million. Over the same period, social housing stock declined from 4.38 million to 4.03 million, so only half the increased demand was accounted for by a reduction in supply.
We live in tough economic times, and although I expect Britain to return to relatively strong growth within one or two years, this experience tells us that the rate of increase in demand is likely to slow rather than be reversed. Added to that, we have the pressures of an increasing population, estimated to be 65 million by 2018, and 70 million by 2028. We therefore have a serious imbalance in supply and demand, which is likely to increase in the coming years.
The Government’s approach is twofold: to encourage the increase of supply, and to help registered social providers and local authorities to take a more flexible approach to housing, so that this very valuable national asset can be put to best use. I welcome that general approach, but before I look at it more closely I wish to emphasise that housing can never be considered as just an asset. In fact, one of the main causes of the financial crisis around the world was the failure by financial institutions, Governments and property owners to recognise that viewing a home solely or substantially as a financial asset was very short-sighted.
A home is a vital aspect of someone’s place in the community. Understandably there is great emphasis these days on mobility, but people staying for a long period—perhaps their whole life—in the same place is just as valid a choice. My family lives in the house in which my wife grew up, and our children attended the same schools as she did. The big society is more likely to flourish in places where people stay put rather than where people move frequently and hardly know their neighbours, and that is why we need to be careful about making changes to social housing tenancies. We are dealing with not just bricks and mortar but with people’s lives, and I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on how he sees the balance between stable communities and the understandable need to make best use of social housing.
The Government recognise the need to build more social housing. The target of 150,000 new homes—37,500 a year over the next four years—is ambitious, and represents a substantial increase over anything achieved by the previous Government, under whom completions ranged from 14,000 to 26,000 a year. I welcome that target; the key is how it is to be achieved. I understand that because of the current financial circumstances capital funding has been reduced from £8.5 billion in the previous spending round to £4.5 billion, and that the difference is to be made up by allowing housing associations to introduce affordable rents of up to 80% of the market rent—recent figures show an average of 67%. Capital subsidy would be replaced by revenue funding from higher rents, combined with increased borrowing by housing associations against the value of their stock, and, of course, Government capital grants.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if rents are set at 80% of market rents they will simply be unaffordable for a lot of people in some areas?
Jeremy Lefroy
I do, and that is why the flexibility in the policy is very important.
Some people have asked whether the result of increased rents for new tenants will be to transfer capital subsidy to the cost of welfare because much of the increase will be covered by housing benefit. There is a clear difference of views here, with the Government saying that there is likely to be little or no increase in the cost of housing benefit, and others estimating the annual cost after four years to be up to £1.5 billion. This issue cannot be brushed under the carpet as a minor detail, and I ask the Minister to update the House regularly so that we can see the true consequences of the shift in funding new affordable rented housing more out of rental income and less out of capital grants. This is an important policy change, and we need to evaluate it.
In passing, I also wish to ask about the model used to calculate market rent. I understand that a model is being suggested that will cost housing associations some £40,000 to £50,000 a year to use. The main housing association in my constituency, Stafford and Rural Homes, says that it will perhaps be more straightforward and cheaper to use the local housing allowance as an indicator. I also ask the Minister to work closely with banks and housing associations to see how the obstacles to borrowing for building can be overcome. From anecdotal evidence I have heard, it is becoming more difficult for housing associations, especially the smaller, local ones, to borrow at reasonable rates from banks to build new properties.
With council housing, the proposals for self-financing are a continuation of the previous Government’s plans, and they make good sense. The figures from the past 10 years show that the current arrangements are complex and provide few incentives to increase housing stock. Some people have argued, however, that councils should be able to retain 100% of sales proceeds rather than the proposed 25%. It might be sensible to look at enabling councils to retain 100% for the medium term—or at least more than 25%—and to roll the money into new properties when demand is strong, in return for agreeing to release the funds to the Treasury at a later date. In effect, they would issue bonds to the Treasury, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those proposals.
There are strong arguments for local councils and housing associations looking more seriously at entering the bond market more substantially than at the moment. The central grip of the Treasury on the finance of public capital is too strong. Some housing associations, such as Places for People, have already taken that initiative, but there is surely scope for more. Local bonds issued by local bodies and taken up by local people would be a fine example of localism in practice.
Those who look back at the ’70s and ’80s and point to irresponsible local authorities, fail to take into account the great strides taken since. Local government, in my opinion as a former council cabinet member for finance—I declare that interest—is far more prudent than national Government, and council balance sheets are generally in reasonable health. I welcome the commitment to build 37,500 new social and affordable rented homes a year and urge the Government to set their sights even higher by working with councils and housing associations to tackle the financial and planning obstacles that stand in their way. Both sides need to be engaged in doing so day in, day out, rather than awaiting the next set of statistics. There is another important reason for encouraging construction: it will boost the economy and employment. Everybody will gain: more people will be properly housed, more income will go to housing associations and local authorities, more people will be in work and fewer will be on benefits.
The second arm of the Government’s approach is to encourage flexibility and ensure that social housing is available to those who need it. Allowing local authorities to increase rents for those on high incomes surely makes sense. It is hard to justify subsidising housing for someone earning £50,000 a year or more. Other measures are more problematic. It seems that 430,000 social homes are under-occupied, with two or more bedrooms in excess of requirements, but in practice there might be few opportunities to move to smaller accommodation within the same area. It is key to make it easier for people to move to smaller homes rather than penalising them. One main obstacle preventing people from moving is a shortage of suitable accommodation. There is a severe shortage of single-bedroom accommodation and homes designed for older or disabled people. Many local authorities and housing associations, including in my constituency, have recognised that and are responding with additional extra care and similar housing, but we are still well behind the demand posed by demographic trends in this country.
In a recent debate on food production and security, I said that agriculture is the business of the future. I believe that more people in rural areas will be employed in coming years, yet the shortage of affordable and social housing in rural areas is such that in parts of my constituency, they would have to commute from the nearest town to work. The solution lies not just with Government, whose planning reforms should make building such homes somewhat easier, but with local communities. I would be the first to oppose large and inappropriate developments in rural areas, but to oppose any development, especially of affordable and social housing, is wrong. People cannot complain on one hand about the loss of rural services such as post offices, village schools and public transport and, on the other, prevent the arrival of the very people whose presence would make those services more viable.
In each of our constituencies are hundreds of homes that have been empty for a long time. Whether they are in private hands or public—perhaps they were requisitioned as a result of road projects that are no longer live—they represent a waste of scarce resources. There are also commercial properties that have lain idle for several years as a result of a change in habits. Local authorities need to be able to take action to bring such properties back into use or change planning designations more easily to meet the need for more homes, particularly social housing. I welcome the Government’s proposals and initiatives on those matters and the Minister’s comments.
I have concentrated so far on social housing provided by councils and housing associations, but private rented property is a vital part of the mix and will be increasingly important as attitudes to home ownership change in the medium and long term after the experience of the past few years. I will not say more about that, as I am sure that other hon. Members want to contribute, but the key is to encourage responsible letting and tenancy.
It is clear that this country must provide more social and affordable rented housing. First, we must build at—and, I suggest, beyond—the increased rate forecast by the Government. Secondly, we must free up properties by enabling people to move to others that are more suitable or by bringing disused properties back into use. However, it is just as important to achieve the economic growth that will reduce the number of people who depend on social housing.
I conclude by considering some of the concerns brought to my attention by constituents. Problems arise when families break up and new partners, each with their own children, come together. Teenage boys and girls from different parents are sometimes expected to share rooms; indeed, a letter about such a case recently arrived in my constituency postbag. Although we cannot expect housing associations’ letting criteria to cover every eventuality, we must ensure that the heavy burden of waiting lists does not cause them to lose sight of the needs of individual families. That is particularly important for people with disabilities. Social housing providers make great efforts to meet the needs of those with disabilities, but the requirement to be fair and consistent due to concerns about being challenged must be balanced with the determination to tackle people’s real needs.
I also have concerns about how disputes between landlords and tenants are resolved. The Housing Ombudsman Service has an important role to play, but although its mission, according to its website, is to work
“with landlords and tenants to resolve disputes impartially, using processes that are fair, evidence-based, and free of bias and prejudice”,
it seems to see its role in resolving disputes in terms that I would regard as relatively narrow or legalistic. One person said to me:
“Housing associations have huge amounts of power. So if there are problems, you can only go to the ombudsman. However, the ombudsman only deals with things in a legal manner.”
I have sympathy with that comment.
What is needed is for the housing ombudsman or some other body to be involved in local arbitration between landlord and tenant at an earlier stage, when perhaps matters can be resolved before positions become entrenched. The relationship between landlord and tenant is sensitive, particularly when the tenant faces difficult circumstances. It is not simply a matter of being parties to a contract; it concerns the tenant’s home, family and community.
The structure and administration of housing associations are also an issue. They are not-for-profit organisations, often charities or industrial provident societies registered as charities. That gives them a certain status and some privileges, so one would expect restraint in remuneration, especially at the most senior levels, yet some executives have packages exceeding £150,000 or even £200,000 a year. I have always been mystified by how a small business that makes £20,000 or £25,000 in profit a year—effectively its owner’s income—can be described as for-profit, whereas a charity that pays an executive £200,000 a year has the elevated social and tax status of a not-for-profit organisation. Will the Minister and other colleagues consider whether it is appropriate for charitable bodies to retain that status if they pay excessive remuneration? Perhaps, as was the case with the bonus tax on banks, such organisations could be required to pay an additional levy on all remuneration above a certain level.
I have noticed that since stock transfers began, newly formed housing associations have tended to enter into takeovers or mergers. Although the need to come together for efficiency of scale is understandable, there is also a danger that contact with the local communities that they serve will be diluted. However good local staff are, tenants will be further removed from their landlord’s decision making. I do not wish to be prescriptive, but I welcome the Minister’s comments on how he believes social housing providers of all kinds can be more responsive to the needs of their tenants and communities.
I started by saying that social housing is affected by many other areas of Government policy. I will refer to one: the reform of housing benefit. I appreciate the need to control expenditure, but some of the proposed changes might have the opposite consequence. Deductions from housing benefit for non-dependants might cause tenants to ask their non-dependent children to leave. As a result, those children might end up on some perhaps more expensive form of housing benefit, or present themselves as homeless. I am also concerned about the extension of the shared accommodation rate to those aged 26 to 35. I have imagined myself in the shoes of someone of that age and in that situation. It is not a good place to be. What plans does the Minister have to encourage the building of decent accommodation for people in such circumstances?
I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise some of the questions that my constituents and others have put to me during my first year in the House. I come at the subject without previous experience, and I know that other colleagues with far more experience will wish to put their views, but I approach it with the desire for social housing that is both sufficient for needs and of a high standard throughout the country. I know that most providers do an excellent job, but not all do. I look forward to working with the Minister and all who wish to make such homes better for those who live in them and for the communities of which they are a part.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this important debate. I am surprised that more hon. Members are not here in Westminster Hall to discuss social housing.
I believe that we face a social housing crisis that is not of this coalition Government’s making. In Manchester we have thousands of people on waiting lists, many of whom have had to wait several years, with no realistic prospect of getting a social tenancy in the near future. Residents raise a large number of concerns with me, as they do with the hon. Gentleman, in relation to housing. I would say that the No. 1 issue that people come to see me about is either their concerns about the lack of social housing, or the fact that they are over-occupying their existing property.
The lack of social housing causes a number of problems, the most important of which is massive overcrowding in some of our social houses. I have constituents who have lived in a three-bedroom house with 10 or more people. Others end up having to move away from the area in which they have lived their whole lives to other parts of Manchester where the housing situation is not as serious as it is in south Manchester. The result is a big increase in the cost of private sector housing, and people are simply not able to afford the cost of going into private rented accommodation. All this has been exacerbated recently by a real difficulty in people being able to get mortgages and get on the property ladder, so more people have had to stay in rented accommodation.
I do not think that the Minister is to blame for any of this. It is the fault of previous Governments. We have to look at the right-to-buy legislation in the 1980s, which, while it had many merits, certainly had many drawbacks. It has resulted in a massive shortage of social housing in many parts of the country, and the money that was made from the sale of those council houses has not been invested back into the housing stock. In some cases in some parts of the country, those houses were almost given away, due to the low prices that people paid for them.
Unfortunately, following the introduction of the right-to-buy policy, the previous Labour Government, who followed a Conservative Government, did little or nothing to alleviate the problem. Social housing was not a priority of the previous Labour Administration, even in good economic times, when money could have been made available to build a significant number of social homes. We have, therefore, been left in a situation in which the coalition Government, with very little money to spend, face a rising need for social housing.
I would like to make three brief points on the future of social housing. The first is on changes to housing benefit, which the hon. Member for Stafford has already alluded to. There is a real problem with the proposed changes in relation to the single room rates for under-35s. The social housing simply is not available for people to share, which means that people will have to stay in properties where they will not be able to receive full housing benefit, or that they will lose their secure tenancies in social housing. It will also, almost certainly, result in an increase in housing benefit costs in many areas. In parts of my area, a one-bedroom flat occupied by someone under 35 who is in receipt of housing benefit is cheaper than the shared room rate in private sector accommodation would be in the same area. Therefore, rather than reducing the housing benefit bill, which is the intention of the legislation, we could end up increasing it.
Under-occupancy is another issue. I recognise that the Government’s plans on this issue relate to trying to make best use of the stock that we have, but that will not solve the problem, and for several reasons. The plans do not—rightly, in my opinion—include pensioners. In my area, the people who are most likely to under-occupy a property are pensioners. I want to make it clear that I do not want to see pensioners included in the change to the legislation. However, it is certainly the case that, in my area and other parts of Manchester, the people most likely to be under-occupying properties are the elderly. Rather than having disincentives for people to stay in properties, the solution, in my view, is to increase the incentives for people to move. At the moment, there are no incentives for people to move. As it stands, if someone who is under-occupying a property wants to exchange with someone who needs a bigger property, they have to take their new property as seen. There are no improvements when they move to a smaller property. An elderly person living in an immaculate house is never going to want to move to a smaller property that needs some work done to it. The Government’s plans to try to reduce under-occupancy by reducing housing benefit simply will not work.
My second point relates to the number of social homes. It is not rocket science—we simply need to build more. I am encouraged by the Government’s plans to build 150,000 social homes, but that is not enough. The tweaking of housing benefit rules will not disincentivise people from staying in bigger properties, so it is not going to solve the problem. We need to invest in more social housing. Local authorities in all parts of the country, with the possible exception of London, are sitting on large swathes of land that could be used for social housing. In Manchester, the council is waiting for land prices to go up, so that it can sell some pieces of land in my constituency to the highest bidder. We need to incentivise local authorities to make that land available to housing associations to build. Allowing local authorities to get more council tax as a result of building new houses will not be enough to persuade them to give up land that is worth millions of pounds. In the comprehensive spending review, we concentrated on spending our money in relation to transport on capital investment. We need to concentrate some of our resources in relation to housing on capital investment, to boost the construction industry and to build lots more social homes.
My final point relates to the size of the 150,000 homes that will be built. In my area, unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, there are plenty of one and two-bedroom flats. The real shortage of housing in my area is of larger, family properties. My plea to the Minister is that, when they come to be built, we get the right mix of social homes. In areas in which the shortage is in small, one-bedroom flats, let us build small, one-bedroom flats. In areas in which there is a massive shortage of bigger family properties, we must build three and four-bedroom houses, rather than two-bedroom houses. The social homes that have been built in Manchester in recent years have tended to be smaller family homes. We need bigger family homes so that all the people who are currently over-occupying properties in Manchester and other parts of the country are able to get bigger homes that are more suitable for their needs.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Caton—it seems to be a regular occurrence. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate. He has a reputation for being a thoughtful and wise MP, and he has shown that today. I also welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), which were very informative and useful. I look forward to reading his speech in Hansard tomorrow.
I would like to declare an interest as set out in the register and to state that I am an unpaid member of the advisory board for the Centre for Social Justice. Our social housing is an enormously valuable national asset, which matters to the 8 million people who live in it. In my constituency, more than 12,000 households are in social housing, which is about one third of the town. A further 4,000 households are on the waiting list, which is down from 7,000 under the previous Government.
Social housing is the No. 1 issue in my constituency mailbox, but it is not just about putting a roof over people’s head—although that is, of course, the central mission. Social housing is a mechanism by which we measure social justice and help people to escape the poverty trap. I want to make three substantive points this morning. I shall acknowledge the major housing problems that we face, set out why some of the coalition’s policies will help to create a more socially mobile society and urge the Minister to go further and faster, particularly on shared equity schemes.
First, let me set out the key problem, which is waiting lists. Nearly 1.8 million households are on social housing waiting lists, which is a substantial increase that has taken place over the past 15 years or so. As I said, although the number of households on the waiting list is decreasing in Harlow, there is still an overhang of around 4,000 households that urgently need homes. The problem is not the queue in itself, which is inevitable, but that many families have no realistic chance of ever getting a home. The waiting lists are particularly clogged up because not enough priority is being given to local people and there are rigid and inflexible tenancies.
I look forward to the day when I can say, “Harlow housing for Harlow people.” I say that because an anguished bus driver—Mr Darren Presland—came to see me at a surgery last Friday evening. He sat in my surgery and was very angry for 10 minutes. He was furious that people from outside Harlow, including many foreign nationals, are allowed on to the Harlow waiting list. It is true that, for many years, local authorities have had to include literally anyone on their waiting list with few exceptions and that they have different bands of priority within the list. Mr Presland was making a serious point: that many people on low incomes are angry and disillusioned with politics because people who are not local are allowed on to the waiting list.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for securing such an important debate. On the point about local needs, Cornwall council has been effective at introducing criteria so that local people have priority on exception sites for social housing in villages. Not only has that been very beneficial to the people in those communities, but it has enabled the council to increase support for building more homes in rural areas because people have the confidence that those properties will be local homes for local people.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend sets out a very interesting idea, which I will come on to later. That is something other councils should follow.
Mr Presland made a very important point. He asked why families on low incomes should pay very high taxes for houses that they are unlikely to be able to live in. Along with many other Harlow residents, he takes the view that immigrants are not only taking away jobs and opportunities from British people, but being given an unfair priority on the housing waiting lists. It is very hard to dispel that view and it is very dangerous— toxic—for the body politic. Mr Presland is not a racist and he did not come to my surgery with an axe to grind or on behalf of the British National party. I am talking about his feelings and those of a number of other residents.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is going into very interesting and, in many respects, controversial territory. Many local authorities are considering how they offer local people council housing. Newham, Manchester and others are introducing schemes to enable that to happen. None the less, does he accept that there are dangers involved in “local homes for local people”? We saw that in Tower Hamlets in the 1980s, where the BNP got itself elected on the basis of “local homes for local people,” because what it actually meant was “local homes for local white people.” There is a genuine tension there and we must be responsible about how we manage and talk about such issues.
Robert Halfon
Yes, the hon. Lady makes an important point. However, the BNP was elected because, in many cases, the myth was purported that homes were being given to foreigners, and that was believed by residents who were not getting houses themselves. That is why the BNP was sadly successful in that area.
The second thing that clogs up the waiting list and stops the 4,000 waiting households in Harlow finding a home is the old system of rigid, lifetime tenancies. I welcome the Minister’s pledge that the rights of existing tenants will be upheld but, for too long, social landlords have been forced to give most residents an inflexible lifetime tenancy, which takes no account of how people’s circumstances might improve. I accept that the Localism Bill will help and that it offers many, if not all, of the solutions because it will give councils the freedom to prioritise their waiting list, as voters want them to do. As I said, I look forward to the day when I can say to the hard-working people in my surgeries, “Harlow housing for Harlow people.” When the Government consulted on the matter, two thirds of councils, including many Labour councils, said that they would welcome those powers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
How does the hon. Gentleman define a Harlow person? How long does someone have to live there to be a Harlow person, or is there some other definition?
Robert Halfon
If somebody is brought up and born in Harlow, has spent a significant number of years in Harlow and has paid local taxes, that would define them as a Harlow resident.
The changes to the housing revenue account and the Tenant Services Authority are also welcome. For a long time, I campaigned against the HRA and argued for “Harlow housing money for Harlow people,” because the HRA was taking £13 million a year out of our town. Local residents groups, councils and neighbourhood associations do a much better and cheaper job of talking to social landlords than the Tenant Services Authority ever did. We have some very good residents groups in my constituency.
A number of other changes will also make a huge difference. First, £4.5 billion has been secured from the Treasury to spend on affordable homes over the spending review period. Secondly, there is the raft of schemes for promoting home ownership—Firstbuy, HomeBuy, Community Right to Build and mortgage rescue—and the house building incentives in the new homes bonus, which has brought £250,000 into my constituency this year. Thirdly, I welcome the decision to end the default setting of rigid, lifetime tenancies. That is an important issue, although it is very difficult and I have some questions.
I think we would all agree that the Bob Crows of this world and other wealthy people do not need subsidised housing from the state, but there is the danger of creating a poverty trap if people are disincentivised from earning higher wages because they are afraid of losing their home. My concern is that we must not create ghettos of social housing, where people have no incentive to be ambitious and aspirational. There is a balance to be struck. I understand why the Government want to give social landlords the freedom to set new and more flexible tenancies with a minimum period of two years, but at the same time require that they must publish how their new tenancies protect the most vulnerable, including families with children.
Mr Leech
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a better way to deal with people who no longer require social housing, due to the salary that they earn, would be to expect them to pay a market rent, rather than saying that they had to move? I do not want to use the example of Bob Crow, but instead of making him pay social rent, why not make him pay market rent for the property that he lives in, rather than expect him to move?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is worth looking at, but the problem is that the council house does not then become free for the people who need it most. That is an interesting idea, however, and I am sure that the Government will look at that.
I hope and believe that the Minister’s actions will help to tackle the waiting lists. I want to look at some potential solutions to asset inequality and to the housing crisis that we face. During the previous Parliament, the report “Breakthrough Britain”, by the Centre for Social Justice, suggested that social tenants who work, or who make a genuine effort to find work, should be rewarded with increasingly larger equity stakes in their home. The Conservative party adopted that policy in its manifesto, saying that social tenants with a good record should be rewarded with a 10% free equity share in their property, and that that could be cashed in when those tenants left the social rented sector. That could help in many ways; for example, as a small nest-egg for retirement, or as a deposit for their first house. I passionately believe in that policy: it is social justice in action, and rewards people who do the right thing. That is important because an Englishman’s home is not just his castle; it is his pension and an emergency source of funding for care in old age. People who never own equity in a house are shut out from that security, and have to live hand-to-mouth right into retirement.
When the economy improves, I hope that we will have the finance to implement that policy. There are other policies, however, that can have a similar effect. For example, the previous Government cut the right-to-buy scheme, which was so successful in the 1980s and 1990s. For many years, the Labour Government capped the maximum discount at £16,000, raised the minimum sale price and cut back the eligibility criteria. On top of that, Labour allowed the scheme to be eroded by inflation. In 1997, the typical discount was worth half a home’s normal value, but that fell to just a third in recent years. Why not dramatically restore the right-to-buy scheme, with proper discounts? I should also mention Harlow council again at this point. Why is it that, despite our councils paying to maintain homes and owning them outright, 75% of the sale price gets funnelled back to the Treasury—a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—rather than kept in the local area? I accept that that is the system we have inherited, but it is against the spirit of localism, and is an issue that could be earmarked for future reform.
Finally, I urge the Minister to look at the possibility—I emphasise the word possibility—of housing vouchers, funded by the sale of social housing as they become empty when existing tenants leave. Housing vouchers would create competition. That would drive more homes up to the decent homes standard and give people real choice. That would be a radical transformation of our society, and benefit new tenants as they enter the social market. Instead of the state owning or running social homes, it would simply pay the cheque to help families access accommodation. Linking the voucher to national insurance numbers would make it easier to administer. To adopt a famous phrase from Chairman Mao that is very apt at present, we could let a thousand flowers bloom and, instead of huge social landlords and corporations running the show, give smaller, nimbler businesses and charities a chance to run social housing.
In conclusion, the Government are delivering Harlow housing, and Harlow housing money, for Harlow people. The Localism Bill represents a huge shift of power to communities—something we have not had for a long time. We must also help families to take that step and take their rightful place in a property-owning democracy by getting a foot on the housing ladder. That is why I support giving free equity to social tenants when the economy allows it, restoring the right to buy, and looking at major innovations such as housing vouchers.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I start by making a declaration of an indirect interest in another Member’s entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate. He gave a thoughtful and compassionate speech, and I support his remarks about the need for good-quality, caring case workers. Mine do a brilliant job too, and I am sure that the Minister will say exactly the same about his own.
I have to admit that when I saw the original title of the debate—the future of social housing in England—my immediate thought was simply to say, “What future?” I will therefore be listening very carefully to the Minister, not least because one of the first headlines I saw relating to his policies after he took on his shadow ministerial responsibility was, “The death of social housing”.
We have had a well-informed and passionate debate, with good contributions from hon. Members. There are a number of points that I would like to draw out of the debate in my summing up; first and foremost is the simple truth that the Government have decided not to support the building of any new homes for social rent during the course of this Parliament—I specify social rent. Of course, homes will be built. Some 67,000 homes, largely for social rent, will be delivered in the first two years of this Government. Let us not forget, however, that those homes are the tail end of Labour’s national affordable housing programme. The funding and contracts were arranged by the previous Labour Government, and the homes will be completed under this Government. It is worth remembering that in the previous Parliament under the Labour Government, 142,000 additional homes for social rent were delivered between 2005 and 2010, out of a total 256,000 additional affordable homes. That is 100,000 more than the 150,000 target put forward by the current Government, which is apparently so ambitious.
The hon. Member for Stafford understands the needs for social homes. In his submission to his local development framework consultation, he said that it was important to build sufficient homes of the right type. He went on to mention that social and affordable housing was in short supply. His submission is very interesting, and the Minister might want to have a look at it. It is extremely well thought through.
Will the Government deliver? I doubt it. We now have a framework for the delivery of homes with Government grants that clearly states that the building of new social homes will be supported in exceptional circumstances only. Some 142,000 social homes were delivered in the previous Parliament, in addition to the 67,000 from Labour’s programme that will be completed under this Government—more than 200,000 homes for social rent. That number will fall under a Government who are sending a clear message that they want to see the end of social rent: the Localism Bill encourages councils to place people directly into the private rented sector; rents are being put up towards 80% of market rent; flexible tenure is being introduced, which will destabilise communities; and they have no history of support for the sector. Is the private sector becoming the new council housing under this Government? Has the Minister thought through what that will do to confidence among those seeking to invest in the sector? By the way, I welcome the Minister’s U-turn and announcement that he has accepted Labour’s argument, made in the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, on the need for standards to be fixed in the private rented sector.
The Government have chosen to introduce homes at 80% of market rent level, which they have had the temerity to call affordable rent. To whom is that affordable? It is not affordable to tenants, many of whom will be shifted on to housing benefit as a consequence, or, if they are not eligible for housing benefit, will simply leave the area if they cannot afford the rent, and it is not affordable to Government. The Department for Work and Pensions has been busy claiming that it will bring down the housing benefit bill, and yet the Department for Communities and Local Government impact assessment of the introduction of the 80% of market rent policy is that the cost of housing benefit will rise by £1.2 billion. The Minister will probably say that it is “up to” 80%, but the evidence coming out of the Homes and Communities Agency bidding process is for councils being told that it is 80% or virtually nothing. We have that from the local authority in Cambridge, which has been told that it must develop at 80% and not at 60%. If the Minister disagrees, can he give us his estimate of the proportion for social rent? If he says some will favour social rent, will that affect the number of homes built—the number he keeps quoting?
For all the Minister’s protests about his understanding of the policy, the reality on the ground bears little resemblance to his assurances. What can he tell us about where the funding will come from to support the building of new homes after the current comprehensive spending review period? That is a crucial issue for all those involved, from house builders to lenders and especially for those in need. If the answer is simply a further shuffling of the tenants, some tenants and landlords will be pretty desperate by 2014. Can the Minister share his thinking on what happens next?
I raise two other issues: the completion of the decent homes programme; and, perhaps most importantly, the Government’s decision to legislate away a tenant’s right of security of tenure. On decent homes, Labour’s commitment to tackle the £19 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance in the social sector was important and right. The allegation that the previous Labour Government did not care about social housing—made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech)—is wrong, although his concern about better use of public land is justified and needs further development.
Alison Seabeck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I beg to disagree.
The decent homes programme not only provided dignity and warmth in the home for families, it saved thousands of social homes from being condemned and demolished—homes that were run-down and unfit to live in because the previous Tory Government had looked the other way. If people want to know why Labour did not invest in expanding house building early on, it is because we were spending the money on clearing up the mess in the social housing sector left behind by the previous Tory Government, who sold homes without making use of the capital receipts. Now, for local authorities with homes below the decent homes standard, the Government have cut again—far too deeply. Will the Minister leave the same legacy as that of the Thatcher and Major Governments?
On security of tenure, without any manifesto commitment from either coalition party, the Government have decided in the Localism Bill to introduce a new form of tenure: flexible tenancies, which can last for as little as two years. After as little as 18 months under the new tenancy, the eligibility of tenants will be reassessed. If they have worked hard and done well for themselves, or if they have met someone whom they have decided to settle down with and, consequently, their income has increased too much, potentially they will have earned themselves an eviction notice.
Interestingly, Centrepoint has taken the views of young people it works with, expressing support for a tenure with security. I quote a young person called Kiran:
“Having a mixture of people on estates is really important. It’s important that people living on low wages can get social housing as it can be really difficult for them to afford private sector rents, and some young people need the security of council housing to help them get a good start in life. It’s also really important for unemployed people to see other people working so they don’t give up and they keep working towards getting a job themselves.”
That says it all.
I and, clearly, other hon. Members who have contributed today think it is wrong that hard work and responsibility should not be rewarded in the offer of council housing. Hard work and responsibility should certainly not be greeted with an eviction notice. The policy tramples on aspiration and is a block on tackling worklessness. The Minister tweeted recently—he tweets a lot—on the subject of Labour policy in this area. He suggested that, if Labour wanted to encourage working, we should support the 80% rent. The Minister simply does not get it. Where is the incentive for people to earn and get on if they have to leave their home after two years because their income has gone up, or earning has become marginal? They risk falling back into the benefit trap.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is certainly exercising Labour Members.
I asked my constituents at the King’s Tamerton community centre, Dawn and her friends, what made their area work; they all felt that it was the stability they had. Many had lived in their homes for decades, looking after them and supporting their neighbours. They reinforced the comments made in debate today: the big society is more likely to work where people stay put. In my view, they are already the good society, making their community work.
Tenants already in social housing might find that they are overcrowded or want to downsize—they might want or choose to move. The only home that they would be offered, however, might well be a flexible tenancy, with no security of tenure. I am, therefore, sorry to have to disabuse the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) of his views, but the Government’s claim not to be changing the rights of existing tenants is simply not correct. It is fundamentally wrong, and that has been acknowledged by some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers who bravely and wisely supported our amendment on the issue in the Localism Bill.
Before I finish, I touch on a point made by the hon. Member for Stafford when discussing issues related to the ombudsman and dispute resolution. We need further detail, and I hope that the Minister will come back to us on the issue.
Much more can be said on housing, which I am always grateful to have an opportunity to debate in this place—too often, the subject is overlooked. The policies of the Government are deeply damaging. They deserve far more frequent airing and, in the coming months and years, I suspect that is exactly what they will get.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate on an important subject which, as he rightly said, has often not had as much attention in this House as it should. I am delighted to see the support of coalition Members but dismayed—as I am sure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), is—by the lack of support from Labour Members. Social housing used to be an issue that they made great play of and insisted on being passionate about, so it is surprising to see their Benches quite so empty today. Until the arrival of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), I thought that the shadow Minister was in danger of being entirely alone.
Alison Seabeck
There is a strong argument against quantity: quality rather than quantity is the case today.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is almost certainly right. The arrival of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich at least demonstrates a partnership approach to Labour’s housing policy.
On the record, I want to say how much social affordable housing is an important part of the housing mix in this country. It is vital to people’s welfare, for all the reasons that other hon. Members have pointed out. Social housing is the bedrock of support for some of the most vulnerable people in society. I am proud—privileged, in fact—to be the Conservative Member who, in the previous Parliament at least, represented more council tenants than anyone else. I look to those people and see how proud they are of the homes they live in. I believe passionately in ensuring that they have the best possible homes, with the highest possible standards of decency and, although the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View might be surprised to hear this, the security to feel that it is their place to live in, so that expectations are properly set.
None of that means that I believe that the system is fit for purpose, that it should never be changed and that it is a perfect situation. Much has been made, particularly by the hon. Lady a few moments ago, of changes to flexible tenure; in other words, the concept that one does not necessarily get a house and stay there for ever and a day. I have been surprised, almost shocked, by the degree to which Opposition Members have argued for the last remaining hereditary principle—that a home is given for life and passed on to the next generation, regardless of whether a social home is still required. The hon. Lady may not know that that reform was brought in by one Margaret Thatcher. The socialists in the House of Commons are arguing—dying in the ditches, in fact—to defend a Thatcher reform. I will give way to the hon. Lady, who will perhaps tell us whether her party would reintroduce lifetime tenure.
Alison Seabeck
When approaching the Localism Bill and the issue of tenure, did the Minister look carefully at the Law Commission report of 2006, which covered the subject? It introduced a degree of flexibility, which the previous Government supported and were looking at. It also introduced a single form of tenure, much simpler than the current position of multiple tenures and rents at different levels on different properties, where there will be huge disparity. Did the Minister read that report?
Grant Shapps
We considered all the material and evidence. I know that report was attractive to Ministers in the hon. Lady’s party at the time it was brought out in 2006. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the current shadow Secretary of State and then Minister for Housing, was attracted by some of the ideas in that report when it came out, and hinted towards them, only to be slapped back down, and the ideas were then put away. It is important to have flexibility. If we are to talk of having one unitary cost for living in social housing, perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View can explain why her immediate predecessors—the last two I shadowed—cancelled convergence between social rent and affordable rent for housing associations and council houses. That did more to diversify the rents than bring them together, so there is a dichotomy at the heart of her argument.
I want to address my comments to the points raised by hon. Members, rather than read a prepared speech, and so tackle some of the issues. I am grateful for having the time to do so, on the first occasion I have had to address issues raised in debate in Westminster Hall, which is a real pleasure. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked of the social housing waiting lists and rises over the past 13 years. To be specific, the graphs show those rises taking place from 2003, as a direct response to a change in the way local authorities had to deal with anybody who approached them to go on to the housing waiting list. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) repeated that point.
The Localism Bill seeks to undo that to some extent, and ensure the ability, at a local, flexible level, to decide who should or should not be eligible for the list. Within a national framework, and under homelessness legislation, which I am not proposing to change—the reasonable preferences, for example—homeless people would still get the required cover, but there would be greater flexibility, not simply to have people apply to five, 10, 15 different council waiting lists, but to be able to manage people’s expectations. It is not right for people to sit on lists for ever. It is a national scandal that there are between 4.5 million and 5 million people languishing on those record housing waiting lists. The first thing to do is better manage those lists, and that is what the Localism Bill will do.
Alison Seabeck
I have listened with great interest to the Minister’s comments on waiting lists. One of my concerns is that we simply do not know who is on waiting lists nationally. We do not know their aspirations or why they are there. Therefore, any pressure that Government can bring to bear—and I know it is all about localism—on local authorities to do that piece of work would better inform the Minister’s Department about where the need exists and what it is.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that point. I became increasingly convinced of that in my three years shadowing this post. At one stage I went to see Owen Buckwell, an officer looking after housing in Portsmouth. I discovered that he had been doing precisely what the hon. Lady describes, which was to look properly through the list and try to manage it better, to understand who was on the list and for what purpose, and whether they had any likelihood of achieving a social house, or would be better looking elsewhere. The problem is that the current legislation—I think a 2002 Act—makes that nigh on illegal to do. He had to skate quite close to the limits of the legislation to manage that list properly. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady’s comments, I hope she will support—if not the entire Localism Bill—at least the aspects of waiting list reform which I believe will do what she has called on us to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked about flexible tenures and stable communities. That is at the heart of so much of the current housing debate, for reasons I have already mentioned to do with changing the automatic presumption or insistence on a lifetime tenure. He is right that I believe in stable communities: I want them to exist and flourish. The intention of the legislation is not in any way to undermine the ability for that to happen.
Much has been made of two-year tenancies, referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. I am being clear, in all our language and in the tenancy standards that we will put in place, that two years is to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, and that at least five years would be the norm. I am sure many areas will want to provide tenancies of five, 10, 15, 20 years, perhaps even lifetime tenures still. However, the provision at a local level to provide for a short tenancy to account for exceptional circumstances could be very useful and welcome.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
If the Minister believes that the two-year tenancy should be the exception, why did his party not accept amendments to that effect when the Localism Bill was debated in Committee?
Grant Shapps
Quite simply because we have said we will include it in the tenancy regulations. It is a question of where it is mentioned. The fact is that there are some good and striking reasons why a short tenancy might be useful. I have used the following example in the House before and will use it again, as the family have been in touch this weekend. My constituent, Matthew Hignett, fell off his motorbike on his way to work and is now paralysed from the neck down and will be for life. He told me that he needed some support for just a very short period of time to get himself together and back into work, which, remarkably, he has now done.
When I approached our local authority—otherwise an excellent housing authority—it said it was sorry but that it had no option to help that constituent. He did not qualify for social housing because he previously had his own home, though mortgaged. If it were to give him a home, its only option would be to give it to him for life. That creates problems on both sides. He needed some help for a limited period of time. I want to make that available, and maximum flexibility will do precisely that for people who are sometimes in unusual circumstances, which are difficult to predict. There is no argument against flexibility.
To believe that people are going to be thrown out of their homes after two years is fundamentally to misunderstand the role of social landlords in this country. Social landlords, councils, housing associations, do not spend their time plotting how to kick people out of their homes. They are there to house people: that is their core activity, that is what they do. There is every reason to believe that they would want to keep people in those homes for as long as possible, and not to throw them out. Flexibility is the key; using the housing that we have to best advantage is essential. That is what the flexible tenure will provide within the circumstances of stable and secure communities. People’s expectations will be established, so that they know that they can live in their home for the next 20 years and bring up their family, but that when their family move away, they will probably downsize, as often happens in the private sector.
There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of housing benefit and the affordable rent scheme, and some interesting figures have been thrown about. I would like to cover that issue in a little more detail and note that the impact assessment that was published showed that the scheme would cost in the region of £25 million to £50 million. We do not recognise the figures running into billions of pounds that have been thrown around, for the simple reason that when somebody moves into affordable rented accommodation, they often come from the private rented sector where 100% of their rent is paid for and supported by housing benefit. They might then move into a property where the average rent is 67% of the market rent—that was the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—and in such cases, the cost of housing benefit would not rise but fall. Such a move will have been supported by capital to build the house through the affordable rent programme.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the affordable rent programme that I hear mentioned time and again. In fact, the programme will assist with the housing benefit bill. That does not mean that there will be no pressures on the housing benefit bill; those pressure have been acknowledged, but they will cost tens of millions of pounds, not thousands of millions.
Alison Seabeck
The Minister talks about people moving from the private rented sector into new affordable rented properties, and the saving that will be made. Does he acknowledge that, because of the pressure on councils and the number of people on the waiting list, any vacancies that appear in the private rented sector will be further backfilled by people who are in need of housing? Private rented accommodation will continue to be filled at those higher rents—we know that rents are rising sharply, particularly in London, and we have just seen the latest figures. I query the way the Minister has reached his conclusion that the affordable rent programme will cost tens of millions of pounds and not a higher figure.
Grant Shapps
Our impact assessment lays the scheme out in considerable detail and I do not recognise the methodology used in the impact assessment mentioned by the hon. Lady. There are many different ways to slice the data, but everybody in social housing is essentially already there and not about to move. There is no reason for them to leave social housing and go into the affordable rented sector, and for that reason alone, we do not expect to see dramatic changes.
Will there be a change? Yes, there will. Let me be clear: we believe that it may be advantageous to put power in the hands of the tenant—the consumer—in order to ensure that they get the property they want. If the way to do that is through the housing benefit system, it would make sense to use it.
Mr Leech
To the best of my knowledge, there are no social rented properties to share in Manchester. People under 35 in one-bedroom flats in social housing would not be able to move to other social housing. They would have to move to private sector rented property but, in Manchester, under the single room rate, that would cost more than staying in the one-bedroom flat. I urge the Minister to look at that issue. Ultimately, we will not save any money and it makes no sense to force somebody to move from a cheaper property to a more expensive, smaller property.
Grant Shapps
I will be happy to look at my hon. Friend’s comments and suggestions. The truth is that housing varies dramatically around the country. One problem with a debate such as this is that we all refer to our own constituencies and experiences. That is excellent and what Members of Parliament are supposed to do, but our experiences are rarely representative of what is going on across the country. Those of us who have spent years looking at housing and social housing realise that there is an incredibly fragmented picture across the country, and that the types of home available and rents vary, even before the introduction of the affordable rent programme. The traditions of local social housing also vary dramatically.
Mr Leech
Although I accept that every area is different, I am not aware of any local authorities that provide shared accommodation for people on a social rented basis. I suspect that all local authorities are in exactly the same boat on the issue of the single room rate, and I urge the Minister to take a proper look at the issue.
Grant Shapps
As I have said, I am happy to consider my hon. Friend’s points further. We are perhaps in danger of entering into a debate more suited to the Department for Work and Pensions than to housing, but I will follow up on those points and come back to him.
I want to ensure that we have covered the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, so I will look at the issue of housing revenue account reform, which is an incredibly important subject that I picked up from where the previous Government left off. There is cross-party support for the reform, and I hope that it will be introduced by next April with the passage of the Localism Bill. It means that tens of billions of pounds will no longer return to central Government, only to be sent back out to different local authorities. I think it is an important and critical moment in self-determination for local authorities that manage their own stock and want to plan properly for their housing future over the next 25 years. On average, authorities involved in the HRA reform will have 14% headroom, meaning that they can properly invest in the future and ensure that they meet further decent home aspirations.
At the moment, 75% of receipts from the right-to-buy initiative are returned to the Treasury. As hon. Members will know, sadly we have had to leave that measure in place because of the need to reduce the country’s enormous deficit. We have, however, said that it will be up for review at the end of the spending review period, and I remind the House that—from memory—£863 million has gone into the self-financing pot. In other words, the overall debt has been reduced by £863 million, to take into account the fact that rent will no longer be collected from homes sold under the right to buy.
It is appropriate to mention the right to buy in a little more detail. I was pressed on that issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, who is clearly keen to extend the right-to-buy discount. Much as I hate to disappoint him, sadly we do not have the money to re-extend that discount. In many ways, right-to-buy arguments come from the ‘80s and ‘90s. The House will be interested to learn that there were only about 3,000 right-to-buy sales over the past year, and projections are for such sales to remain at a fairly low level. A disproportionate amount of time is spent in this House—and elsewhere—discussing the right to buy. I like the right to buy; I am keen for it to stay in place and I think that it recognises people’s aspirations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, many people in this country still want to own their own home, and the Government should back that aspiration. However, the right to buy affects 2,000 or 3,000 homes a year, and a lot of time goes into discussing what is, in effect, a debate from 30 years ago.
Alison Seabeck
I am probably asking a question that, in the light of his comments, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) would like to ask. The Minister said that at this moment in time, he sadly cannot do what the hon. Gentleman asks for in relation to the right-to-buy discount. Will the Minister tell the House whether he would do what the hon. Member for Harlow asked if the money were available?
Grant Shapps
I can reveal to the hon. Lady that if the money were available, I would want to abolish all manner of taxes and provide all manner of discounts to support people’s aspirations. However, I can go no further than to say that the money is not available at this time and that the discount will remain as it is throughout the period of this spending review as a result of the enormous deficit and debt, which we should never forget we were left with after 13 years of the Government whom she supported.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for reading my mind. Will my right hon. Friend consider again and comment on the shared-equity scheme? That is slightly different from the right to buy, but gives people a share in their home and a chance to take a step up the housing ladder.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very keen on shared-equity schemes and like to do all that I can to assist with them. I agree with his comments about that issue and will be happy to take a further look at it. I ask him to provide me with more details of his very interesting local bonds discussion, which is certainly worthy of further consideration. In terms of the housing revenue account reforms, local authorities can borrow the money elsewhere, particularly when the debt is large. That may apply only to those with the larger debts because it is difficult to beat the public works loan body percentage, which is still very good. Again, I would be interested to hear more about my hon. Friend’s ideas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford touched on tenancy abuse and whether people whose earnings are in six figures should continue to live in the same home. Again, that is not a huge issue because it does not involve very many people, but there is a basic principle that social housing is built for a reason. It is there to help people who would not otherwise be able to afford to get a roof over their head, and it is important that the homes are used for the purpose for which they were meant. I think that if people are staying in council homes, perhaps in London, with a £900-a-week subsidy—a subsidy that is paid for by taxpayers and to which some of the poorest people in society are contributing—long after their need has clearly gone, that is wrong. I agree with the comments that have been made on that.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) should know that it is our policy that if people want to stay, they simply have to pay. That is a very simple principle, which means that a community is not broken up but that if someone’s salary reaches six figures, which possibly places them among the top 1% of earners in the country—it has to be at a very high level to deal with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View and to ensure that the provision is in no sense against aspiration or preventing people from bettering themselves—it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay if they want to stay in their social house, rather than having it paid for by everyone else.
The issue of under-occupancy and empty homes was raised. I passionately believe in trying to solve the equation of 430,000 people under-occupying while nearly 250,000 are overcrowded. I have provided some money, time and resources in order for the Chartered Institute of Housing to assist with that issue. Some of the reforms of housing benefit, which I know are controversial but which our colleagues in the DWP are pushing through, are designed to help to deal with some of the issues of under-occupancy by simply saying that it cannot be right for the taxpayer more widely to be paying for empty rooms. That does not make sense. We need to pay for people to live in homes, not to live with too much empty space.[Official Report, 13 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 4MC.]
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) gave an illustration of the possible adverse consequences of the higher non-dependant deductions leading families to pressurise family members to leave their home because the amount of benefit would be reduced as a result of that increased deduction—this is very complicated. The Minister will recognise that that is clearly a perverse incentive to under-occupation. Will he deal with that concern, as highlighted by his hon. Friend?
Grant Shapps
It is an interesting point, because others would say that the change may well be an encouragement to people to work and help to pay the rent and stay living in the home. If they are of working age, they can of course work, contribute towards the rent and stay living in the home. There is obviously a balance involved. Tempting as it is, I do not want to be drawn into a detailed debate on that. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a complex area, and many other points were raised in the debate that I want to cover.
There was discussion of the ombudsman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford suggested that there needed to be something in-between to try to tackle problems. I agree: it is essential that the problems are dealt with at local level with real teeth. There has been some confusion in debate in the House about what has been described, in a rather ugly way, as the democratic filter, but the idea is, under the Localism Bill, that before people go to the ombudsman or to the Tenant Services Authority, as it used to be, they should first try to have the matters resolved locally. The reason why I am so keen for that to be channelled through local MPs, local councillors and tenants panels is that the tenants will be empowered to resolve problems, with the implicit threat that if the problem is not resolved through work with tenants and their representatives, a referral can be made to the ombudsman.
I believe that if that happens, far more cases will be resolved at local level and it will have the added benefit of drawing in councillors, who in many cases have become distant and disconnected from local housing problems, particularly where stocks have been transferred. It will draw them back into the discussion and an understanding of what is happening with the stock. It is very much about resolution.
Grant Shapps
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way. I want to cover some of the other points that were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised the issue of registered social landlords and the sometimes extraordinary chief executives’ salaries of £200,000 and more. I can tell him that I have announced that I intend to include housing associations in the consultation on the Freedom of Information Act with regard to whether they should be drawn into that. I say this today: housing associations, if they want to avoid being drawn into this, need to become incredibly transparent, and very quickly. When local authorities are publishing details of every £500 of expenditure, I see no reason why housing associations should not be doing precisely the same thing. There are good housing associations that are large and good ones that are small. I have no particular pattern or picture in mind.
In reference to a point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, housing associations are getting investment in now through private means. Just yesterday, there was an announcement on the London stock exchange that a large housing association has raised £100 million for the first time through that type of London stock exchange fundraising scheme.
There was quite a lot of discussion of mobility. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made very reasonable points about people being able to move from place to place. It is probably worth reminding the House—or, possibly, telling the House for the first time—that by September of this year, for the first time in this country, 90% of social tenants will be covered by a mobility or swap scheme and able to move from one place to another. I intend that figure to be nearly 100% of tenants next year, so that for the first time tenants will have proper mobility and be able to move around.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the new homes bonus and queried whether that would be sufficient to persuade local authorities to build homes. The House will be interested to know that the new homes bonus is not a small deal worth a few millions of pounds, but a multi-billion pound deal across the period of this Parliament. In fact, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a big play of how much it would cost when we were still in opposition. He was right. It is expensive, and it is right to do—it will help more homes to be built. I cite as evidence the 22% increase in house starts in the first year of the present Government. I suspect that, at least in part, people have been persuaded by the new homes bonus and the power that that brings to local authorities because they know that they can use the money for useful things.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned the importance of public land. We have just announced that 100,000 homes will be built on public land, with the build now, pay later and Firstbuy schemes being important elements.
I have nearly run out of time. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for raising so many important issues. I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View wanted me to talk about the future of our housing programme. I thought that it might be helpful to know first not what will happen in the next Parliament to our housing programme, which is what she was probing me on, but the Opposition’s housing policy for this Parliament.
Construction Industry
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I am delighted to have secured a debate about an issue on which, for once, I believe I can actually speak with some authority.
I started my working life as an apprentice bricklayer under a scheme administered by the Construction Industry Training Board in the late 1970s. In those days, under the CITB training programme, people were given six months off the site to get relevant tools experience, site understanding and health and safety training, before being placed with the company under an indentured apprenticeship agreement. My placement was with Fairclough Civil Engineering, and after completing my three years, I worked for Fairclough International—it is now part of the AMEC group—in the Falkland Islands. That was in 1983, just a few months after the cessation of hostilities with Argentina.
On my return, I started my own construction business. After surviving two Tory-led recessions in the 1980s, I was persuaded to go into training to pass on my skills to a new generation of construction trainees. Eventually, I took up a post as a business manager at the now defunct Learning and Skills Council, where I oversaw funding for—yes, you guessed it—construction training programmes across Merseyside.
During that period, I graduated in construction studies from Liverpool John Moores university and began a master’s degree in contemporary urban renaissance. Although I did not manage to complete it, it gave me an insight into many different, and sometimes tangential, construction perspectives. Although there are far more eminent construction commentators than me, I can speak with a degree of understanding on this issue, given my broad personal experience.
I want to record my interest as a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and as one of its sponsored MPs, although I receive no remuneration for that. I would also like it noted that my son, Steven, is an apprentice electrician with M. J. Quinn. For the purpose of clarification, I should also say that I have previously proudly professed that I am the only brickie in Parliament, although my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) also lays claim to that most sought-after designation because of his trade background.
In recent weeks and months, much of the business, innovation and skills debate has been about ways to improve the opportunities for a high-skilled work force in a low-skill economy. One of the previous Labour Government’s greatest achievements was to give those who wanted to do so the chance to go on to further education through the introduction of the education maintenance allowance and the university loans system. As a result, Britain now has the most talented generation in recent history. Job opportunities in science and technology, graphic design and public relations, which were the preserve of the well connected, are now at the fingertips of this more industrious generation of Britons. Real progress has been made in diversifying the skills sets offered to young people across the country, but in areas such as my constituency, traditional industries such as construction also have a real part to play.
I am pleased that the Minister, who is responsible for construction, recently said:
“An efficient, effective and profitable construction industry is at the heart of any growing economy.”
That is why urgent action is needed from the Government to save the industry from the brink. The Government’s approach must change, because it is clearly not working, as we saw from the previous quarter’s growth figures. We already knew that construction had been hit extremely hard in the global financial crisis, but the 3.3% fall in output—the steepest the industry has suffered since the financial crisis of 2008—is all the evidence we need that things need to change.
I have given Members an insight into my background in the industry, and although I do not profess to be an expert, my interest in the sector spans three decades. That is why I know there is a fundamental problem with the Government’s thinking when the Construction Products Association’s economics director, Noble Francis, says:
“It is likely that construction output will fall 2% in 2011 and this will inevitably hold back economic recovery given that construction accounts for around 10% of the UK economy.”
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the VAT rise is having a significant effect on the construction industry and making life extremely hard for the many small and medium-sized construction firms in many of our constituencies?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is certainly true of the refurb and maintenance sector. At the end of my speech, I hope to come up with some suggestions, which the Minister might like to take away to contemplate, given this issue with VAT.
I can almost predict what the Minister will say in reply to my comment about economic stagnation. I will try to pre-empt him by simply pointing out that although last winter’s adverse weather conditions will have had an adverse effect on construction, the weather was bad the year before, and we saw nothing like the fall in output that we did this year. The fall has more to do with a lack of confidence than with too much snow or the wrong kind of snow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I represent an area where construction is very important and job opportunities for apprentices are critical. The construction industry has suffered a significant downturn over the past few years, and the background information certainly indicates that; indeed, another company in Northern Ireland folded just this week. We are always hard on the banks, but they were keen to lend money, albeit often without suitable guarantees. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government should have more contact with the banks to encourage them to show more flexibility now so that companies that are having difficulties can get through them?
Steve Rotheram
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the banks. Again, I would like to tease the issue out further in my contribution. We cannot underplay the fact that one reason for the failure of construction is the lack of lending by banks.
Urgent Government action is needed to save the industry from the brink. The Minister must surely understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the at times relentless desire of the coalition Government to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and co-reliant in the construction industry. If we cut one, the other will bleed, and the construction sector is now haemorrhaging and in need of a transfusion.
To take the example of Building Schools for the Future, the cancellation of 719 school improvement projects was devastating for not only head teachers, staff in classrooms and parents and children left with substandard facilities, but the construction companies that had won the contracts, and that has serious ramifications for the sector. As Steve Bratt, the group chief executive officer at the Electrical Contractors Association, said:
“Although any party in power would have had to take major steps to reduce the deficit, the cuts to public sector construction projects such as BSF are a case of short-term gain but long-term pain.”
The cancellation of the schools building programme is creating uncertainty in the construction industry. Furthermore, ambiguity over potential construction jobs in hospitals and prisons, in building and civil engineering alike, continues to cause great concern and leads to low confidence in the Government’s ability to secure the UK construction industry.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend I spent 40 years of my life in the construction industry, and I am glad that people from that industry are in the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s target on skills is significantly at risk, because their approach significantly challenges the construction sector’s ability to give training and to deliver skills to the marketplace? The Government treat the industry as the private sector, whereas as my hon. Friend said, it is fed from both private and public sectors. Will my hon. Friend also comment on the ownership of not only construction companies but supply companies in the UK, and whether he is worried that we are losing UK ownership of those companies?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is right. There are big supply chain issues that need to be addressed. On the earlier point, about apprenticeships, uncertainty in the sector prevents companies from thinking long term, so they stop taking on apprentices. I remember when, in the 1980s, under the Thatcher Government, pretty much all the construction industry stopped taking on apprentices. That created long-term problems for the industry, and skills shortages many years later, which meant heavy intervention was needed to plug the gap.
I am sure that the Minister is fully aware that every £1 spent on construction leads to an increase in gross domestic product of nearly £3 and stimulates growth elsewhere in the economy worth nearly £2; I think he recognises that, so surely he agrees with me that monumental cuts in construction make no economic sense. The Minister and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills need urgently to tackle the problem, but that urgency, like leadership, has been sadly lacking in the past few months. It has been widely reported that currently one in five firms going into administration are from the construction industry. That is a frightening figure, when we recall that construction is responsible for about 10% of the UK economy. The alarming statistics keep on coming for the Minister. Research undertaken by the Financial Times has found that construction orders have fallen by 40% in the past 12 months. That is before the Government’s programme of the deepest and most unfair cuts in recent history has even taken full effect.
Jonathan Hook, global head of construction at PwC, said:
“It is the end of the money—coming through from Government stimulus—and no one knows if, when and to what extent, the private sector will come back.
It is a substantial reduction, but if you look at the numbers companies are reporting—you are not really seeing it reflected yet. They are trading off work that was won three years ago, but it is creating a bow wave of falling activity in two years.”
There is more: Anthony Cork, director of Wilkins Kennedy, said;
“The Government has slashed capital spending on infrastructure across the board in order to plug the deficit and that has pushed the construction sector into a double dip.
The question now is how quickly private sector construction work will be able to pick up the slack left by the public sector. So far this has not happened.”
The most devastating impact, in areas such as Liverpool, Walton and many other pathfinder areas, has been the withdrawal of housing market renewal funding, which has not only decimated the house building industry but left swathes of derelict land and boarded-up terraced streets without much prospect of development. Because of the economic downturn it is widely acknowledged that the construction industry’s saving grace was major public sector infrastructure projects such as Building Schools for the Future, and new hospitals and prisons. The Labour Government were right to bring forward additional capital project spending to help the industry to stay afloat. They were also committed to the building of additional social housing, including new council homes, in the latter half of 2009 and early 2010, with additional commitments to employ local workers and train apprentices.
I made my maiden speech as a councillor in Liverpool on the ability of local authorities to use social clauses to ensure that, for publicly funded construction projects, they would achieve the best possible outcomes for local labour and apprenticeships. Unfortunately, Liverpool was at that time controlled by the Liberal Democrats, and they missed the opportunity. Our current Labour administration is not making the same mistake. The previous Government put their money where their mouth was, and provided Kickstart funding in October 2009 to help 54 stalled private sector housing projects to restart work. Those commitments were primed to give the depressed housing sector a much-needed stimulus. The confidence that the Labour Government were instilling in the industry was the key factor. By the first quarter of 2010, all the construction surveys and indicators showed that confidence was returning to the sector. Firms were reassured that work would come their way, with many projects scheduled to start in mid-2010, and those companies were gearing up to take advantage of the opportunities.
Cancelling those programmes devastated the sector and demonstrated that the Government have little regard for the work that it does. It ripped the confidence out of the industry. The state is obviously the largest client of the construction industry. The Government’s role in procurement policy is therefore vital—and more so in times of economic downturn, when the private sector is less able to provide the work that is needed. I can personally testify to the way lack of investment in the 1980s stored up trouble for the industry many years later, and created huge skills shortages. That is because the industry operates on a two to three-year lag. It did not need to have the confidence torn out of it once again, within weeks of the formation of the coalition.
Given the time constraints that we are under, I shall catalogue just a few of the licentious achievements of the coalition in the past year, as they have single-handedly knocked the stuffing out of the fragile construction industry. On 17 June 2010 the Government cancelled millions of pounds worth of infrastructure projects including the North Tees and Hartlepool hospital, the A14 road widening, the Kent Thameside strategic transport programme, the Leeds Holt Park well-being centre, and the Birmingham magistrates court. On 4 July 2010, the Government announced major cuts of £220 million to the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was claimed that that was because of a black hole in the funding for the Homes and Communities Agency, and that it would result in many of the newly announced social and council housing building projects being cancelled. We later proved that there was not a black hole in the funding, so why have the cancelled projects not been reinstated?
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a timely debate. Does he share my concern about the Homes and Communities Agency, and the fact that it has scrapped its national targets for the number of apprenticeship scheme places provided through agency funding? Is he concerned about the impact of that on the number of apprenticeships that will be created?
Steve Rotheram
That decision is regrettable. It seems that the Government say things such as “We are going to create 250,000 apprenticeships,” but do not realise the knock-on effect of other policies. The training tap cannot be turned on and off. For construction trades colleges need to gear up, and they need space. Sometimes, once construction programmes have ceased, other uses are found for the space and it is not possible just to go back and scrap whatever it has been used for temporarily, to re-instigate construction training. It is more complex than that, however, because the staff that have been let go cannot always be re-employed, yet relevant construction experience is necessary; we also need people with teaching qualifications to train students to the NVQ standards. It is another short-term gain, but there will be long-term pain for the construction sector.
On 5 July 2010, the Education Secretary announced that the Building Schools for the Future programme was effectively being scrapped. BSF was the biggest construction project in Europe; it was intended to rebuild all 3,500 secondary schools in England. The work was to have been done over 15 years. When the Secretary of State made his announcement, 180 schools had been rebuilt and 231 projects had been given the green light, as they had already reached financial closure. BSF would have cost £45 billion over the lifetime of the project.
Early in September 2010, it was revealed that the Government’s decision to scrap the regional housing strategy had resulted in plans to build 100,000 new homes being shelved by local authorities. That has severely depressed private sector housing. On 20 October 2010, the Government announced their comprehensive spending review. That further confirmed the reduction in Government spending on construction; by 2015, annual construction spending by the Government will have been reduced from £59 billion to £47 billion, a reduction of more than 20%.
Again, the most savagely affected sector was public housing. The housing and regeneration budget is to be cut by 70%, from £6.8 billion to £2 billion—but that £2 billion will be used only on projects to which the Government are legally committed. Surely the Minister cannot blame all those policies on snow. The general consensus is that, at best, the industry is treading water; although some sectors of the industry are improving, such as office building in London, others remain in the doldrums. Despite its flexibility, construction is a complex industry, with hundreds of job roles and professional and technical relationships. Despite being only a few months old, the Government’s construction strategy needs impetus in order to achieve its objectives.
What else can the Government do? To answer an earlier point, we know that bank lending is a major problem for small and medium-sized enterprises; indeed, the banks failed to meet their Project Merlin proposals earlier this year. That is a particular difficulty for construction companies.
Firms in Liverpool tell me that part of the problem is that banking has become too impersonal. Years ago, when a construction firm secured a contract it would phone the manager of the local branch—he was probably known to the firm—to explain the job, say what would be needed and how the job was to be staffed. The bank manager would sometimes pop down to the site to make a physical assessment, and a loan would be negotiated. However, the relationship manager—the bridge between the construction firm and the banker bureaucrats—has now gone. Many banks have their central office space elsewhere, not in places such as Liverpool or wherever the construction firm is based, and companies are refused loans before a thorough assessment can be made.
Gordon Banks
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Although some banks do not lend to the sector, in some ways the Government’s broader economic policies are having an impact on the banks by restricting them and preventing them from making the right decisions on lending to the construction sector. The underlying current of concern is the Government’s economic policy.
Steve Rotheram
There are real issues with regard to the Government’s economic policy. However, on that aspect of Project Merlin I agree with the Government; setting targets that forced banks to lend to SMEs was the right approach. Unfortunately, they missed their own targets once again.
Gordon Banks
The fact that the Government have pulled the rug from under the construction industry through the reduction in state spending is making the industry a less attractive proposition for the banks. That is the point that I was trying to make; the Government’s policy on the construction industry also affects the banks.
Steve Rotheram
That point is well made, and spot on. More than a third of members of the Federation of Master Builders have seen their access to credit restricted, and nearly half have had their costs increased since 2008. That is restricting. It is for the Chancellor to use his powers to force the banks that caused the financial crisis to assist SMEs, the very people who will help get the economy going again. It is not acceptable for the Minister and his colleagues to hide behind Project Merlin until the end of the year, hoping that they will meet their targets and reacting only if they do not. The construction firms with which I speak are looking for proactive solutions now, not reactive compromise in six months’ time, after the Government have blundered their way through yet another failed policy.
Markets hate uncertainty, and at present the construction industry does not have enough confidence to kick-start its recovery. It pains me to say that, because I have a vested interest in the industry and plenty of friends who still work in it. It is therefore for the Government to consider matters that affect the industry to determine whether there are mechanisms to assist it.
One such matter is insurance. Ian Fletcher, a friend who runs a small scaffolding company despite the economic uncertainty, is just about keeping his head above water. However, spiralling insurance costs are jeopardising the jobs that he has created. Pressure must be brought to bear to ensure that businesses are not priced out of the market by excessive insurance premiums. We need to restore confidence in the domestic construction sector. Housing has huge potential for growth. The demand is there, but the Government lack a coherent and well considered fiscal plan. Such indecision means fewer homes, fewer construction jobs and fewer supply chain opportunities.
I am reminded of yet another policy cancellation that has devastated construction—Labour’s HomeBuy Direct scheme. In places such as Liverpool, the construction industry can take people off benefits and put them into a lifetime of work. I know from my own experience—and more latterly from my advice surgeries—that Liverpudlians are desperate to get back to work. They understand the dignity that comes with having a job and being able to provide for their families, and they are worried about their future.
For me, one of the most alarming things is that construction is failing to recruit a sufficient number of apprentices. Every year, despite the recession, the industry still needs more than 30,000 recruits. The lack of confidence in the relationship between the Government and the industry means that, for many people, a job in construction is only a short-term measure and far from stable. For businesses, that lack of confidence manifests itself in a climate in which few SMEs have enough confidence in the future of their business to recruit an apprentice. Quite simply, they are too busy trying to stay afloat.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. As he knows, increasing the number of apprenticeships is something that I have been promoting in Parliament through a private Member’s Bill. In discussions on the subject, I have met representatives of the majority of trades in the construction industry, and they all raise significant concerns about the skills shortage for the new green economy. Some of the new business opportunities are available now and will become more so, but we will lose some of those investment opportunities because we do not have the skilled work force, either now or in readiness for the future, to meet those challenges.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend makes another important intervention, but it is not even as simple as that. Some of these new technologies need to find space in colleges to train those who will train the providers; we also need to train people with relevant construction qualifications in their specific fields, which means that there will be a lead-in period for such changes. If we had a medium-term strategic plan, we should be considering future job opportunities and starting to plan for when they come to fruition, so that we can ensure that we have people trained and qualified to take up those jobs.
Another fundamental problem is that companies are thinking only in the short term because that is all the Government are doing. Firms are not directly employing workers and they are not prepared to make the effort or take on the cost of training anyone, despite the evidence of significant returns on such investment.
The previous Government recognised that construction companies were not training sufficient numbers of apprentices and began to introduce procurement policies that required contractors to train apprentices on Government construction projects. If companies did not train, they did not get the work. I hope that the Minister will cover that issue in his contribution. Will he tell us whether the present Government support such a policy? If they do, will he explain that to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) who apparently does not?
The construction industry and I want the Government to provide additional resource and investment through a major programme of social housing. The housing industry is desperately in need of assistance for both economic and social reasons. There are currently more than 1.8 million people on housing waiting lists. Hundreds of construction firms are ready and willing to get back to work to begin building those houses. Perhaps such an investment would help to rebuild the shattered confidence in the sector. We need to promote a policy to develop green building technologies; to help get people back to work and to create new apprenticeship opportunities. Such a policy would tackle the growing homelessness crisis and the ever-expanding housing waiting lists.
Perhaps the Minister could consider lowering the VAT on home repair, maintenance and improvement works. Such a move could be used as a catalyst to stimulate activity. It could increase the overall tax-take that growth in the sector would generate.
Gordon Banks
My hon. Friend talks about finance in the sector. Does he not agree that there is also a need to address mortgage lending? In 2006, the Halifax conducted some research and found that first-time buyers in the private housing sector injected some £2.1 billion of spend into the UK high street. Does he not think that the challenged retail sector would benefit from more first-time buyers re-entering the market? The Government must work with the banks to ensure that we have a decent level of mortgages from about 90% without punitive interest charges and punitive arrangement fees.
Steve Rotheram
Most commentators would support that economic argument. Growth creates further growth and confidence. If mortgages were secured for first-time buyers, it would help both the house-building sector and the industry to get back on their feet. To me, such a proposal seems like a no-brainer, but we still have to persuade the Government of our arguments.
I have gone over my time because of all the interventions, so let me say in conclusion that to do nothing but to cross our fingers and hope for the best is not good enough and that our industry deserves better than that.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this important and timely debate. Like him, I have a building industry background. I trained as a bricklayer and come from a long line of building workers: my father was a plasterer, one brother was a carpenter and my other brother trained as an electrician and can turn his hand to plumbing and many other things. Following in my footsteps is my own son who has gone into the construction industry and is training as a surveyor with Bowmer and Kirkland, so we are keeping the family tradition going.
I want to make a brief contribution about the central importance of the construction industry in rebalancing the economy. The Government say that they want to rebalance the economy and to see the private sector taking a leading role. I cannot see how that ambition can be realised without the construction industry playing a central role. The Government have made it much harder for the construction industry to contribute to the rebalancing of our economy by scrapping the Building Schools for the Future programme. Let me talk for a moment about the impact that such a decision has had on my own constituency of Derby North. Although Derby is made up of two and a bit constituencies, schools in the city are all affected in a similar way.
The five secondary schools in my constituency—Bemrose, Lees Brook, Murray Park, Littleover and St Benedict’s—were all looking forward to the impact that a new school would have on the children, the staff and the parents. Some of them have real problems. Lees Brook in particular is a health and safety hazard, suffering as it does with problems related to asbestos. The scrapping of the BSF programme was a great disappointment to everybody in the city and it had a huge impact on the construction industry in the local area.
The aim of rebalancing the economy and of enabling construction to play a key role was made even harder to achieve when the Government decided to halve the social housing grant. As a consequence, the number of affordable homes coming on stream has been severely diminished.
A further obstacle to the Government’s ambition was the decision to abolish the regional spatial strategy and the consequential abolition of the housing targets. Although the Government were critical of those targets, the number of planning permissions that have now been jettisoned as a direct consequence of that decision is running in excess of 100,000 homes.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On the issue of planning, does my hon. Friend agree that the confused regulatory framework that now exists because of the advent of the Localism Bill has created a massive amount of uncertainty for the construction sector and has been an additional bar to making progress?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a central and pertinent point. The confusion that has been brought about as a consequence of the Localism Bill has created a real problem. I do not particularly want to make a partisan point here, but I was disappointed in the debate on the Bill that Government Members were queuing up to say how the measures would enable them to stop housing developments from taking place in their local areas.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I apologise for my late arrival to this debate, Mr Caton. Circumstances beyond my control meant that I could not get here on time, so I sincerely apologise.
Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to regional spatial strategies. He will no doubt be aware that in August 2009 the then shadow spokesman for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), wrote to council leaders and developers indicating that an incoming Government would probably scrap the regional spatial strategy and that they should continue with plans to build, but based within a context of working with local authorities in developing local development frameworks. There was never a moratorium on building. That was just a different way in which to pursue the same ends—to build more homes for people who need them.
Chris Williamson
The real problem is that the housing targets offered some cover for local authority planning departments and planning committees. With those targets gone, they are much more exposed. As we have seen up and down the country, they have come under pressure from people who do not want to have their view spoiled or who do not want to see new housing developments. None the less, we all know that new housing is desperately required. But now local authorities will be much more exposed, because they cannot refer back to the regional targets set by Government. I know that the RSS was not perfect, but I genuinely believe that local authorities and in particular locally elected representatives need some additional support to help them to drive through the new housing that is needed throughout our country.
I want to say a little about the contribution that the construction sector makes to the wider economy. A thriving and vibrant construction sector has a significant and beneficial knock-on impact on the wider economy, not least because 80% of the materials that are procured by the construction industry are procured from within the UK, which creates an additional stimulus outside of the construction sector itself.
Gordon Banks
On that point, I just want to reiterate a point that I made earlier. I come from the materials side of the construction industry and I understand it very well. However, does my hon. Friend have some concerns that although 80% of construction materials are produced in the UK the ownership of the companies producing that material is rapidly falling into the hands of multinational conglomerates, and that as a result decisions are being taken in Australia and Mexico that can affect British jobs and the production of that 80% of construction materials within the UK?
Chris Williamson
That is another valid point and the Government need to consider it; it is a source of some concern. As I say, we are in a fortunate position at the moment, in that 80% of construction materials used in the UK are procured within the borders of the UK, but that might not always be the case. As my hon. Friend suggests, the Government need to be alive to the potential for change as the ownership of firms passes to multinational conglomerates. If that trend continues, the percentage of construction materials procured within the UK could diminish quite rapidly and quite significantly, and we need to be vigilant about that.
Susan Elan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that another important factor in this debate is the employment of young men in the construction industry? If we are to accept—as I think, at times, the Government seem to be accepting—a high level of young male unemployment, there are serious social consequences to that as well.
Chris Williamson
Yes, there most certainly are. My hon. Friend puts her finger on another important element of the construction industry. Clearly, it is a very labour-intensive industry. A vibrant, thriving and growing construction sector provides plenty of training opportunities, as she points out. That has significant social implications, because we all know the detrimental consequences—both for individuals personally and for the wider community—of large-scale unemployment. When we consider some of the Government’s other targets, supporting the construction industry and creating training opportunities in the industry would have huge beneficial impacts well beyond the obvious impacts, which I think are clear for all to see.
I wanted to make a point about housing and the importance of having a vibrant housing sector. In particular, I wanted to say why I am so disappointed with the decision to get rid of the housing targets. I have already mentioned the procurement of construction materials from within the UK, but a vibrant housing market also has much wider beneficial impacts, in that people are moving house and buying new carpets, curtains, furnishings and so on, which also benefits all the people employed in those sectors. At the moment, all those sectors are in significant decline.
I would like to talk again parochially for a moment, this time about the commercial sector. In Derby, we have 1.25 million square feet of office space that has planning permission. Those development sites are now standing empty; some have been cleared and some are just a dilapidated eyesore. We were looking forward to those sites being developed, possibly with a view to civil servants moving into them as part of the Lyons review. At the time of that review, developers were talking about building speculatively, but that will not happen at the moment. Derby is not the only example of a town or city where there is a plentiful supply of commercial space available. In the current climate, no developer will build speculatively; they need end-users and certainty. In fact, they need certainty to get a development funded for a start.
I will be interested in hearing the Minister’s response to that point, because I plead with him to say what assistance the Government are prepared to provide to give that stimulus to the construction sector. There is one very simple thing the Government could do that would achieve another one of their targets, which is reducing public spending. That simple thing is to move civil servants from extremely expensive central London locations and out into the regions. When the Government are looking at the relocation of civil servants, I hope that they will consider Derby, because developing a prestigious site in Derby could be achieved at around £20 to £25 per square foot and I know for a fact that in central London some of the prices that some of the Government agencies are paying are in excess of £100 per square foot; indeed, they might be up towards £150 per square foot. Clearly, relocating those agencies and staff to Derby would be hugely beneficial, not only to Derby and the construction sector but to the Government’s own target of reducing public spending. In fact, it will reduce public spending in a way that will not hit front-line services. However, it seems that that relocation process has stalled. I do not know why that is and I would be interested to hear the Government’s thoughts on that.
I am pleased that the Minister is here today for this debate and I know that he is considering locations for the green bank. I have written to him to say that Derby would make a perfect location for the green bank and I hope that he will consider Derby, particularly as Barclaycard has moved out of significant premises in the city. Derby would be an ideal location for the green bank and I hope that he will bear that in mind when he makes his final decision on that issue.
The Government are going in the wrong direction at the moment—the opposite direction to the one they need to go in. What they need to do is to create an economic virtuous circle and construction can play a really important role in delivering that virtuous circle. That means investing in the economy to create the growth that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to, which will have a knock-on impact. I think that he said that growth begets growth, or growth generates more growth, and clearly it does.
My hon. Friend and I are not the only ones saying that. I myself am a humble bricklayer—what do I know about economics? But I just look at my history books. I look at what President Roosevelt did in the 1930s, when there was 25% unemployment in the US during the great depression. A lot of the recovery from the depression was built on the back of construction, including huge construction projects such as dams, roads and housing. We saw that happen again in 1945 in this country, with the efforts of the post-war Labour Government.
Gordon Banks
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that not only does such investment help the economic situation at the present time but it prepares us better for generations to come?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because such investment creates employment opportunities and the better infrastructure that future generations, as well as the current generation, will benefit from. I was talking about the Roosevelt legacy; Americans are still benefiting to this day from some of the investment that Roosevelt was responsible for. Surely, therefore, it makes sense to invest in the economy now.
I want to conclude by saying that we also have a perfect example of such investment in this country. In 1945, following the ravages of the second world war, the post-war Labour Government did not shirk their responsibilities. At that time, they faced massive debts and a massive deficit, but they demonstrated that by using the power of the state we can turn the economy around and build a better life for people, including better houses, good-quality services and a better, more cohesive community and society.
We all know that Britain is facing very difficult times, but they are not as dark or as bleak as the times that we faced in 1945. We demonstrated then that we could achieve so much, so I plead with the Government to think again. We have talked about a plan B, which will probably be an issue that is beyond the Minister’s pay scale; it is a matter for the Chancellor. But there are certain things that I have mentioned today that the Government can consider—the green bank, slightly tongue in cheek, being one of them for Derby. We must also consider how we can get civil servants out of the centre of London and into the regions, which will help to stimulate the local economy, including the construction sector, in those regions, creating jobs and a better society for all of us.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Caton, and to be able to contribute to this very important debate.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). We perhaps do not have much in common politically, but we both represent cities that have a district called Walton at their heart, so there is some agreement across the Chamber. I spoke on regeneration for Her Majesty’s Opposition in the previous Parliament, and during a visit to Liverpool—to north Liverpool, Rock Ferry and Bootle—in 2009 I was struck by the positive and good work undertaken by the Liverpool NewHeartlands pathfinder scheme. From what I heard of his speech, the hon. Gentleman put his case this morning confidently and reasonably, and I will try to pick up on some of the issues that he has talked about.
I particularly want to look at the wider context of construction, because it strikes me that Opposition Members are not giving due credit to some of the things that the Government have done in the 15 months of this coalition Administration. They do not concede that in 12 or 13 benign economic years, with incremental growth, there was still failure to deliver the appropriate results in the construction sector. An average of 145,000 new homes were built between 2000 and 2010, but in 2009— the last year for which figures are available—only 103,000 housing completions were delivered, which is the lowest number since 1923, and that was, coming back to the point that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) raised, with the regional spatial strategy.
The regional spatial strategy was not a panacea or an answer to the conundrum. It did not deliver what it was meant to. There might have been elements of localism, and some stasis in planning departments, in the competence of councillors and in the willingness of people to use the existing legal system to block such development, but the bigger question is: “Were we building the right homes in the right places?” Between 1997 and 2005 we built 117,000 homes in the east and south-east, on the flood plain, and we need to look at that. Were we building the appropriate quantity of homes, and on what demographic basis?
Chris Williamson
Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that before the unprecedented worldwide economic downturn the regional spatial strategy was making a positive contribution? The number of new housing starts in the past year has fallen again to a new record low, so the policies being pursued by the Government are not working. Will he concede that the economic downturn is the biggest reason for the reduction in the housing stock, and not the regional spatial strategy?
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is persistent, not least in his aspirations for Derby to host the green investment bank. I have to tell him, regretfully from his point of view, that Peterborough got in first, and we have a good chance because we are an environment city with excellent transport links—we are a sustainable bus city. However, I must not stray too far from the locus of the debate.
What the hon. Gentleman says is not necessarily true. If we look at the first quarterly figures on private sector housing starts, yes, they are patchy but we are looking at an upward trajectory, certainly in the eastern region and also possibly in the east midlands and other parts of the country. I accept that there will be a difficult time, because historically this is the worst period that the construction industry has suffered in the past 60 years.
Gordon Banks
I have worked in the private housing industry for a significant time, and I think that it would be an experience for the hon. Gentleman to make a journey up to Scotland to see the absolute decimation of the private housing sector there. Major developers are releasing four or five plots for development at a time, where 10 or 15 years ago there were four or five completions per week. The housing industry in the UK, and in Scotland in particular, is as far down on its knees as it can get.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman will therefore support the views of the Government, and particularly those expressed in the ministerial statement issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 23 March, which focused on a presumption in favour of sustainable development, encouraging developers to question local planning authorities vis-à-vis section 106 and the financial viability of each development.
Gordon Banks
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to the debate. The driver behind the private housing sector is bank finance and mortgages.
Mr Jackson
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, he will hear my comments on that in due course.
I agree with the premise of the financial importance of the construction sector. It is certainly the case that there is a multiplier of £2.84 to every £1 invested in the construction industry. I also agree that we have a social and economic responsibility, and the Government see it as such, to tackle the historically high levels of people on social housing waiting lists—currently 1.75 million. That concentrates our minds, whichever constituency of the country we represent. We must not be too churlish, however, about what the Government have done. The new homes bonus, which we developed while in opposition, is a fiscal incentive, to encourage local authorities to build appropriate housing, and because it is based on council tax bands rather than on capital values, it builds in a predisposition for quality homes at the same time as paying due regard to the need for social housing.
Chris Williamson
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this matter was considered by the Communities and Local Government Committee, all the expert opinion was that the new homes bonus simply would not work and that it needed an overlaid target? The hon. Gentleman throws his eyes into the back of his head but that was what they said. They were unanimous. All the expert opinion was that the bonus would not work without an overlaying of a national target system.
Mr Jackson
We all know that there were limits to the concept of localism. It would be foolish for any Secretary of State or any Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to say that they could second-guess the development control—to use the old term—or the planning policy of each of the 400-odd local authorities. In densely populated areas of the south-east of England local authorities might feel that they have reached an equilibrium in quality of life and do not want more house building. There are large parts of the north of England, however, for example County Durham, Northumberland and the north-west, where better quality housing perhaps is needed.
Mr Jackson
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way for the time being because I have quite a few points to make and others might wish to speak. I will let her in later.
It is not possible to design a system that delivers the same result in every part of the country, and the experts the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be disproved, I believe, by the impact. Six years’ matched funding for infrastructure, giving genuine fiscal power to local authorities, will deliver, using the market mechanism, the right kind of quality housing in the right place. None of us can prejudge that until we have seen it in action. The new homes bonus will work, based on a council tax band D of £1,414, and the Home Builders Federation projects that that will bring £1.2 billion into local authorities each year. That is income to the local economy of each authority that builds new homes, which can only be good, and it is 215,000 jobs.
The wider context of the Government’s construction policies is about rebalancing an over-reliance, in some parts of the country in particular, on the public sector, and trying to encourage, with tax policies and a regulatory regime, more private sector growth in jobs. We have already begun to see that. We are not steaming ahead with the creation of private sector jobs, but the trend is in the right direction, and I expect more jobs to be created in the construction industry.
[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]
The Government’s plan for growth, published in March at the same time as the Budget, introduced significant changes that will help the construction industry. Of course, it makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the wording was criticised for being opaque, but it is now in place and subject to consultation and discussion. The national planning policy framework is coming forward. I have some concerns about it. I am particularly mindful of the possibility of a watering down of the primacy of town centres over out-of-town shopping centres, and the Treasury needs to be mindful of it too. It is all very well creating Asdas and Tescos on the fringes of towns, but that effectively destroys the viability of niche retailers in town centres.
Generally, however, the national planning policy framework will de-clutter the governance of planning, which can only be good. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is right that certainty and the ability to plan properly are absolutely integral to a successful construction industry. That is why this Government’s remit includes simplifying generic planning policy.
To my mind, we are not going fast enough in piloting local land auction models, but we are going in the right direction. Public land will be the first to be auctioned. There is a myth about the availability of land, and a lack of available land clearly contributed to the overheating of the housing market between 2006 and 2009. However, even in the south-east of England, only 12% of land is used for housing, and 10% is used across England as a whole.
The conversion of commercial premises to residential premises and a duty to co-operate would meet some of the objections made by the hon. Member for Derby North about regional spatial strategies. The Local Government Association and others, including KPMG in its report on regional governance, found that regional development agencies did not alleviate differences between regions, or even within regions. He will know that there is a world of difference between Rutland and Melton and inner-city Nottingham or Derby. We as a Government believe—I cannot speak for the Minister—that there are sub-regional economies that were not reflected in regional development agency boundaries. We believe that it is much more practical and flexible to consider a duty to co-operate, particularly in the development of infrastructure.
We are proceeding with a major infrastructure planning system overhaul and consulting on the liberalisation of use classes as a way forward, but the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) is absolutely right that the principal issue is mortgage finance and the capital available for the development of housing. None of us can deny that—it is absolutely the case—but he must concede that the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), did an extremely good job in raising with the Treasury the importance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of the Financial Services Authority’s mortgage market review. Both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills are mindful that the FSA review must get the balance right. Without reckless spending, they must make available the mortgage moneys that young people need to buy their first property.
To give my own local authority a plug and pay tribute to it, Peterborough city council voted just last week to put £10 million aside for a local authority mortgage scheme. Without wanting to be too partisan, I must say that I am slightly disappointed that the Labour group on Peterborough city council has seen fit to call in that decision, which will delay the process of getting young people the finance that they need to buy property. Not everything that the previous Government did was wrong. The HomeBuy Direct scheme was good, and we have built on it pragmatically and practically with the Firstbuy scheme, which will put about £1 billion into the system and help 10,000 first-time buyers.
The other issue is the planning system. We cannot get away from the fact that the planning system in this country can be construed as dysfunctional. One hears anecdotes all the time. Developers bring an expensive, costed plan for the development of a few hundred houses to a planning department and an officer says, “Yes, that’s a good plan. We can run with that.” He leaves, and another officer comes in and says, “Hmm, I don’t really like the aesthetics. Will you do it again?” Time is money, and that takes an enormous amount of time. It is extremely frustrating, and it is not fair on shareholders or on the people who want to buy the new houses.
We must develop a way to break through the shroud of mystery around town planners, as we used to call them in the old days. They are a bit like hospital consultants: “Don’t question my professionalism on this.” However, it matters to economic growth and people’s jobs and livelihoods that planners expedite decisions. We must develop a way to incentivise them to get inherently viable projects off the ground. They must work much more closely with developers on things such as section 106 and focus on the affordability of individual projects. The evidence that has been presented shows that it is complex. Some supplementary planning documents for large-scale developments can take 18 months to two years. With core strategies, site allocation plans and consultation on local development frameworks, the process can be frustrating for developers. We must find a way to simplify the system.
A report by Michael Ball of Reading university, “The labour needs of extra housing output”, suggests that the costs associated with development control could be up to £3 billion a year. That is not acceptable if we are committed to a pro-growth agenda. Since January 2005, 3,250 pages of national planning policy guidance have been issued. The complexity and cost of development are significant. The hon. Member for Derby North made the point that the gross cost of regulation, the cost of construction and the market price of floor space are significantly greater in London and other UK cities than elsewhere.
I am being admonished by you, Mr Walker, to conclude my remarks, but I will say that we need to see construction policy holistically. We need to consider residential real estate investment trusts and what the Treasury can do to simplify them. We need to consider how EU procurement rules affect large-scale regeneration. We need to consider brownfield remediation to make it simpler for construction companies to build. We need to encourage special purpose vehicles through the tax system so that local authorities can work with developers. We need to push forward tax increment financing so that there is a fiscal incentive to regenerate town centres and other areas. We also need to concentrate on empty properties.
We must find a way to deal with land banking by people who hold land but will not release it—
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. We must find a way of concluding this speech as well, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson
I am happy to conclude my speech, Mr Walker, with three brief points. Developers must engage properly with local authorities and local planning authorities, and with politicians here in Westminster, to lobby hard for changes in the Budget next year. Mortgage providers must provide more flexible mortgage products. We must also concentrate on developing the right houses in the right places at the right price. There is a wider issue, which is not just a local issue of building.
My final point concerns apprenticeships. This Government have a good record on apprenticeships and announced 50,000 new apprenticeships in the Budget. That will be an integral part of growing and enhancing the construction sector.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The Front-Bench spokesmen have about 10.5 minutes each.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. My time is about half of the 20 minutes that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just taken, and 20 minutes is exactly how late he was for this debate, so he has done well out of the past hour and a half. I know that he apologised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. I will not enter into the argument between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) about who is the best brickie in the House, but it was a delight to hear from both of them and to hear about the Labour party’s commitment to the construction industry. This debate is taking place because it was sought by Labour MPs, and I contrast the attendance of Labour representatives with that of Government representatives. We have had one contribution from the Conservative party and no contributions whatever from the Liberal Democrats. We will be on tenterhooks when we listen to the Minister, whom I am very fond of and have listened to on many occasions. Although we disagree on practically everything, I think that his comments are starting to resemble some of the things that I said when I was in government. That certainly did not happen when he was in opposition.
This is an important debate, because the construction industry in the UK is in crisis. The situation is extremely serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has already provided some quotes from the industry. A survey by Wilkins Kennedy suggests that the number of businesses going bankrupt rose sharply in the first quarter of 2011, from 706 to 948. Analysts at the firm also warned that the private sector was not providing the necessary growth to substitute for the withdrawal of the investment that the public sector provided in response to the worldwide banking crisis. My hon. Friend has outlined what Mr Cork from Wilkins Kennedy has said.
The reduction in capital investment that was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first Budget last summer is only now beginning to kick in. We have heard a lot about deficit reduction, but we are now beginning to see the impact of this Government’s deliberate decision to take matters forward. The construction industry does not like it. The Federation of Master Builders says:
“The workload net balance has now been negative for thirteen consecutive quarters, which means more construction businesses are reporting a decline in workloads than are reporting any increase.
The latest results from the FMB’s State of Trade survey showed that construction workloads continued to fall at the start of 2011, and around 35% of respondents anticipated lower workloads in the second quarter of the year.
Employment conditions also deteriorated in the first quarter of 2011. When members responded to our last survey in March 43% had reduced employment levels in the first three months of the year, compared with 32% in the last quarter of 2010. Figures recently released by the Office for National Statistics showed a total of 24,000 construction job losses in the first quarter of 2011.”
The situation is very serious indeed. The FMB also points out that the pressure on small construction businesses in particular is intense. Their output decreased by more than twice as much as that of bigger companies, which is very worrying, considering that 93.5% of Britain’s private contractors employ fewer than 14 people.
When the UK economy contracted by 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010, the fall in construction output was 3.3%. Responding to that drop, the Construction Products Association’s economics director, Noble Francis, said:
“Although the poor weather in December inevitably had an adverse effect on construction work, it also did one year earlier. It is clear that the recovery in construction during the middle of 2010 has now ended abruptly and that private sector work is not coming through strongly enough to sustain growth.”
He predicted a 2% decline in construction in 2011.
We have heard the key statistic that every £1 spent on construction generates a total of £2.84 in economic activity. We need, desperately and urgently, to generate economic activity, which is the exact opposite of what the Government are doing. For smaller construction firms in particular, a lack of available work is being caused by the deliberate decisions of this Government to withdraw investment from projects such as Building Schools for the Future. The interlink between the public and private sectors in construction is of huge importance. We lack work in the construction sector, but, at the same time, there are also increases in prices for construction companies. The Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group tells me that the price of copper has risen by 275% in the past two years, and that the price of iron ore has more than doubled to $200 per metric tonne since last summer.
Some good work is going on in relation to project bank accounts. It was initiated by the previous Government and has been taken forward by this Government, but even that is under threat.
Gordon Banks
On the issue of price increases, my hon. Friend is right to highlight international commodity prices, but price increases are also being forced by the economic conditions delivered by this Government. Production capabilities are being closed down and jobs are being lost, so the price of the finished product is being driven up.
Ian Lucas
Absolutely. The other key point is that this Government increased VAT at the beginning of this year. They have increased the price of any business that offers goods for sale and services within the construction sector. The FMB says:
“The situation for small construction firms has been made more perilous by the VAT increase at the start of the year.”
A deliberate decision and act of Government policy is making the position of construction companies more perilous. That is a damning statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The hon. Gentleman has rightly cited the concerns of the FMB. Does he support its call for a 5% cut in VAT, over and above the claims of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)? Is that what the Labour party would do?
Ian Lucas
If the Minister listens to the rest of my speech, he will hear me address that particular point. The increase was wrong-headed, the wrong policy and an example of the Government being wrong again. They are beginning to look increasingly like Herbert Hoover, rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt. That is why we are saying that we need to look at alternatives to the policy that is being pursued at present. If we continue with the policy that the Government are doggedly pursuing, it will be disastrous for the construction industry. That is why the Labour party will propose reductions in VAT when we next discuss the Finance (No. 3) Bill. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has already proposed an emergency reduction in VAT. The Government make complacent observations on the matter, but the situation is urgent. Not only is the construction sector under massive threat, but it is not able to provide the number of apprentices needed within the sector to maintain it. Businesses have no confidence in offering any jobs to people, let alone in taking on employment. The Government simply have to recognise that sort of reduction in confidence in the sector.
The FMB has made various proposals, as the Minister has mentioned. Our shadow Treasury team has made proposals in relation to the Finance (No. 3) Bill, and I hope that the Minister and the Government will start listening. If they do not, all of the rhetoric about growth and rebalancing the economy that we hear coming out of No. 1 Victoria street will be recognised for what it is, which is rhetoric alone. The Government are being hounded by the Treasury, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is being sidelined. It is a Department with no influence in a Government who are pursuing a bankrupt economic policy that is leading to more bankrupt companies. Such companies are increasing in number, as shown by the figures that I quoted earlier. That is the reality of what is happening on the ground.
I pay tribute to the good work that the Minister is trying to do in areas such as the development of a low-carbon economy, the green investment bank and the green deal, but they are chugging along and are nowhere near arriving yet. The position is urgent. The Government need to contribute a positive answer to the crisis facing the construction industry. We need action, not words, and we need it now.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. It is great that we have among our specialist crafts and trades two bricklayers who have been in the business. I am a mere surveyor, but I hope that I am trusted to at least get the pricing right. I am pleased to say that we have had a very constructive discussion, albeit with a fair degree of partisanship. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who speaks for the Opposition, say that he is fond of me. It would be slightly worrying if he were not—I am not sure what we would have had at the end in terms of just how fond he is.
Let us consider some of the facts and see whether I can respond to some of the key points raised. The debate has been very wide. We have covered skills, access to finance, the importance of the green economy and of apprenticeships, as well as the planning regime system and how that works. I suspect that hon. Members from all parties would share the view that the construction sector is crucial, as is shown by the numbers. It makes up 6.8% of the total economy and directly employs around 2 million people.
As we have heard in the debate, we recognise that construction and housing related to construction have been through a tumultuous time—a savage period—since 2007. Over the two or three years during and through the recession and, yes, into difficult times now, many businesses have faced a real rollercoaster. Good firms have gone and firms that, frankly, were struggling anyway have gone. There has been a headcount loss, which we note and regret, but we should not simply paint a wholly gloomy picture. Some months the figures go up and some months they go down, but if we consider the most recent output figures that have been published on the three months to the end of April, there has been a 6.2% increase in output, which is about £16.7 billion. So it is not a wholly gloomy picture.
Gordon Banks
On that point, I take it that the Minister is referring to ONS statistics. Does he have any concerns about how the ONS gathers statistics on the construction industry?
Mr Prisk
Concerns have been raised. The Construction Products Association, which has been mentioned, has asked whether the strength of the sector is in fact underplayed. That issue is being considered by the ONS.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton will not agree on this analysis, but I did not hear from him any recognition of the enormous financial deficit that we inherited and therefore the tough decisions that we had to take. What I heard from him was the suggestion that we are not investing at all. I do not accept that. Let me highlight how, despite those difficulties, we have set out the first national infrastructure plan and shown how £200 billion of public and private funding will be put into the sector—into infrastructure and construction—over the next five years.
The spending review has started to spell out how that will work. There will be £10 billion additional funding for roads and maintenance, which is crucial, and £14 billion additional funding for rail. Of course, Crossrail is going ahead and we intend to proceed with High Speed 2. That is crucial for the overall sector. In the hon. Gentleman’s area, the Mersey Gateway is a £600 million project that will create 460 direct jobs. The project should open some important opportunities in the area and generate around 4,500 jobs. In difficult circumstances, we are making an investment that could help.
Several hon. Members mentioned the question of how we can help the economy and the construction sector more broadly. The Government can do a number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and others talked about the planning system, which is a sclerotic system that needs to change. That is why we are progressing with a presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer is yes and the burden of proof is moved to those who seek to oppose development. We are streamlining the planning process and the consents that go with it and stripping back the 3,250 additional pages of planning guidance of the past five years to around 100.
We want to speed up the system and to get developments under way by setting a time limit. That important issue has not been raised in the debate. If we establish a clear 12-month deadline, including appeals, it will give business, construction and corporate clients the certainty of knowing that there is a timeline within which planning will progress. That is a vital part of the process.
Mr Prisk
I am not going to give way because, with respect, the hon. Lady did not make a speech and I am trying to respond to those who have.
The construction strategy is important because it provides certainty about the future pipeline of public projects. Several hon. Members said, “Let’s have some action, not talk.” I agree. That is why, from this autumn, we are rolling out a two-year programme of pipeline projects that are funded. Therefore, the industry—infrastructure and construction projects—will know what is coming, can plan for it, invest for it and put money into the skills. That is crucial. We have never had that before. It seems painfully obvious now that that is what the industry wants. We are doing that, and we are doing it for the first time. Such an approach will make an important shift.
That brings me to the question of public procurement. We recognise that many public procurement costs have been way over what they should be, which is why we have set a target of a 20% reduction. I pay tribute to the industry because it is great that it has stepped up to the plate and said, “Yes, we agree. We want to be part of this.” We have set out a clear process of how we are going to eliminate waste and duplication, and introduce a whole new way of procurement that will not only reduce the costs, waste and duplication, but open the market to newer entrants—small and medium-sized enterprises—who perhaps in the past have felt shut out.
Gordon Banks
Does the Minister not agree that for that to happen there must be a constructive programme—to use an appropriate word—of varying sized contracts throughout the UK? Crossrail is fine, but a small SME will not be involved in that and certainly will not make any money from it.
Mr Prisk
Absolutely. That is why our approach is not just about one part of central Government; it is about the whole of government. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to ensure that the package sizes are varied sufficiently, so that SMEs can participate.
On skills and apprenticeships, first, we are ensuring that young people can at an earlier age—14 onwards—get their hands dirty and start to learn good trades and crafts. We are expanding the university technology colleges—there will be 24 of them—so that we can ensure that, yes, young people get their basic English, maths and so on, but that from 14 onwards they can start to learn a trade and a craft. That is important. Secondly, we have rightly heard a lot about apprenticeships. That is why, over the coming four years, we are putting £250 million of extra money in to deliver 250,000 additional apprenticeship places. Concerns have been raised about whether we are making enough progress and whether there are enough places. In this first year, the evidence is that the take-up has been 100,000 places. That is double the number originally expected and is an encouraging sign.
Mr Prisk
I do not deny that there is a challenge in construction. We cannot force that number. The point is to ensure that we put the funding in place, so that businesses who wish to do so can participate. In that first year, we have seen a good picture overall.
The important issue of green skills was mentioned. For the record, we have agreed a clear strategy with the sector skills councils and established a programme to create an additional 1,000 apprenticeship slots for green skills. Last week the “Low Carbon Construction Action Plan” was published. That document sets out our response to the industry’s programme in terms of 65 specific tasks, including skills and investment. We do not simply want to set out what we might do in five, six or seven years’ time; there is a programme for what happens now, through the next four or five years. The programme is specific in that context.
I shall turn briefly to Building Schools for the Future. The reality is that it was a hideously complex programme with an overrunning budget, an incredible duplication of processes and wasteful outcomes. It has been suggested that Building Schools for the Future is the end of school building. It is not. The Department for Education has spelt out clearly that we intend to ensure that £15.8 billion is available for schools spending over the four-year comprehensive spending review period. Clearly, we need to get value for money and to strip away what the industry has told us are some of the processes that block the system and do not deliver the calibre of buildings that our children deserve. That is why the Department will be responding to the independent James review. I am mindful of the time, so I will respond in writing to the point that the hon. Member for Wrexham made on low carbon.
Let me draw my thoughts to a conclusion. I come from the sector, so I recognise that these have been tough times and that the industry is not out of the woods yet. There are glimmers of opportunity, but there are challenges as well. For the first time, we have an infrastructure plan in place and a rolling programme for the funding of infrastructure and construction schemes—
End-of-Life Care
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Walker, to serve under your chairmanship. The aim of this debate on end-of-life care in Great Yarmouth and Waveney has two key elements: to highlight the great deal of work being undertaken locally by a wide range of people for end-of-life care through the primary care trust, the James Paget hospital and the East Coast hospice; and to outline where we need further Government support, because more support is needed for end-of-life care in our area.
For many years, patient choice has been the buzz phrase used by all Governments in relation to the provision of health services. However, patients and their families in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, and in parts of the east coast more generally, live in one of the few places in the country where full patient choice of end-of-life care is simply not available. This debate will highlight the work that is already being done to provide end-of-life care, and outline the need for a full range of options.
The World Health Organisation defines end-of-life care as:
“The active, total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment”.
Palliative and end-of-life care needs to provide dignity, respect and privacy for both patients and their families. There is an opportunity for a range of providers—hospitals, community hospitals, care homes, hospices and hospices at home—to be part of that provision. The aim is to provide a holistic approach to end-of-life care, in order to limit distress for both the patient and their families through the right type of support.
Let me first turn to current provision. It is disappointing that, at the moment, Norfolk has no in-patient hospice provision outside of Norwich. Other counties in the eastern region have much better provision. For example, neighbouring Suffolk has two hospices, in Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich. With a population of approximately 230,000, the Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT area is significant in not having a hospice. I will return to some worrying figures relating to that shortly. There is a lack of choice. Great Yarmouth and Waveney is one of only two areas in the country with no in-patient hospice. If the Government wish to provide the widest choice, which I believe they do, then different solutions for different patients are required. There is no full range of options for end-of-life care. At the moment in Great Yarmouth and Waveney, end-of-life care is only available in a hospital, community hospital or at home. A hospice would extend that choice, and provide a midway option between dying in hospital and at home.
One project currently underway is Palliative Care East, which is part of the James Paget hospital. Funding has been secured to establish this superb project, which will be a day care centre at the hospital. There will be a resource centre and an outreach service with out-patient care for terminally ill patients, providing practical help and support, along with advice and information. Many people support the project—I have taken up the challenge of a triathlon to raise money for it. The date is 7 August, if anybody would still like to donate some money, through JustGiving, for Palliative Care East. In the past few weeks, some ladies raised £65,000 by climbing to the top of Ben Nevis—a great example of fundraising by a local community, which is not affluent, in order to deliver something that it needs very much. The hospital is to be congratulated on pulling that organisation together, and the project is just about ready to be delivered.
It is, however, important to provide additional services. Currently, that facility has no plans for in-patient beds. That is where another organisation, East Coast Hospice, comes on to the radar. It is a local charity, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) have supported all the way through, which wishes to build and operate a 10-bed, in-patient hospice, alongside a day care unit, to provide a safe haven for patients and their families. So far, it is half way to raising enough money to acquire a five-acre site in Gorleston, which is close to the hospital, through various fundraising activities, including four fundraising shops that are now open. There is a lot of work being done. The charity requires several million pounds to commence building work on the hospice.
One issue that has arisen, with Palliative Care East and East Coast Hospice working at the same time to raise funds for two much-needed facilities, is the confusion in the local community about what they are. One challenge facing end-of-life care is how various providers can work together and access funding. It is important to avoid duplication, so that voluntary services can run alongside the NHS provision and for neither to be seen as a threat to the other, or duplicating costs, particularly administration costs. One aim of the debate is to highlight how different organisations need to work together, and how they can work together to provide real choice in an open, transparent dialogue that is required to achieve that. There has been some confusion, even among people in the public sector, and among councillors. We have had to have meetings to bring people together to explain the difference between what Palliative Care East will provide as an out-patient facility, and what a hospice provides as a non-hospital based facility for people at the end of life.
Historically, there seems to have been an institutional block to the provision of a hospice, particularly because of the stance of the local hospital. That has nothing to do with the current administration; it appears to go back to 1982, when there were arguments from the hospital that there was no local need for a hospice. That has been, and currently is, at odds with strong indications of support from patients, residents and GPs. The Marie Curie Cancer Care “Delivering Choice” programme notes the need for a hospice. Perceived local hostility towards the establishment of a hospice has, at times, directly prevented the project from moving forward. The PCT has not always been able to provide the necessary and helpful letters of support to allow the hospice to gain access to funding.
One worrying issue is that in our PCT area, Great Yarmouth and Waveney, £2.62 per head is spent on end-of-life care. Out of 151 PCTS, Great Yarmouth and Waveney is ranked 142nd for patient spending—the lowest in the east of England, and nearly half the national average expenditure. Even now, we are somewhat unclear as to what the current spending on end-of-life care is for the PCT, as there are no published figures for 2008, or indeed 2010. Research shows that the Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT has the lowest spend per capita, despite having the highest relative need. With an ageing population, that will continue to put pressure on our local area.
During a debate recently secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said:
“We want to ensure that these institutions grow and flourish as part of a more personalised approach to end-of-life care.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 1007.]
During the debate, three principles for hospices were set out: to get the funding right for hospices; that there should be a clearer understanding of the role of hospices in end-of-life care, and that that should be recognised in the commissioning process; and that end-of-life care is a priority for improvement across the NHS. What will the Minister do to help us to persuade PCTs, such as Great Yarmouth and Waveney, to look at hospice provision as a core part of end-of-life care strategy?
The principles of the Health and Social Care Bill will allow GPs a central role in commissioning services and providing choice for patients. I very much welcome that, as do GPs in our area, with their pathfinder. At the moment, however, that choice will not be able to be fully exercised because no real choice exists in our area for end-of-life care. GP commissioning can help the establishment of a hospice in this area because of the broad support of GPs, as outlined in the Marie Curie “Delivering Choice” programme.
In last year’s end-of-life care strategy, the Government announced a £40 million capital scheme for hospices. That fund is allocated directly to PCTs, with the Department of Health not being prescriptive about how it is spent. In addition, Help the Hospices also receives funding directly from the Government to help support its network. That funding is only available, however, to hospices with established facilities. That excludes charities, such as East Coast Hospice, that want to build a hospice. I have two questions for the Minister. Will the Minister consider allowing opening access to funding, so that charitable organisations can access funding where there is a need for hospice provision, and where no current provision is available? Secondly, what can the Minister do to allow organisations that want to establish a new hospice to access capital funding from the Government, which is clearly needed in Great Yarmouth and Waveney?
The phase 1 report of the Marie Curie “Delivering Choice” programme made various recommendations about hospice provision and in-patient care in the area, which we have so far failed to deal with properly. The report highlighted widespread support among GP respondents, who identified hospice provision and palliative care services as key themes for health care in our area. They were particularly critical of the difficulty in accessing the 12 beds available at Northgate hospital in Great Yarmouth, underlining the need for additional in-patient beds, which a hospice could provide. GPs recognise the need for access to a hospice with specialist provision of enhanced symptom control, respite care to support families and emotional support for patients and their families. Of 45 respondents to the questionnaire, 38 considered the development of a hospice for vulnerable patients a necessity.
Most GPs recognise that the James Paget hospital is not suitable for end-of-life care. In fact, the whole point of a hospice is that it is not in a hospital but that it is an alternative. The James Paget is also a busy acute hospital, which adds extra pressures to make end-of-life care more difficult. The community hospital has limited access to its provision and has a shortage of side rooms allowing for privacy and respect. Although the PCT’s commitment to new palliative care facilities exists, the trust has not yet been able to do anything about the need for a hospice.
We now have the palliative care funding review, which is chaired by Tom Hughes-Hallett, the chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care. When launching the review, the Secretary of State said:
“This will better enable patients to choose how and from whom they receive their end-of-life care”—
something I fully applaud. After the debate, I hope that we can ensure that such a choice becomes available to the residents of Great Yarmouth and Waveney, as it currently is not. We do not even have access to the £40 million of hospice funding via the local primary care trust, as I noted a few minutes ago, because we do not currently have a hospice. We have, however, the need to build one.
The interim report published by the review committee in December 2010 states that
“we need...A reduction of inequities in the system; be they geographical…or access to services for patients with different diagnoses.”
The committee also comments that affluent areas tend to be able to offer a more diverse range of services owing to increased charitable funding. Poorer areas offer poorer levels of choice, a point highlighted in an area with deprivation, such as Great Yarmouth and Waveney. The interim report emphasises that the majority of patients have a preferred place of care when they die: at home. The second choice is a hospice, with almost 25% preferring that option, although at the moment only 5.2% can achieve that aim. Most deaths in England—about 55%—occur in NHS hospitals. That is exacerbated in areas such as Great Yarmouth where a full range of end-of-life care options is not available.
Can we find a way in Great Yarmouth and Waveney for the PCT, the hospital and East Coast Hospice to work together? Primarily, can the Government allow us to develop a hospice in Great Yarmouth by ensuring fair access to infrastructure capital funding? Organisations such as East Coast Hospice are working hard to raise the necessary funds to buy the land and to run the service, but they need help with the infrastructure, with the capital investment to make the potential building a reality.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) for securing this debate on a topic of such importance to our two constituencies, and to the northern part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has set the scene admirably. I shall make a few observations based on my own finding and experiences in the past year representing Waveney and over the past 40 years as a resident of the area. I will outline five distinctive health features in the area that place a burden on the NHS generally and on end-of-life care more specifically.
First, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth include pockets of extreme deprivation which are not immediately apparent to those with only a passing knowledge of Suffolk and Norfolk. Secondly, a high percentage of the population is elderly; the East Anglian coast has long been a popular retirement area. I do not begrudge people moving into the area—in fact, I welcome them—but the Government must recognise that they are an added financial cost for those providing health services, and that must be reflected in the funds made available. Thirdly, the influx of holidaymakers in the summer months is an added pressure. I well remember visiting my father in James Paget hospital some 10 years ago and observing that many of those in his ward were not local to the area.
My fourth point, with regard to where people die in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney area, is the limited hospice provision. In England as a whole, 5.2% of people die in a hospice, but in our area only 0.1% do. In the west of the Waveney constituency, those in the Bungay area are well served by the excellent All Hallows hospital at Ditchingham, but there is a glaring lack of a similar facility in the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft area. East Coast Hospice, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth and I are both patrons, is determined to redress the balance, as he said. It has a lot of work to do, however, and it is vital for the Government to ensure an environment and climate giving it every assistance and encouragement as it sets about its task.
Finally, despite the lack of facilities in the area, we have a tremendous community spirit, with many voluntary groups and charities doing all that they can to provide services and to raise funds. As well as All Hallows and East Coast Hospice, we have Waveney Hospice Care, which is merging with the St Elizabeth hospice, and does great work providing day care. Palliative Care East has reached its target for providing day care and support for those using the James Paget hospital, and East Coast Truckers continues its sterling efforts to raise funds for East Anglian Children’s Hospices.
Moving on, I will outline three areas of end-of-life care in which we must do better. First, as I mentioned, more hospice care is needed—my hon. Friend set that out clearly. Secondly, linked to that, is the urgent requirement for more respite beds, so that carers can get away for a much-needed break. Last Friday, I was with Crossroads Care, which reinforced that point.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on his contribution. Does he agree that, although we do not have the range of choice, we ought to pay tribute to places such as Patrick Stead hospital in Halesworth, which manages to provide some respite care but could easily provide more if the funding were available?
Peter Aldous
I agree entirely. The Patrick Stead is my local hospital, so I also endorse its excellent work.
The third area is the need for the provision of 24/7, around-the-clock community care, which must be a priority. It could provide people with the option to spend their last days in their own homes, with their families and friends, which so many people wish to do. My father, who died last year, died in hospital and not at home. For my mother, who cared for him in the last few months of his life, the availability of such a service would have made her job as a carer that much easier.
In conclusion, what am I looking for from the Government? I want two things: first, a fairer funding settlement, to address the needs that I have outlined briefly; and, secondly, a system or framework that enables the voluntary and charitable sector to work with and flourish alongside the NHS. The Department of Health tends to distinguish only between the NHS and private providers, but the third sector must not be forgotten and it must be set free to flourish without the bureaucracy that currently bears down on hospices and carers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) on securing this debate. He is closely involved with charities in his constituency, and the issue is close to his heart, as it is to mine, having worked in the NHS for 25 years before entering this place. I congratulate him and all the local people who have worked tirelessly to raise funds in his area.
Many people receive excellent care at the end of life, but not everyone does. Services in some parts of the country are not as good as services in other parts, and people with some diagnoses are more likely to get good, high-quality, end-of-life care than others. My hon. Friend is right that choice is absolutely central. Choice is about where one is cared for and where one dies. The end-of-life care strategy, published under the previous Government in 2008, aimed to improve care for people approaching the end of life, whatever their diagnosis, wherever they were, including enabling more people to be cared for and die at home, if they wish. It is worth noting that the figures indicate that 17% of people, when asked where they would like to die, reply that it depends. That depends largely on the sort of support that they feel that they might get. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned respite care, which is an important element. People feel they might like to die at home if their family could get some respite from their responsibilities.
The end-of-life care strategy covers all adults with advanced progressive illness, and care given in all settings. We know people want choice about where they die. Some want to die at home, but not everybody. Some people are happy to die in a care home, where that has become somebody’s home, which we must not forget. However, we know that most people die in hospital; the figure is about 57%.
We want to ensure that the services are there to help people die and live the end of their lives in a comfortable setting. For choice to become a reality, we need commissioners and providers to ensure that the right services—including community-based services, such as 24/7 care, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—are available to support people at home. Ensuring that those services are available cannot be done overnight. We have said that we will review the progress we have made in developing and improving services in 2013; that will be an audit of where we have reached.
We also want to review the payment system to support end-of-life care, including exploring options for per patient funding. The funding has to be right to provide the incentives to commissioners to purchase the care that we want to see. We have set up an independent palliative care funding review to look at the matter, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. The review, covering both adult and children’s services, has been looking at options to ensure that the funding for palliative care providers is fair and encourages the development of community-based services. As I said, it is important to get the levers and incentives in the right place. We hope to be able to respond formally to the report by the end of the year.
Of course, hospices and the important role that they play are in the mix of care facilities that need to be provided. When I worked in this area of nursing there were very few hospices in the country. One cannot talk about end-of-life care without mentioning people such as Colin Murray Parkes who spearheaded the hospice movement. We want to see hospices flourish, develop and continue the expansion of their remit for caring for those with illness other than cancer, and into community-based support for patients, their families and their carers.
Only a comparatively small number of people die in a hospice, but a great many more benefit from their services and expertise in other ways, such as day therapy or hospice at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned the £40 million capital grant for hospices, but that an area must have a hospice to get the grant. His point is well made. The one-off grant allowed us to fund 123 projects in 116 hospices, which is quite a far reach. For the longer term, the palliative care funding review will help us move towards a fairer funding system that puts the levers in the right place.
However, it remains for local NHS commissioners to determine what services should be provided locally. I urge all hon. Members to ensure that they work closely with the local NHS. I understand that the estimated need for palliative care is higher in Great Yarmouth and Waveney than in any other PCT. NHS Great Yarmouth and Waveney, together with Norfolk and Suffolk county councils, have commissioned the Marie Curie “Delivering Choice” programme, one of the first to be established in the east of England. That programme brings together local organisations, patients and carers. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth that the Department of Health never forgets the third sector. The third sector is a very important part of the mix of health care providers. We never forget it because there are people around the country who work tirelessly in the third sector, not just to support people who are ill or at the end of their lives, but their families and carers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth is right that hospice provision is part of the mix of care. Ideally, no care setting should have priority over any other. The settings are like the pieces of a jigsaw: the picture is not complete until all the pieces are in place. The choice is not there until all the choices are available locally. Many care homes have developed a lot of expertise in the area and are now delivering excellent end-of-life care. The knowledge and expertise owned by the professionals in end-of-life and palliative care are what matters.
I will return to the subject of the local area. NHS Great Yarmouth and Waveney have put together this programme, and a new end-of-life pathway has been defined and specifications written for the services required to deliver it. The new services that have been commissioned are specialist palliative in-patient services; a care resource and outreach service; and a nursing end-of-life care facilitator.
I fully understand the concerns that prompted my hon. Friend to secure the debate, and it wonderful that he has the support of other hon. Members. I am sure that working together with the local NHS, they will move the programme forward. I applaud his commitment to the campaign for the best-quality end-of-life care for his constituents. I believe that the initiatives and steps that the Government are taking will help improve this important area of health care. We look forward to continuing to work with everybody, including those in the hospice movement, to achieve that aim.
I would like to finish by mentioning the incredible efforts, not just of those in the east of England but around the country, who are tireless in their efforts to raise money, to support those at the end of their lives, and to support the families who are looking after them.
Dr Coffey
I welcome the Minister’s warm words for actions already undertaken by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). At some point, would she come to our part of the world, to meet people who are actively involved, and to hear about other aspects such as the community nursing care fund, which, as long as she helps us get a hospice, may provide a good role model for elsewhere in the country?
Anne Milton
I would be delighted to visit the east of England. The hon. Lady has struck a good deal. I am always interested to see progress made. As she says, it is important to spread good practice. For anybody who is in need of NHS services or care, nothing but the best will do. We should never lower our standards in trying to achieve that aim. Nothing but the best will do on the day one is born; and nothing but the best will do on the day one dies.
Edale Unit (Manchester)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am delighted to see the Minister here. However, I express regret on her behalf, as the debate would not have been necessary, had the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for care services, had the courtesy to meet me some weeks ago. I asked to meet him to discuss an important issue, not simply a local one, regarding how decisions are made in the NHS.
The subject of the debate is a mental health facility in Manchester. The Edale unit was a custom-built facility for in-patient mental health services, for people with acute mental health problems who need that type of dedicated care. It was built as part of the private finance initiative that totally transformed central Manchester hospital facilities in my constituency. The Edale unit opened only four or five years ago, and offers five wards and single rooms, many of which are en-suite. It has gyms, therapy rooms, quiet rooms and other facilities that, even now, are pretty much state of the art. It is therefore astonishing that some time last year—I do not know when because the mental health trust did not have the courtesy to inform me as the local MP—plans were made to close the unit and relocate it to a refurbished unit some miles away.
The first I knew about those plans was when the Manchester Users Network for those who use mental health services wrote to me, and to others, stating that it regarded the proposed relocation as deleterious. The group pointed out that it would be difficult for people to travel from central Manchester to the relocated site, that patient recovery is clearly helped by contact and support from networks, families and friends, and that it would be more difficult for some people to receive that support if the unit were located away from the centre at a site in north Manchester. The Manchester Users Network raised a number of other issues, and I am grateful to its chairman, Alan Hartman, and to others, for making me aware of what had been proposed. At that point I was fairly neutral about the proposals and wanted simply to be persuaded. I began to ask questions about the changes but, quite frankly, it is difficult because I have not received answers to the important questions.
One might think that a brand new facility, built to precise designs by the mental health trust, would be worth keeping. The trust said, however, that on cost grounds it made sense to close the facility. It claims that it will make savings of £1.7 million a year in running costs, which may be true, although it is not clear how such savings will be achieved. Nevertheless, even if we accept that figure as part of the basic argument, that does not justify the closure of a unit that the trust was so recently involved in designing.
The situation becomes even more bizarre when we learn that some £2.3 million of non-recoverable fixed costs will fall on the central Manchester health trust as a result of the closure of the Edale facility. In other words, there will be a loss of £600,000. That does not make accounting or economic sense, and even if it narrowly makes sense for the mental health trust, it does not make sense for the taxpayer.
I have never received answers as to whether the figures that I have cited on different occasions are right or wrong. If that imbalance exists and it will cost the NHS and the taxpayer more to close the facility than to keep it open, it will be a scandal to allow the relocation to go ahead. In any case, nearly £5 million worth of new capital costs will be needed to refurbish the old facility to which the mental health trust wants to move the present unit. A huge argument needs to be made to justify the cost equation, and Ministers, the strategic health authority, the mental health trust and the primary care trust have not yet provided answers to that.
Perhaps the cost will be balanced out if we have a much better facility for users of mental health facilities and their families in Manchester. The difficulty with that argument is that those groups who have been in touch with me feel as one that the proposed move will be a bad thing—I say as one, although in fairness one or two senior consultants from the mental health trust have told me that they are in favour of the move.
I have also received a letter which, although sadly anonymous, no one would dispute comes from clinicians. The letter is about the proposed changes, and warns that the transfer of the Edale unit to Park house in north Manchester would be a move to an
“overcrowded, predominantly dormitory set up. This will predictably increase violence and morbidity on the ward.”
The letter goes on to say, among other things, that the move will
“hinder the contact of the patient with their family—”
—again, a point made by the Manchester Users Network. The letter rails against the fact that there are already numerous transfers to Edale house from the facility in north Manchester for reasons of privacy and space, and states:
“Most senior clinicians of the Trust are very cynical and disillusioned with this plan and appalled that the Strategic Health Authority has not put a stop to this.”
That is quite strong language from the clinicians, although I admit that it is an anonymous letter, which makes it difficult to validate.
When the mental health trust, and others, were scoping possible changes, they came up with a number of options. From all those available, the option that scored the lowest was that now adopted by the mental health trust. The weighted benefit score was a combination of inputs from clinical leaders, service users, carers and the wider community, and using those scores, the proposed relocation to Park house not only received the lowest mark but was deemed far worse than the “do nothing” option—in other words, to keep the Edale unit open. That assessment was not made by anonymous clinicians or users; it is the in-house weighted benefits score that was used to determine how to proceed. On that basis, I am at a loss to know the clinical justification behind the move. It is not necessarily that there is no case to be made, but the case has not been made to the wider public and it seems that for the mental health trust, cost is still the dominant issue.
More recently, a minute from the board meeting papers of the strategic health authority seemed to attempt to undermine the validity of the Edale unit. It stated:
“The Trust has indicated that any option to retain the Edale Unit is deemed to be unviable given their severe concerns regarding the design of the Edale Unit which include multiple ligature points, unsecured windows, dangerous balcony, lack of access to outside space. The Trust does not feel the faults are rectifiable.”
That seems to be a damning critique of the unit. Catalyst, the PFI partner that developed the whole of the central Manchester site, was so concerned that it attempted to engage with the mental health trust. A letter sent to Mark Ogden, the chief executive of the strategic health authority, stated:
“Following our contact with the staff at Edale we had a telephone call from a Mr Paul Fitzpatrick who introduced himself as the lead for health & safety for the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. His manner was extremely abrupt; despite repeatedly requesting details of the alleged breaches to health and safety in order for us to address them, Mr Fitzpatrick hung up the telephone on us without divulging any details of the alleged breaches.”
That would be farcical if it were not so serious. A paid operative of the mental health trust refused to discuss with the developer the problems that were minuted in the strategic health authority’s board meeting. It gets slightly easier because Catalyst sensibly went out of its way to see whether there was any validity in the allegations. It commissioned a health and safety report and looked at whether anything needed rectifying. It replied to the strategic health authority:
“We are sure that you will be pleased to see that the allegations were groundless and we would like to agree a mutually acceptable amendment to the minutes of your meeting”.
I think that Catalyst has every right to ask for that retraction if the allegations cannot be made to stand up, not because I want to defend Catalyst—it is up to Catalyst to defend itself—but because it has been used as part of the polemic about the unit’s closure.
We are now in very serious territory, because the point that I am making to the Minister is this. On cost grounds, the closure does not add up. On quality-of-service grounds, it is a very uncertain case. I have had a reply from the chief executive of the mental health trust, who goes through a number of things that she says are improvements in the move from Edale to Park house. However, none of those supposed improvements is location-specific. They could be achieved—if they need to be achieved—either at the Edale unit or at Park house.
The physical environment that the mental health trust proposes to move to is certainly inferior. The facility has been refurbished, but not, I am told, to an amazingly high standard, although that has to be proved. It is certainly the case that, instead of offering the single rooms that the Edale unit offers, that facility will have dormitory accommodation, and one of the concerns that people involved with the treatment of mental illness have put to me is that, with that type of dormitory accommodation, when more than one person in the dormitory is in a very distressed condition, that is a combination that is simply not acceptable in terms of the best possible type of treatment. There are real doubts even about the capacity of the proposed alternative if it is brought to fruition.
I cannot quote Greater Manchester police officially on this matter, but I have talked to individual police officers. It will perhaps be difficult for the Minister to know the physical geography of Manchester—why should she?—but the Edale unit is very close to the city centre. Crumpsall hospital in north Manchester is a considerable way from the city centre. One of the realities of policing in a city such as Manchester is that there are times when people who are severely distressed during bouts of mental illness and mental health breakdown are taken to the accident and emergency unit at the Manchester Royal infirmary, which is close to the city centre and part of the central Manchester site. When the clinicians recognise that the people brought in need mental health treatment—mental illness treatment—they can be transferred across the hospital site to the Edale unit.
I know from talking to police officers that exactly that happens regularly. Their concern has been expressed to me in this way—again, I point out that this is not GMP force policy. If they take people to the A and E unit at the central Manchester site and are told that the people need treatment in a mental health unit, they will have to transfer them physically, with all the use of police time at busy times of the week—on a Friday night or Saturday night—from the centre of Manchester up to the new unit in north Manchester. I say to the Minister that I fail to understand why the police were not a formal consultee in this process, because that seems a fairly obvious thing to have asked about.
The location matters in its own right. This is not a location-free decision. There are better locations in central Manchester than the north Manchester site. That is not to say that there should be nothing in north Manchester. I represent constituents across the north and the centre of the city. What I am asking the Minister for is some sense that the decisions really have been thought through and that there are proper answers to the very serious doubts that have been raised. As yet, I have not heard those answers.
I come finally to what may be the most important issue of all. I have been very concerned for a long time about the governance of the mental health trust in Manchester. I have met representatives of the strategic health authority. I have had many meetings over the years about the situation there. Most recently, there was an inquest into the death of Peter Thompson, a man who was certainly an alcoholic, who died outside the Edale unit. The coroner and the jury involved made quite hard-hitting reports on his death. The coroner issued a report under rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984. He says in his letter to the mental health trust:
“This rule provides that where the evidence at an inquest gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur or will continue to exist in the future, and in the coroner’s opinion, action should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such circumstances, or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances, the coroner may report the circumstances to a person who may have power to take such action.”
This is quite a strong thing for the coroner to have done: he has reported to the mental health trust that it needs to take action.
Section 8 of the conclusions of the report of the inquest said:
“The court received independent expert evidence from a Professor of mental health nursing, who identified and confirmed several failures in management and planning.”
In relation to the actions that the coroner urged should be taken, he said:
“It was noted that there seemed to be a general lack of appropriate management and control of the ward staff…The court was concerned about the general competence and professionalism of the staff and their actual ability to do the job…What is required is effective leadership and management. This appeared to be absent.”
This matter is not sub judice, Mr Walker—I must make that point in case it is of concern to you. It is already in the public domain. The coroner sent the rule 43 letter to the mental health trust and to other interested parties. I will not argue about the nature of cuts in modern Britain—that is a fallacious argument. I believe that the mental health trust in the city of Manchester has been underfunded for many years. I believe that, in the desperate need to find cost savings, the mental health trust has come up with a scheme that will save the mental health trust money. However, it does not deal with the real issues of a mental health trust that is not managing its affairs properly, which is putting—in this case, literally—the life of someone at risk.
We must do better. Frankly, it is not good enough for the Minister responsible for care services to refuse a meeting with me to talk about these issues. I would not have been raising them today in this public forum had I had a private meeting with him. I invite this Minister to say that there will now be a proper investigation of the way in which the decision was made, to satisfy not just me but the public that on cost grounds and on care grounds, the decision is optimal. Most importantly, we must now begin to get to grips with the management malaise that the coroner identified and that other people have raised as a concern. If we do not do that, we not only let down those who are mentally ill; we may put them at the most serious risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Still we are here, Mr Walker—how lovely!
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate. I would join him, I am sure, in paying tribute to the skills and dedication of mental health professionals not just in Manchester, but throughout the country. They do a fine job, often in very difficult circumstances. However, he was right to say at the end of his speech that we must do better. Mental health services have often been the Cinderella services. It has been extremely difficult to get them the priority that they deserve. From my perspective as a Minister responsible for public health, I see the prevention of poor mental health as being as much a priority as the prevention of poor physical health. I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned locally on health issues in his constituency and is a very strong supporter of all that goes on. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, who has responsibility for care services, is tied up with the Health and Social Care Bill today. However, I am sure that he will read the record of this debate with interest.
I cannot unravel this story in the time available to me, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me when I raise a number of issues that are pertinent. I shall come in my conclusion to what I feel is the best way forward. There is no doubt that any change brings uncertainty. I can well understand how plans to transfer local mental health in-patient beds naturally provoke concern. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s surprise at the relocation of beds from a newly built facility. He particularly mentioned the central location of Edale as important, and the views of the police not having been sought. I cannot comment on that, but his point is well made.
Let me give a little background on where we are with mental health services. We have launched “No health without mental health: a cross-Government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages”, which has two aims: improving the population’s mental health and improving services. The mental health strategy takes a life-course approach and sends a clear message that prevention, early diagnosis and early intervention are key priorities.
We would expect the bulk of the strategy to be delivered locally by experts on the ground working with services users, their families and carers, and, in some circumstances, the local police. Through the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Health and the ministerial advisory group, Ministers will continue to pay close attention to the delivery of the improvements set out in the strategy. There is no doubt that services in the community and closer to patients’ homes are better for recovery and encourage independence, although in-patient beds are needed at times.
The ministerial advisory group will bring together the new NHS commissioning board, Public Health England and a range of stakeholders, including clinical commissioning groups, the voluntary and community sectors and local authorities—one cannot underestimate the role that local authorities have to play in providing services for people with mental illness. Once the proposed NHS commissioning board and Public Health England are fully operational, we anticipate that they will become the focus for all stakeholders to lead the implementation of the mental health strategy and to review its progress.
The NHS in Manchester is working to strengthen its community-based services and to reduce reliance on acute care for those with a mental illness. That should be about improving quality, not introducing cost-saving measures. That follows the strategy set out in the national service framework for mental health services, which the Labour party introduced when it was in government. Indeed, there is cross-party consensus that investing more in community-based support benefits patients, and there is a growing body of evidence to support that. What people are fearful of is that such support is a cost-cutting measure.
I am told that Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust has worked closely with staff, service users, carers and other stakeholders, including the Manchester local involvement network and the Manchester carers forum, to develop proposals for rationalising its in-patient services for adults and older adults with mental health problems. The hon. Gentleman might not feel that that work has been sufficient, but it is important to put on the record what the local NHS feels it has done, which, as he rightly said, involves reducing the number of in-patient sites
The proposals will maintain the same number of beds, and I am told that only one in 17 mental health service users requiring in-patient services in Manchester will be affected. Service users who are in receipt of community support from adult and later life community teams at the nearby Rawnsley building and those who attend out-patient appointments will not notice any changes to services as a result of the relocation of beds. Alternative accommodation for the non-in-patient services based at Edale house is being sought in more appropriate community settings. I do not know Manchester well, but I am sure that there are other community settings in which such services can be provided.
The trust expects to achieve a number of clinical benefits, although the hon. Gentleman is perhaps somewhat cynical about that. It feels that those benefits will include a greater concentration of staffing expertise, an improved level of support on wards, a reduction in delays for treatment and the development of specialist services. We probably need to concentrate specialist services ever more to get the expertise we need.
Tony Lloyd
I am genuinely sympathetic to the Minister, who has been given her briefing. I mean no disrespect to her or her speech, but the problem is that such claims are easy to make; indeed, the 100-bed Edale unit could deliver concentration in exactly the same way. It is just not obvious that the mental health trust is doing anything more than providing words as a façade for its decision. It has given no explanation of why the change is better, or why the present situation is worse, other than this fallacious nonsense about the Edale unit not being up to standard.
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I should probably have started with the end of my speech, but I will come to the direction I feel he should move in.
The Government have pledged that all service changes must in future be led by clinicians and patients, and not driven from the top. The Department has outlined and strengthened the criteria that any decisions on NHS service changes are expected to meet. Decisions must focus on improving patient outcomes, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned quality, although the issue is obviously open to debate locally. Decisions must also consider patient choice, have support from GP commissioners and be based on sound evidence.
I must stress that the NHS is not run from Whitehall, and a lot of local issues need to be looked at locally. The overview and scrutiny committee has confirmed that it is satisfied that appropriate involvement has taken place. The mental health trust is exploring the feasibility of introducing a defined transport system at the committee’s request to ensure that service users and their families have suitable access.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the tragic case of Peter Thompson, and my sympathies are always with the friends and families involved in such situations. The case has clearly raised significant issues, not least that of good leadership, which is critical to ensuring that good services are available. I would expect the local NHS to learn from this tragic incident and to ensure that it does not happen again.
The chief executive of the mental health trust has written to the hon. Gentleman and offered him a meeting on three occasions—28 February, 25 May and more recently. I urge the hon. Gentleman to have that meeting, because he is clearly unhappy about a lot of issues. He mentioned the anonymous letter he had received, and if its authors get sight of this debate, I hope they will come to see him in confidence—like all Members, I know that he would keep their identities confidential. The letter has raised some concern, but it is difficult to do anything about it while it is anonymous. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s assurance that it is from clinicians would hold up.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to meet the chief executive. He clearly remains open-minded, but he is anxious to be convinced. He describes a complex story, in the middle of which we have a tragic death and the coroner highlighting some important issues. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more in the debate, but the best way forward would be for him to meet the chief executive.
Tony Lloyd
I would, of course, be happy to meet the chief executive, but what I have really been offered is a meeting to tell me why the trust is going ahead with the decision that it has already made. I want explanations, and that is what the public and the taxpayer are entitled to. If I do not get that explanation, can I come back to the Minister and her colleagues and at least get some sense that they are engaged in dealing with what could be a scandal?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is absolutely right: he should see the chief executive and ask for an explanation. As he rightly says, he is open-minded and wants to be convinced. If he still does not get an explanation that satisfies him that things are being done to improve patients’ quality of care, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would meet him. He would be welcome to come back to us with any issues, but I urge him to have a meeting with the chief executive first.
Rural Bus Services (South Devon)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Walker, for chairing this debate on the important issue of rural bus services in south Devon, and I thank the Minister for his continuing interest in sustainable transport. I want to cover the three areas of the scale of rural transport poverty, the current reductions to services in Devon and, perhaps more importantly, the threats on the horizon: there is a perfect storm brewing for rural transport in my constituency. Finally, I have some proposals, put forward by my constituents as well as by people with transport expertise. I hope to persuade the Minister that doing nothing will be to abandon the transport poor at the roadside. I hope that he will accept an invitation to Townstal in my constituency to meet those who have been hardest hit by cuts to services.
Citizens Advice has found that many low-income families spend as much as 25% of their income on owning and maintaining a car; not through choice but through necessity. In addition, south Devon is one of the most expensive areas of the country, with high housing costs and low earnings, and employment that is often unreliable and seasonal. It has one of the highest insolvency rates in the country, and a high percentage of retired people, who are more likely to be dependent on public transport. It is not only the work that is seasonal; we also have a seasonal population. In summer our population expands dramatically, putting a further strain on services.
It is notable that the more rural an area is, the greater the number of cars and vans per household. Our services have become so infrequent and inconvenient that anyone who can use a car will do so, and those who have no access to a car cannot afford the full fare that is needed for the services to be run on a stand-alone commercial basis. South Hams, for example, has more than 12,000 more cars than households, which only underlines the relative transport poverty of the have-nots. Those have-nots are 14% of rural households in Devon—55,000 people who have no access to a car. Without transport, those people cannot gain access to hospitals, employment, education or even employment agencies or citizens advice bureaux.
The reason for that is clear. Under the comprehensive spending review, the Government grant to Devon county was cut by £54 million in 2011-12. Like all councils, Devon has statutory obligations, so it held a good public consultation exercise. However, unfortunately, people who never need to use public transport do not see it as a priority, so it emerged as a relatively low priority.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Similar cuts have been suffered in my constituency, in Dawlish, on the 178 Newton Abbot to Okehampton service, and on the 361 Bridford to Newton Abbot service. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that Devon’s settlement from central Government was in a sense not appropriate, because rurality was not taken into account? Therefore there was a particular challenge in funding the bus service.
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Devon county council reduced its public transport support budget by £1.35 million out of a total spend of £7.75 million. My hon. Friend makes a good point in noting that that did not recognise the particular challenges of rurality.
As I have said, the real problem is the perfect storm that is brewing, with ever-increasing costs and further reductions in revenue. From April 2012 there will be a 20% reduction in the bus service operators grant which will increase operator costs by 1.5% to 2%. When we consider that our fares are already among the highest in the country, if that were passed on to passengers it could result in a further abandonment of bus transport.
The reduction in operator reimbursement for pensioners’ bus passes is also creating a particular problem in Devon, because in Devon 56% of all bus journeys after 9.30 in the morning are made by concessionary travel scheme passengers, which amounts to 30% of operator income. Local experts tell me that a reduction of the reimbursement to operators of 15% translates into a 4% to 5% loss of income; but for more rural operators such as those that are found in Devon it could be as much as 30%, which would be devastating. To those figures must be added the cost of administering the scheme. Devon must spend £12 million on that, which ironically is twice as much as it must spend on supporting bus services to ensure that people can travel in the first place. Devon county council estimates that it has been underfunded by approximately £5 million in the current year on that scheme alone. Many of my constituents wonder whether the ability of some people to travel free is more important than the ability to travel at all for many people of all ages.
On top of those reducing subsidies comes the blow of passenger transport inflation, which the Minister knows outstrips the retail prices index, as a result of increased insurance premiums, increasing staff costs as a result of legislation on part-time workers, increased training requirements and bus adaptations. That is before factoring in the runaway costs of fuel. Seventy bus routes have been affected in Devon. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I am not going to name them all, but I should like to mention service 111, which illustrates several points.
The 111 was a lifeline in my constituency, running from Dartmouth via Totnes station, stopping off at the Torbay shopping area and taking passengers directly to the door of the local hospital. It ran via several villages and was a reliable service. Crucially, it also allowed parents to exercise choice in the matter of their children’s school. The loss of the 111 has been devastating. Last week I met Freda Morgan, who, despite being in her eighties, made the trip from Dartmouth to visit her 91-year-old sister in hospital. Previously she would have been able to travel door to door. This time, on the way out she needed two changes of bus and a very long walk up a steep hill—trust me, people in Devon are used to hills, but this was a very long one from the main road. On the way home she needed to take a completely different operator’s buses and a different set of routes, including a ferry crossing. The round trip lasted a total of 10 hours. She managed to get only an hour with her sister, and she arrived home completely exhausted.
Mrs Morgan is not alone. I have had similar emails and letters from many other constituents: patients and visitors, parents who now cannot get their children to school—of course we cannot think it is an option to change a child’s school half way through their education—and a flood of people who feel trapped in their homes.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
One of the answers is to get more people using the buses, so that they become more viable. Surely one of the best ways to make buses more viable is to get them to run on time. Reducing congestion between the hon. Lady’s constituency and mine—I am thinking of the Kingskerswell bypass—would have an enormous impact on bus use throughout Torbay and south Devon, because buses would be more likely to run to timetable.
Dr Wollaston
That is an excellent point. Reliability is a key issue—both reliability in timetabling, and the reliability that means a child who starts at a particular school will continue to be able to get there in the long term.
Another of my constituents, Richard Parnell, made the excellent point with reference to seasonal employment that he has been unable to get to many places because of the changes. Even when he was recently called to do jury service he found it very difficult to attend.
I mentioned bus 111 because it was, in a way, a victim of its own success, showing that the issue is not only cuts to rural subsidies; there is also the perverse impact of the way it has been possible to apply competition to the routes in question, since deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. Some 76 per cent. of bus journeys in Devon are on commercial services and, crucially, Devon county council is unable to consult on changes to commercial services. There have recently been 200 to 300 service changes each year, with only 56 days notice. That leaves little time for those affected to make alternative plans.
Service 111 was operated by Stagecoach under a tender paid for by Devon county council, which allowed Devon to specify the timetable, fares and bus specification. When the tender was due to expire, another operator declared the section between Dartmouth and Paignton to be commercial. To cut a long story short, the unviable parts of the route were cut out, and Devon was left to pick up the sections covering a number of villages, which are now cut off, with an inadequate service, the 149. Stagecoach registered its own commercial service 111, but because Devon withdrew the funding to students whose parents exercised choice to send them to an out-of-area school, it was left unviable, and the service folded. Now all the communities have been left with a woefully inadequate service, as a result of the combination of grant cuts and the inappropriate application of competition.
Many communities in my constituency have been badly affected. They include Kingsbridge, with the loss of the X64, and Dittisham, Blackawton and Marldon. The county maintains that no community has been cut off—I acknowledge that it has tried hard to prevent that—but if a service no longer allows people access to employment, medical appointments or school, they might as well be cut off.
We have some wonderful community bus services in Devon. I am sure that my hon. Friends will join me in paying tribute to them and their volunteers; I think of services such as the Coleridge community bus and “Bob the Bus” in Totnes. Devon has also led the way in demand-led bus services such as the fare car scheme, but it would be a mistake to think that they reduce costs, as some are even more expensive.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on making such a powerful speech. Given that we cannot anticipate much more Government subsidy over the next two or three years, and given that bus companies understandably do not want to operate unprofitably, does she believe that some improvement could be made if the bus companies, the county council and—as important—parish councils and communities were much more involved in consultation about which routes were necessary and which timetables would suit best? Does my hon. Friend believe that there is enough engagement with local people?
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said earlier, there is no opportunity for such engagement because of changes in legislation after deregulation. I would like it to be restored and I would like to see an obligation to consult more widely. I would also like to see more sensible ticketing arrangements, so that constituents who have to take different routes there and back are able to use a smart card.
I am surprised by the number of pass holders in Devon who say that they would rather pay a small amount per journey, or even pay an annual administration fee, than suffer reduced services. They understand the financial realities to which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) refers. Experts in local transport tell me that an annual fee of around £30 would cover the administration costs—the £12 million that I spoke of earlier—which is twice as much as Devon is spending on subsidising the extra costs. Such a fee would still represent outstanding value for money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider it.
Another excellent question is why foreign vehicles can use our motorways for free when we pay so much to use theirs. Why cannot we have a system like that in Switzerland, where vehicles have to pay for and display a motorway pass even if they use the motorway for only one weekend? Could we not do likewise? The equivalent for British nationals would be the tax disc; we could ask all foreign trucks and cars to pay a smaller amount for the pleasure of using our lovely motorways. Others have suggested increasing vehicle excise duty for high-emission vehicles to subsidise public transport. However, we know that such measures would not directly benefit local rural services unless the increased income were directly allocated to councils and ring-fenced for sustainable transport.
My own suggestion would be to consider giving councils greater powers to require out-of-town supermarket users to pay to park. The money could be reimbursed in store if necessary, but the levy could be used to subsidise local rural services if it was appropriate for the area. It would be a form of localism to allow local people to decide on the matter. It would also help redress the imbalance that blights our rural high streets, which are often subject to high parking charges.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the cuts to bus service operator grants. However, I make a special plea on behalf of community buses: could they use red diesel? I hope, too, that the Minister will reconsider the unforeseen consequences of deregulation, referred to earlier, particularly the impact that it has had; on top of the cuts, it has devastated rural services. I also hope he will meet me to discuss some of the red tape and additional costs faced by community buses, which provide an invaluable service. I have already referred to smart cards. Again, that would make a huge difference. I stress that none of us feels that doing nothing should be an option.
Finally, as a small plea to another cyclist, may I ask the Minister to consider amending the legislation to allow buses to have bike racks? It happens in European countries but not here; that is another example of UK legislation exceeding that of the EU. I understand that regulations prevent buses from carrying front bike racks—that is what local operators tell me—but if we allowed rural buses to carry bike racks, the services could become more commercially viable in the summer. We all know that there is not an endless pot of money, and that would make a big difference to areas such as mine, which are trying to introduce green transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for arranging this debate and for packing a great deal into 16 minutes. I thank our quartet of Devon MPs for saying roughly the same thing about their bus services.
I know well from my constituency that buses are a lifeline for many people in rural areas, providing access to jobs, schools, health care and social activities and the rest. Good bus services contribute to the Government’s key transport priorities of cutting carbon and creating growth, not least by allowing access to employment opportunities. Other benefits of removing car traffic from our towns would include reduced noise pollution and improved air quality.
Because of the value that the Government attach to bus services, we are committed under the comprehensive spending review to continuing our financial subsidy of bus operators. It is worth pointing out that the many newspaper stories suggesting that the bus service operators grant would be cut altogether proved to be erroneous. We value the support that we give to bus companies and bus operators.
The bus service operators grant—the BSOG—remains untouched for this financial year. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, it will be cut by 20% from next April, thereby giving bus companies about 18 months notice of the change. Department for Transport calculations suggest that will bring about a change in fares of about 1%. Bus operators are on record as saying that the scale of changes and the notice that they have been given make them hopeful of being able to incorporate the change to the BSOG without affecting fares.
Dr Wollaston
Given the rurality of services in Devon, local experts in the county council estimate that for us the change would be between 1.5% and 2%.
Norman Baker
I hear what my hon. Friend says. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK said that it was hopeful of incorporating the change without affecting fares or services; I hope that reassures her on that point. I shall deal in a moment with local tendered services, which I suspect are more of a problem for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
The Government are committed to reducing the budget deficit that we inherited, and every sector has to play its part in that. However, the Transport Secretary and I are determined that buses should continue to receive their fair share of funding. We want to encourage more people to use buses, and to make bus travel more attractive in whatever way we can, given the financial envelope within which we have to work.
The Government spend more than £1.2 billion a year on concessionary travel and bus subsidy in England, outside London, of which £15 million or thereabouts is spent in Devon. We remain particularly committed to the concessionary travel entitlement in England for the 11.5 million eligible older and disabled people. I hear my hon. Friend’s suggestion of introducing a small charge to help finances. I can only say that the Prime Minister has made plain the importance that he attaches to the present arrangements—that the concessionary travel arrangements continue to be free for those entitled to them. That obviously remains the Government’s policy.
My Department recently issued new guidance to local transport authorities to help them ensure that bus operators are reimbursed for carrying eligible passengers on a “no better off, no worse off” basis. My hon. Friend referred to the concessionary travel reimbursement arrangements, but the essential legislative requirement that bus companies should be no better off or no worse off has not changed. All that has happened is that the Department has issued new guidance to enable local authorities better to deliver the requirement. They are not obliged to follow that guidance, although they may do so if they wish; but they are obliged to comply with the legislation, which has not changed.
Mr Sanders
I raised this matter under the previous Government and suggested, through parliamentary questions, that the cost of a national scheme would be less than lots of local schemes. Will the Minister consider that as a way in which we can reduce the costs overall? It seems crazy that different local authorities pay different rates for the same service.
Norman Baker
There is a national arrangement in place in Scotland, which was considered. Responsibility was moved from district councils to county councils, which helped to bring some consistency to services and reduce some of the overheads. However, we have to balance that with our need to pursue a localism agenda, which both coalition parties firmly support. To have a national scheme would counter that and go against our direction of travel.
When the Department was considering the new guidance for the concessionary travel scheme, we took representations from the bus operators and local councils. I then personally amended the guidance to ensure that it reflected the particular challenges of operating in a rural area.
I recognise that the recent local authority funding settlement has been challenging and that in some areas, local councils have responded by taking the axe to local bus services. That badly hits rural areas such as Devon where supported services make up a much higher share of the total than in metropolitan areas. The formula of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which allocates money to local councils, incorporates a sparsity factor, which should help areas such as Devon. The Department is also committed, through the local government resource review, to looking at the entire way in which funding takes place and local moneys are raised from the local taxpayer, and that process is ongoing.
I am naturally concerned when I hear that vulnerable people with few other transport choices have lost their only bus service, or that children have reduced public transport access to the school of their choice. Those are serious and unwelcome developments. As my hon. Friend says, fewer than a quarter of all journeys in Devon are made on supported services. That means that more than three quarters are made on commercial services, which are unaffected by changes to council income or changes in council policy.
When difficult decisions are to be made on local bus services, I am clear that they should be made at a local level and not in Whitehall. The Government set out in the local transport White Paper their commitment to ending top-down decision making and one size fits all solutions. That means that we will see different decisions made in different places across the country depending on the priorities given by elected local members in those areas.
Some councils have taken an almost slash and burn approach to bus services, while others such as East Riding have percentage cuts in single figures. They have been more careful about making decisions that affect bus users. I note that Devon county council has cut its budget for supported bus services by 17% this year. In a consultation that it held called “tough choices”, which I welcomed, savings on bus services were one of the top three areas that were identified by 60% of those who responded. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes that those who do not use buses will be more likely to identify them for cuts than those who use them. Nevertheless, it was an attempt by the county council to validate the decisions that we are taking, and that is entirely helpful. Other areas have consulted and reached different conclusions. Cornwall, for example, has chosen to keep its morning peak-time concessionary travel entitlement on a countywide basis.
It is up to Devon to prioritise its spending as it sees fit, and it is not for central Government to intervene in that matter. How much it spends on buses, roads and libraries is ultimately a matter for Devon county council. Rather than telling councils what to do, my focus instead is on encouraging bus companies and local transport authorities to work together to deliver improvements that make the bus a more attractive option. They need to improve reliability and produce smarter and more integrated ticketing—to which my hon. Friend referred—reasonable fares and understandable timetables. She will be aware that an application has been made to the local sustainable transport fund in respect of smart ticketing. Decisions on the outcome of that particular application will be made shortly.
I am also keen that local authorities make the most efficient use of their resources. It is a good idea that there is a maximum efficient use of the vehicles that a council may have. We still have cases in which there are adult social care vehicles in one box, public transport vehicles in another box and school buses in a third box, and they are all run by different departments of the council. These days, councils, which need to make efficiency savings, should eliminate those sorts of duplications and that silo mentality. I am not clear what the position is in Devon. I hope that it has identified savings such as that to be made. None the less, those sorts of practices can still be found in local councils up and down the country. Therefore, local councils have a job to do to ensure that they get the best value for money.
My hon. Friend also mentioned community transport. I accept that that is not a panacea for any reduction in bus services, but it can be a useful facility for particular individuals with special needs or for small communities where a bus service would not be practical. We are keen to build up the capacity of community transport organisations, which is why I recently provided local authorities with £10 million of extra funding. Devon county council was given a grant of £425,000 for that purpose. I was pleased to learn that the council has maintained its community transport budget in recognition of the important work that such organisations do at a local level.
I pay tribute to Devon Wheels 2 Work scheme. It is an excellent example of a not-for-profit organisation that provides vital links to education, work and training by loaning motorbikes and scooters at subsidised rates. Other examples can be found across England, and it is exactly the sort of grassroots activity that I would like to see more of and to encourage.
Let me now pick up on some of the points that were made. My hon. Friend made reference to route 111. As she will understand, I am not familiar with that route. However, it is a matter for Devon county council to judge whether or not it is one of the routes that it should support. It is sometimes the case that routes to hospitals are difficult to justify commercially. As people move in and out of hospital, it is difficult to build up a regular clientele for that particular service. It certainly seems that some people have been significantly inconvenienced by the withdrawal of that route, and I hope that she and her colleagues will be able to persuade Devon county council to think again.
As for the integration between the transport authority, Devon county council and the bus operators, I have noted my hon. Friend’s point about 56 days’ notice for changes. That is something that I am currently looking at. No decisions have been made, but it is something that is on the radar. It is up to Devon to decide whether it takes advantage of the terms of the Local Transport Act 2008, which facilitates quality partnerships or even quality contracts. If Devon wants to get more of a handle on bus services, there are powers in legislation available to use should it wish to do so.
My hon. Friend raised other matters that do not fall under the Department for Transport. She will be interested to know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is introducing proposals for HGV charging, which will, for the first time, capture foreign lorries in terms of what they have to pay to use our motorway network.
My hon. Friend seemed to want to go wider into road charging and almost edged into the Lib Dem manifesto from the last general election, but that is not currently Government policy. She also came up with some interesting ideas on red diesel and hypothecation, which are matters for the Treasury and not the DFT. However, her comments have been noted and I will ensure that they are passed on to the relevant officials at the Treasury.
My hon. Friend also raised an interesting idea, which has been around for some time, about out-of-town supermarkets. I can see why she has raised that matter, and I will make sure that her comments are passed on to colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, who have the lead responsibility for that matter.
I do not have an answer on buses with bike racks, but I will drop her a line to let her know what the legal position is and how we view the matter. Finally, if my hon. Friend wants to bring up some of her constituents to discuss matters, I will ensure that a slot is made available in my diary for her to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Double Taxation Agreement (United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A new Double Taxation Agreement with the People’s Republic of China was signed on 27 June 2011. The text of the agreement has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
Publication of Tax Policy Consultations
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Budget 2011 announced a number of tax policy changes and longer-term tax reforms that will be subject to consultation. These are summarised in the tax consultation tracker, which is available on the HM Treasury website at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and HM Treasury will today publish the following consultation document:
VAT cost-sharing—A consultation on workable options for implementing a VAT relief for services shared between bodies with VAT exempt or non-business activities such as universities and charities.
The Government will on 29 June publish the following consultation document:
Gifts of works of art—A consultation on proposals to encourage donations of pre-eminent objects and works of art to the nation in return for a tax reduction.
HMRC and HM Treasury will on 30 June publish the following consultation documents:
Controlled foreign companies (CFCs) reform—A consultation on detailed proposals for new CFC rules to be introduced in 2012.
High-risk areas of the tax code: relief for income tax losses—A consultation on proposals for improving legislative defences against tax avoidance.
High-risk areas of the tax code: unauthorised unit trusts—A consultation on proposals for improving legislative defences against tax avoidance.
Updates to dates for some consultations planned for June and July have been made to the tax consultation tracker.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (28 June)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) who is responsible for the natural environment and fisheries will be representing the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 28 June.
There is one fisheries and one agriculture item on the agenda. Discussions will take place on the following:
Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on fishing opportunities—The annual report setting out the scientific background and principles that the Commission will use to formulate their annual proposals for fishing opportunities to be agreed later in the year.
Follow-up to the Extraordinary Council on 7 June 2011 on the E. coli outbreak—Information from the Commission on proposals it has put in place to provide aid to affected growers.
There are currently five items under any other business
Unrestricted fishing of mackerel by Iceland and Faroe Islands—A request from the Irish delegation for EU action to bring Iceland and Faroe Islands back inside the multilateral management of the fishery.
Conference on the future of the common fisheries policy—A report from the Dutch delegation on the recent high-level conference held in Noordwijk, Netherlands.
European funding for the fisheries sector post-2013—Joint declaration by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, on the budget and objectives of the successor to the European fisheries fund.
Future of the food aid for deprived persons scheme—A request from the Hungarian and Italian delegations for the Commission to present proposals to amend the current deprived persons programme.
NGO conference on trade, development and sustainability in the European animal sector—A report from the presidency on the conference of officials and NGOs that took place in the ministerial meeting at the informal Agriculture Council in Debrecen (26-28 May 2011).
Meeting of G20 Agriculture Ministers
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The House will be aware that on 22 and 23 June, France as presidency of the G20, convened the first ever meeting at G20 level of Agriculture Ministers, to consider an action plan on food price volatility and agriculture.
The action plan which we agreed recognises that market fundamentals—supply and demand—are the key causes of price volatility in wheat, corn, maize and soya and that both increasing production sustainably and reducing shocks to supply such as those caused when policymakers respond to poor quality information are the means to ensure a healthier relationship of supply to rising demand.
We emphasised the need to trade openly and remove distorting measures, and that export bans in particular should not impede calls for humanitarian aid.
We are taking steps to improve market information and transparency, by establishing an agricultural market information system (AMIS) in order to encourage major players on the agri-food markets to share data, to enhance existing information systems, to promote greater shared understanding of food price developments, and further policy dialogue and co-operation. G20 countries committed to disclose reliable, quality, accurate and timely data for this initiative.
We also agreed to establish a senior officials’ group to act as a “Rapid Response Forum”, to share views and plans for immediate actions in order to prevent or mitigate world food price crises. Taken together with the improvement in market information which we anticipate that AMIS will bring, this improved co-ordination should reduce the extent to which G20 members are themselves the source of avoidable supply shocks in future, as happens for example when panic buying takes place or export restrictions are imposed.
G20 Ministers committed themselves to implementing a broad scope of actions to boost agricultural growth, including a strengthening of agricultural research and innovation. In particular, we launched an international research initiative for wheat improvement to co-ordinate our efforts on this major crop for food security.
We recognised the need for further analysis of the relationships between biofuels production and food availability and price volatility, as well as potential policy responses.
Finally, we welcomed and endorsed the importance of the work of the G20’s development working group—on risk management and the potential use of pre-deployed emergency food stocks—and that of G20 Finance Ministers on financial regulation.
Western European Union (Closure)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
On 30 March 2010 the UK announced its intention to withdraw from the Western European Union (WEU). A 12-month notice period followed our and the other nine WEU member states’ denunciation of the modified Brussels treaty and the WEU will be formally closed on 30 June 2011.
The WEU has played a valuable role in discussion on European security. It embedded the principle of mutual defence in post-war Europe, promoted consultation and co-operation on defence and security matters in Western Europe and has conducted operations in a number of vital theatres. But the WEU’s mutual defence role became largely symbolic as soon as NATO was established; its operational role has long since been succeeded by the EU through the common security and defence policy; and we could no longer justify the cost of over €2 million a year to UK taxpayers.
The European Security and Defence Assembly within the WEU will also close. It has provided an important forum for parliamentarians to meet and debate European defence issues with their peers. The Government recognise the value of such debate and in order to see that continue we have been working with the relevant parliamentary committees to facilitate the establishment of a new forum for parliamentarians from across Europe to meet and debate common foreign and security policy issues. Quite rightly this is a matter for national Parliaments, but the Government will continue to provide support where required to help ensure suitable inter-parliamentary debating arrangements are in place.
After the closure of the WEU, outstanding tasks will be overseen by a board of the EU Satellite Centre composed of representatives of the 10 former WEU member states. This is the most cost-effective way of managing the WEU’s legacy tasks. These tasks include our continuing obligations to former WEU staff and making arrangements for the final liquidation of the WEU assets. This will include the sale of the WEU building in Paris, which is jointly owned by the 10 WEU member states.
Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
On 5 April 2011 the Government brought into force the public sector Equality Duty, contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, for public authorities in Great Britain.
The Equality Duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. It supports good decision-making by ensuring that public authorities understand how different people will be affected by their activities, so that services are appropriate and accessible to all, and meet different people’s needs.
To assist public authorities in the better performance of the Equality Duty, the Government have today laid before Parliament for approval the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. These regulations will promote the better performance of the Equality Duty by requiring those public authorities to publish:
equality objectives, at least every four years;
information to demonstrate their compliance with the Equality Duty, at least annually.
The latter will need to include, in particular, information relating to their employees (for authorities with 150 or more staff) and others affected by their policies and practices, such as service users.
The publication of this information will ensure that public authorities are transparent about their performance on equality. This transparency will drive the better performance of the Equality Duty without burdening public authorities with unnecessary bureaucratic processes, or the production of superfluous documents. Public authorities will have flexibility in deciding what information to publish, and will be held to account by the people they serve.
With the exception of schools, public authorities will be required to publish relevant information demonstrating their compliance by 31 January 2012, and their first equality objectives by 6 April 2012. Schools will be required to publish both their information and their equality objectives by 6 April 2012.
The Government will work closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that clear non-statutory guidance is available to public authorities to help them to comply with these regulations.
The Government are committed to reviewing the working of these regulations in two years’ time, to check they are delivering the transparency and accountability that we are seeking, and driving the better performance of the Equality Duty.
Court of Protection (Authorised Court Officers)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government have today published a consultation paper on proposals that some straightforward applications to the Court of Protection should be delegated to authorised court officers.
At present, all applications to the court have to be decided by a judge, even when the issue involved is straightforward and non-contentious—such as an undisputed application to become a property and affairs deputy. Judges will continue to take all decisions which relate to health and welfare issues, but some types of application for property and affairs deputyships (which form a large proportion of the court’s work) could be dealt with by authorised court officers. This would free up judicial time to focus on the more difficult and sensitive issues the court has to deal with, and reduce the time it takes to deal with routine matters, thereby improving the service to users.
The consultation runs until 20 September 2011. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries, and the paper is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/decisions-court-protection.htm.
Grand Committee
Education Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
I begin as usual by reminding your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 1
Lord Northbourne
“Foundation stage
(1) The period in the life of a child between birth and compulsory school age shall be designated as the foundation years for that child.
(2) During a child’s foundation years, the English local authority area of the area in which the child lives is responsible for working with that child’s parents or carers and with relevant services to promote the child’s healthy, physical, social, emotional and cognitive readiness to enter school on reaching school age.”
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, it is fairly apparent that the amendments which we are discussing are probing amendments. They are couched in terms around the importance of school readiness; that is to say children, when they reach compulsory school age, being socially, physically, emotionally and cognitively ready to move into the environment of a primary school. My amendments are intended to raise an important issue: what authority or public body has overall responsibility for providing and for co-ordinating help and support for disadvantaged families and their children during the children’s foundation stage? That is a question to which I hope the Minister may be able to give us an answer because it is far from being clear in the legislation. It is an important question in the context of the Government’s policy to increase equality and social mobility in our schools. I hope that these amendments will provide an opportunity for the Government to outline their policy on this issue for the Committee so that, if necessary, more substantive amendments can be tabled at Report.
There is overwhelming evidence that a child’s parents or carers have a powerful influence on educational attainment and that the foundation years may have more influence on education even than the quality of the child’s school. To improve educational attainment for all we need to improve support for parents in the early years, particularly those experiencing difficulty or bringing up their children in challenging circumstances. Support for families is the task of a generation involving all the agencies which work with children and parents. Local authorities are in the right position to lead and should have, in my view, an explicit duty to do so. If they do not, we have to ask the Government to come off the fence and ask who is responsible for successfully preparing children in the foundation stage.
Recent reports by Frank Field and Graham Allen entitled respectively The Foundation Years and The Next Steps present compelling evidence that investment in early intervention and the foundation years can significantly improve life chances, reduce poverty and at the same time generate potential cash savings which have been estimated at £24 billion or more a year.
My other amendment in this group—Amendment 122 to Clause 40—requires the school inspectorate in proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e) to report on,
“the extent to which the school is working with parents”.
The existing legislation contains awfully little about working with parents, but all good schools should do that; where a school does not, pupils’ chances of success are prejudiced. Parents and Parliament have a right to know which schools are or are not doing their best to harness the contribution which parents can make to their children’s progress. It is interesting to note in this context that a government report that I was reading referred specifically to the success of Chinese children. We all know that Chinese parents are very pushy. They believe in their children, and the results are consequentially very satisfactory.
My proposed new clause addresses the preparation of young people in school, not only for work but for life in the family and in the community. It is intended to ensure that, in partnership with parents, schools pursue active policies so that, as far as possible, pupils have the opportunity at all stages of their school career, in an age-appropriate way, to learn about the exciting opportunities and important responsibilities that will open up to them as they grow up. That includes, of course, at an appropriate age, the joys and responsibilities of parenthood.
The Frank Field report has proposed—I strongly agree—that those issues should be sensitively addressed all through the time of growing up in school. From research he did with pupils in his constituency, he found a strong demand among young people themselves for more help and understanding of the problems that they will encounter as they grow up. Will that recommendation, which to some extent I have encapsulated in the amendment, become part of the Government’s policy or will they sweep it under the carpet?
Lord Peston
I have come specially to support the noble Lord on this. He refers to his amendment as a probing amendment, but in fact he puts his finger on what I regard as the single most important issue of education in our country at this time, particularly with his emphasis on the child’s parents or carers. He referred to the Chinese as pushy, but others of us were certainly pushy when we brought up our children. We were there for them all the time and taught them to read; we read to them first, of course. I am sure that many other parents in this Room have done the same sort of thing, but in this area we really are two nations, because other children’s parents are not like that at all—assuming that their parents or carers are there for them at all. Education is obviously overwhelmingly about personal development, but it also leads to people’s position in a highly competitive society. Too many of these children do not have a chance from the word go.
I hope very much to hear a positive response from the Government. The Government cannot take over the role of the parent—I do not suggest that we live in a society where that would even be remotely contemplated—but they must judge all their policies at least as being supportive in this area of activity. The noble Lord said that he was not going to divide us—of course, we do not divide on such matters in this Room—but we need something rather more substantial in the Bill that corresponds to the spirit of what he said, and that I, and I am sure all my colleagues, would support.
Baroness Warnock
I very much support the amendment for two reasons. I endorse all the things that have been said. First, I hope very much that “foundation years” can be incorporated in the Bill, because it would be useful to have a way of referring to children between nought and school age. Therefore, we might usefully take over that phrase and use it in the Bill. Secondly, and probably much more importantly, the amendment would give a chance for parents and local authorities to make contact with one another. If the local authorities have the duty imposed on them that the amendment suggests, they will know from the outset the position of each child and will be able to co-operate much later on. If the Bill is anything like what it is now, there is a danger that the influence of local authorities will be fragmented, but the amendment would be a start for a local authority to get involved right from the beginning.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the principles of what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is trying to achieve. I am quite sure that this Government will not sweep under the carpet the most important and powerful arguments made by Graham Allen and Frank Field in their excellent reports. I very much look forward to hearing the department’s response to the need for much more early intervention, which I believe will come along the track before very long. Indeed, the Government may decide that another legislative vehicle, which may be before us next year, might be more appropriate for putting forward what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is seeking to do. I absolutely agree with him about the vital importance of the early years, about parents as first teachers and as carers of the child, and the importance of supporting those parents in doing what we all know is the most difficult job in the world.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in this very important amendment. I also support his suggestion that this will be followed by more substantive amendments on Report.
Clause 1 is more about who things should be done to than what should be done. Here I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on communication and language skills, which has been campaigning for years to try to get every child assessed to see that, in the words of the noble Lord’s amendment, children are ready,
“to enter school on reaching school age”.
I would like to see guidance in the Bill on what assessment should be received by each child to ensure that they are ready and who is responsible for doing it. One problem I have found when trying to get this assessment done is who pays. The people who do the assessment come from the Department of Health, but it is the Department for Education which is putting this through. Some people at the Department for Communities and Local Government are involved, while some are from the Ministry of Justice. Who is going to do this?
The best advice is contained in the excellent report published the other day by Dame Clare Tickell. In paragraph 3.22 of chapter 3, which is entitled “Equipped for life, ready for school”, she recommends strongly,
“that the Government works with experts and services to test the feasibility of a single integrated review”,
at age two to two and a half. That is excellent advice, which I hope will be taken up. Armed with that, then the work can be done to see what needs to be done to make certain that people are ready to back up the tone and the good sense of my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, the amendment is crucial for everything that follows in education. Frank Field and Graham Allen have set the scene; the sadness is that it has been accepted by all parties that this is the way forward. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who, under the previous Government, was at the forefront of pushing for the early assessment of children to make sure that those who had particular needs, whether special needs or needs related to background, had support. So we have agreement, but we do not have the resources that have been agreed for allocation.
The point that I tried to make in my Second Reading speech is that we must test the effectiveness of this—I do not mean a pilot; it is far too important for that. It must have the back-up of our belief that this is the way forward for such a huge proportion of our young people. The balancing, the nurture groups, and all the things that have been experimented with over the years can be brought into play in this area. We must work on that.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I make one or two comments following up what other noble Lords have said. First, on the Graham Allen report, what struck me was that it talked not just about emotional support, which of course is necessary, but about brain development. We must tackle that issue. Children's brain development happens very early, from the day they are born. If we do not get in there early with interventions, the child's brain will suffer as well as its emotional development. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the assessment, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about resources. I believe that the second part of the Graham Allen report will be launched shortly—so the Minister keeps telling me. I wonder whether the Minister has any news on the launch of the second part, which is to do with the resourcing of early years. I hope that he will be able this afternoon to give us some news about that resourcing.
I also want to make a point about stepping back. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has often talked about the need for parenthood education—not just developing children when they are born but stepping back to the generation before and teaching them how to be good parents. That is something that we may pick up on when we talk later about personal, social and health education, or whatever we are calling it. Parenthood education has to be borne in mind when we talk about early intervention for children.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I think we are united on all sides about the importance of the early years. I congratulate the noble Lord on suggesting the designation of the foundation years; that is particularly welcome.
However, I must express considerable concern about subsection (2) of Amendment 1, which puts massive responsibility on local authorities. That is a responsibility for every child born in that the local authority area, including children of parents who are more than competent and motivated to provide all that is necessary for their child, with,
“healthy physical, social, emotional and cognitive readiness to enter school”.
The resources required for a local authority to be able to do that for every child are enormous. Surely those resources should be targeted on children where there is inability—for good or ill reasons—in the family to provide that readiness.
Perhaps it is a matter of wording, but I do not think that we should give responsibility to the local authority for every child born in its area. For every family, every time a baby is born, to have the local authority and its various agencies move to intervene in the raising of that child is neither feasible nor desirable. Let us concentrate our attention where it is needed and not impose those blanket requirements on a local authority.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It is absolutely fitting and appropriate that the first topic that we are discussing today is support for parents. That is particularly the case given that, in the rest of the Bill, parents are notable only by their absence. Some measures take power and responsibility away from parents. The noble Lord asks which public body has the duty and authority to support parents to ensure that children, especially those from a disadvantaged background, are school-ready, as he said.
The reason that this is so important has just been referred to. Note, for instance, the work of Leon Feinstein: he has shown clearly that a child born with competent potential in terms of both cognitive abilities and development but who grows up in an impoverished environment without enrichment or the stimulation and support from their parents can, before the age of two years, actually fall behind children who are perhaps born with less ability. We get that crossover. That shows how important the years before compulsory schooling are for the development of the synapses, the brain and all the rest of it. They are absolutely critical.
How we support parents is critical in this. While good nursery and early-years provision—we will go on to talk about that—can help to address that imbalance, you cannot sustain those benefits unless you also work with parents to ensure that they understand how children develop and continue in the home what good early education pre-school provision would be doing. In my experience of going round a lot of Sure Start children’s centres, most parents really want both to do this and the support to enable them to do it well. Very few parents do not care about it. Even though parents may not have much understanding or ability, they can be helped to help their children.
At the moment that responsibility to work with parents lies in the mutual co-operation among the children’s services in the children’s trust in each local authority. That is a statutory duty to co-operate. The Sure Start children’s centres in deprived areas have an explicit responsibility to develop services for parents. Many have done groundbreaking work, not only with mothers, which is the normal first port of call, but particularly with fathers as well—that is very important. Local authorities were also given resources and responsibility for developing parental support services and for co-ordinating health and everybody else.
My concern is that all that current apparatus for supporting authorities in developing services is under jeopardy because of both a number of things that have happened and a number of measures in the Bill. In the children’s trust in the Bill, the duty to co-operate by schools from those arrangements is proposed to go. We are all concerned about the future for Sure Start children’s centres, particularly in deprived areas. With the reduction in funding, many local authorities are cutting those services. I do not know what the situation is with local authorities in terms of the parenting support co-ordinators that they were providing resources for. Can the Minister help us today to understand where the duty to support parents will lie following the Government’s measures—those that they have already taken and those that they propose in the Bill? What will be the impact on parenting support of, for example, taking away the duty to co-operate or the reduction in Sure Start children’s centre funding? What commitment do the Government specifically have to support parents and how do they propose to do that? Those are the questions that all noble Lords around the Committee Room today are interested in.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I am not sure that this wagon really needs much more impetus but would like to put in a couple of words. First, on the coat-tails of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham: we both of us looked at prisons—he in much greater and closer detail, I with a much wider scope and rather more briefly. I did three years as Minister for Prisons, among other things. He was Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons. We got a binocular view of children when they go wrong, who we saw in vast numbers. It became very clear to both of us that the causes of this come early in life.
I also taught for a time in a slum clearance comprehensive school where I saw dramatically illustrated the effect of lack of love on children in deprived families—not only in deprived ones, as it happens in many families. It is evident that children who do not get enough love early in life do not grow into the people that they ought to be. There can be remedies in a sort of pauline way, but it is a handicap for the rest of most people’s lives. These earliest years are the most crucial.
We then come to mechanisms, which I think are dealt with later. We also come to resources. As many of your Lordships have pointed out, this is going to be expensive as well as complicated. I would like to strengthen the arm of my noble friend Lord Hill for the debates that lie ahead of him—not in Parliament but in Whitehall—and warn him that unless Ministers, and more particularly Ministers’ advisers, can see absolutely, irrefutably demonstrated a cause and effect between a policy and its saving, they are not going to rally to anything which is not already popularly accepted. I found this, first, in running the intermediate treatment fund and then when funding a charity to keep children out of crime. It was at the moment they asked “How much is this going to save?” that we had to say, “It is subjectively perfectly obvious: where this is being done the crime rate has gone down; where it has not been done it has gone up”—and we had many instances of that. However, they can always say, “Ah, but there are other factors that you have not taken into account”.
My noble friend Lord Hill will also meet a local difficulty on which I have great sympathy with him. I can best illustrate it from my experience at the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, when I was responsible for the welfare of children other than their health, which meant children in local authority secure accommodation. At that time I had seen a wonderful scheme called the Norfolk Trail, where children who were deprived of love were taken into an organisation and given the close, loving supervision of one adult between four, I think it was, throughout a period of several days and several months. The local justices’ juvenile Bench decided that it would divide into two groups the children who came before them and were convicted of custodial offences: like for like, half would go on to the Norfolk Trail and half would go into custody. At the end of the first year it was evident that there was a considerable reduction in reoffending among those who went into the trail as opposed to those who went into custody.
I took this policy to the Department of Health and said that we should pursue it, and I was asked about the savings. It was pointed out that by the time the savings matured these children would have grown to an age when they were the responsibility of the Home Office and therefore there was no political incentive within the machine for implementing the policy there.
It must be got across to my noble friend and others in government that we must look at this issue entirely holistically and philanthropically, not only in the ordinary world but also in the political world, because the savings in getting it right will be enormous. However, they will also come long after the next two general elections. One has to be disinterested about that because, if we have the welfare of children and this country at heart, the early years have to be put at the top of the agenda.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I warm to the spirit of both amendments—who would not? That being said, I want to distinguish between the two. The first amendment is intended to plug a gap that may well develop because of the degree of independence that many more schools will have and the significant risk, therefore, of regarding themselves as islands and apart from other schools and whatever else there is in the community. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to look for where the responsibility will lie for providing what a school reasonably cannot always do, especially before the children come to the school. There is a real issue about where the responsibility lies for this very important prolegomenon to school education.
The second amendment contains three proposed paragraphs about which I have reservations. The amendment relates to what should be inspected and I ask whether we know what we want the Ofsted inspectors to look for in schools. In schools with good middle-class backgrounds, you can do all this; you can see it happening and write your report, and it will be to the benefit of the school. However, in a number of primary schools that I have some association with, which are in very deprived areas of this city and beyond, the head teachers and teachers tell me regularly that one of the main problems is working with parents. That is an intention, a motive and something that they see the need for, but actually doing it is another matter.
For example, one head teacher told me that he had tried everything to get the parents inside the school doors. Inadvertently he succeeded by changing the school diet for a healthy diet at lunchtime; he told the children not to bring Kit-Kats, fizzy pop and so on, and the parents came down to the school in droves to protest. That was the only occasion when he got a significant turnout of parents. In that sort of context, the process of inspection would produce short statements against a series of regulated intentions that were not favourable to the school and would not be helpful to it. If we are going to inspect, we need to do so in a different way.
My primary support therefore is for the first amendment, which tackles the question of where the responsibility lies for taking the school outside its borders.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support the principles behind my noble friend’s amendments. I pay tribute to the Government for the carefully thought through process that they have begun and for beginning the various reviews—the Tickell review, the Frank Field review, the Graham Allen review—that are proving so helpful now. They highlight and raise the status of early intervention. We have talked for many years, thanks to my noble friend Lord Northbourne, about the importance of early intervention, yet people working in that area are still often the poorest-paid and lowest-status people in this country. The work of my noble friend and others is, I hope, beginning to raise that status. We will hear more about that later in this debate.
I wanted to ask the Minister about the workforce around the child more generally. The previous Government developed a children’s workforce strategy, which was led by Maggie Atkinson, now the Children’s Commissioner. My concern is that for children in their early years, unless one thinks through very carefully what support they and their parents need, one may miss out important branches. For instance, the previous Government were very keen to support children in their early development; they introduced Sure Start and various other measures such as the family nurse partnerships, which this Government are carrying on. These are very welcome, but I spoke with a health visitor in north London who told me, “We haven’t been able to fund our general service for health visitors because the money has been going into family nurse partnerships and Sure Start centres”. So, if one does not have a strategy, the danger is that one can have some very good ideas but Peter ends up robbing Paul. One needs to have some sort of overarching strategy, particularly with regard to the workforce because that takes time to train and develop. I would appreciate a note from the Minister at some point on the Government’s strategy for the children’s workforce.
On the matter of parents and parental support, I am reminded of a visit to a primary school in a deprived area of Windsor, more in the Slough area, that had a large number of children from Traveller families, many of whose parents could not read. The head teacher asked the parents to make a little mark to show that their child had spent half an hour at home doing their homework; the parents did not have to read or help the child, but they ensured that the child sat down and did some work. It is absolutely right that we do all that we can to enable schools to work with parents. Probably the most important thing in my education was the fact that my father sat down and read stories to me, my brother and sister sitting together. That is crucial.
I wonder whether inspection is the best way through. I welcome the push that the Government are making to develop the teaching workforce. The head teacher at Lent Rise, whom I mentioned, was so ingenious in what she did. If we recruit the best people into teaching and give them the best possible training and continual professional development, perhaps they will come up with methods of ensuring that they work with parents—as difficult as that often is.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for more than a moment. I will speak in support of the first part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Over the years, we have received report after report—mention has been made of the latest reports by Clare Tickell, Graham Allen and Frank Field—about the importance of early years. Mention has been made of the development of the child's brain. While all the reports are welcome, our record of putting in place the wherewithal to implement the lessons from these reports has not always been good.
The previous Government deserve great credit for the Sure Start scheme. I hope that the Minister will say something encouraging about the continuation of schemes of that kind. The great thing about those schemes is that they are without stigma. Local authorities organised a variety of ways of helping young families. Some of those arrangements were very stigmatised because they were only for children from problem families. Sure Start broke the mould and encouraged all parents to develop their parental skills, learn the benefits of education through play and recognise the importance of child development. I hope that in the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the Minister will say something encouraging about where the Government hope to go in making a practical response to the importance of a child’s early years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, it is fitting that the first amendment to the Bill relates to the first years of a child's life—and it is doubly fitting that it should be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has done so much to champion the importance of early years and the role of parents and families. I think that he will be very pleased with the support that he has had for his basic contention from all sides of the Committee. I will do my best to assure him that the Government share his view that the years from birth to starting school are key to a child's life chances.
The term “foundation years” that he uses in his amendment is used by both Graham Allen and Frank Field, and we all recognise the importance of getting children ready for school and ready to learn. So far as concerns the amendment, we do not think it necessary to designate the period afresh in primary legislation because the phrase “early years foundation stage”, established by the Childcare Act 2006, has gained considerable currency in recognition among parents, teachers and other professionals, and we think that we should stick with that.
What would be helpful to parents and to professionals is, I am afraid, another document—this one setting out the entitlement that children and their parents should expect at this crucial stage of development. I say to all noble Lords who raised the point that we will publish such a document in a foundation years statement in the summer. It will build on the Tickell, Allen and Field reviews that a number of noble Lords mentioned. It will set out a clearer strategy, including for workforce development, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, requested. I hope that it will provide and bring together a framework and sense of direction that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will welcome. On the question about the second report from Graham Allen, the timing of that is a matter for Mr Allen.
I turn to the second part of the first amendment. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, Section 1 of the Childcare Act 2006 already sets out the general duties on local authorities in respect of children in the early years. Local authorities have to “improve the well-being” of all young children in their area and reduce the inequalities between them in relation to,
“physical and mental health … emotional well-being … protection from harm and neglect … education, training and recreation”.
The statutory early-years foundation stage framework sets out the standards of learning, development and care that childcare providers have to make available to all young children in their setting. That framework covers the areas that the noble Lord has identified in his amendment. The Tickell review of the framework has also made some helpful recommendations about how we can improve on its delivery, focusing on the key learning to get children ready for school. The Government have welcomed those recommendations and will publish our full response to them and consult on changes to that soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will know that health visitors conduct checks on two to two and a half year-olds, and that we are recruiting over 4,000 extra health visitors by 2015.
It is right for individual providers to support children and their parents through the early-years foundation stage framework rather than local authorities themselves being required to work with individual children and their parents. The existing duties on local authorities, supported by statutory guidance and including duties to support and develop the early-years workforce, are about right. However, it is not just early-years education that affects children’s outcomes. We know that the role of parents and what they do with their children at home in the earliest years is one of the biggest influences on a child’s development; a number of noble Lords have made that point. That is partly why the early-years foundation stage specifies that early-years practitioners must engage with parents and report to them on the child’s progress and achievements. We know from evidence that early-years practitioners find that emphasis in the early-years foundation stage useful for building partnerships with parents and other carers.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has also tabled an amendment to Clause 40 to raise the important issue of inspection. We will obviously come back to Clause 40 later to debate—I confidently predict—the point around preparation for parenthood and adult life as part of the discussion that we will have on PSHE, so I will keep my remarks on that amendment relatively brief. Noble Lords will know that we are trying in the Bill to sharpen the focus of inspection, to give inspectors the opportunity to look more at some of the core issues—particularly those around the quality of teaching and learning—and to make sure that parents get more meaningful reports. Clause 40 sets out high-level reporting areas and requirements, but beneath that will sit the new inspection framework that Ofsted is developing. Much of the detail will be set out in that document and the guidance to inspectors.
I shall pick up a couple of specific points relating to the noble Lord’s concerns about parental engagement with inspection. Parents will continue to be involved in the inspection process. I assure him that how well the school engages with parents and carers will be an important consideration within the new inspection framework. That will inform the key judgment on the quality of leadership and will take account of engagement with parents on all aspects, including academic and social development. Ofsted is exploring options for gathering views of parents on a continuing basis. I therefore hope that noble Lords will agree that parents have not been left out of our considerations for the new inspection arrangements, which link to the important points made on inspection by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I know that a number of noble Lords have great interest in the detail of how the new Ofsted arrangements will work. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, has kindly offered to organise an open meeting for Peers with the new acting chief inspector to answer any questions, which I believe will take place next week. I hope that noble Lords will be able to go along to it.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the importance of supporting parents’ roles in the educational development of their children. We will be pulling together our responses to these important reviews later in the summer in work led by my honourable friend Sarah Teather. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned, there is the possibility of further action in future legislation. Through funding for the early intervention grant, increased support for health visitors and doubling the size of the family nurse partnership, we are showing some important financial support in this area.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord of the importance that the Government attach to this area. Given the existing statutory framework and the definitions we already have in place, I hope that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, may I remind the Minister that it takes two to tango? Some parents will co-operate—indeed, they may have to be deterred from co-operating—but there are others who, sadly, show no inclination to do so. I hope that in his remarks in subsequent sittings, he will address the question of what, if anything, legislation can do in that area. The co-operation of parents is absent in many cases, difficult to achieve but fundamentally important.
Lord Elton
I urge my noble friend to bear it in mind, and particularly to have it borne in the minds of those drafting the document he promises for telling parents what they can expect in the way of help, that the parents of children we are most urgently wanting to help will have a reading age not much above that of the children. The document must be drafted with an expert eye on the comprehension of the reader.
The Earl of Listowel
Before my noble friend replies, I thank him for the news of the statement this summer and I join the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in asking whether the draftsmen might keep a couple of points in mind. One is the importance of midwives, whom I omitted to mention. In my experience, if a midwife can make a relationship with a mother, particularly a vulnerable mother, there can be many beneficial results in terms of breastfeeding, for example. I am afraid that midwives often feel almost as if they are working in a factory; there is a very mixed experience across this country of what it is to be a midwife.
There is also concern about family support workers because of the cuts in funding to local authorities. I understand that local authorities are living up to their requirements with regard to child protection; they are focusing on the area that is most critical, but there is concern that funding for family support workers is being cut back. It would be good to have information on how that role is being impacted by the recession. Family support workers provide a crucial service for the most vulnerable families, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. I am sure that this will be a part of the statement in any case.
Lord Ramsbotham
May I say how much I welcome the announcement of the foundation years document? Will we have a chance to discuss it in the context of this Bill?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think that the Committee stage will have finished by then, but I am sure we can find another opportunity to discuss it.
Lord Northbourne
I will not take more than a moment. The Minister said that the Childcare Act 2006 had all the answers, but it does not mention school readiness anywhere. That is what my amendments are about. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the question of inspections. I agree that inspections can be traumatic, but if you do not have them, how do you know which schools are and which are not, which local authorities are and which are not, which healthcare services are and which are not? That is a question which needs to be answered.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for her intervention on the burden that the Bill would place on local authorities. I have to admit that I was tempted to put down a rather wicked amendment that would have suggested that the whole of the foundation years should become the responsibility of the Department for Education—which will benefit whether it is done well or not. On that note, I will of course read what the Minister has said and see whether I want to come back to it.
Forgive me, I have not been well and have a wife waiting outside to take me home. I promise to read Hansard and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In ensuring free of charge early years provision, the local authority has a duty to maximise take-up by groups defined in regulations as disadvantaged.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, after the debate that we have just had and the unanimous support across all sides of the House from your Lordships for good quality early education, I am sure that the principle of entitlement that exists for three and four year-olds and the proposal that the pilots for disadvantaged two year-olds—which is what this clause actually achieves—are welcome. I certainly have no argument with that.
These amendments seek to do three things. First, since the entitlement for three and four year-olds was first established, we have now reached a benchmark, as noble Lords know, of funding for 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. We believe, in the interests of both parents and certainty, that that level of provision can now be consolidated in primary legislation for the avoidance of any doubt that it could disappear. We also believe that any future changes to the level of provision or to the children who can access it should only be in the direction of improving the provision—unless a future Government want to come back to the House and change primary legislation. Amendments 4 and 5 simply seek to do that.
Amendment 5 would enshrine in the Bill the current level of universal provision—the entitlement of three and four year-olds to 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year—so that parents who access it and all the professionals working in that sector know that the Government are absolutely committed to it. This issue was of course raised in the other House. Ministers there gave assurances that they do not intend to reduce that commitment. I accept their word absolutely but they cannot speak for any future Ministers or Governments. In enshrining in primary legislation now this level of provision as the benchmark, we make that commitment clear for parents. If any future Government wanted to reduce that level of provision for three and four year-olds, they would have to come back to the full scrutiny of changing primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will accept that and that other noble Lords can see the logic of what we are trying to do.
Amendment 4 will ensure that any changes in scope to the regulation-making power that the Government have put into the Bill—which will enable provision for two year-olds to be built on—will be progressive. In other words, they will be built on as resources allow. If any changes are proposed that would reduce them, again the Government would have to come back and do so by means of primary legislation.
Those two amendments are important for parents in terms of certainty. They put in statute the direction that the Government have said that they want to proceed in—which I very much welcome. They also start to build an appreciation of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords used in the previous debate that the foundation years are equally important. Parents can now expect at least that free entitlement for three and four year-olds, together with anything further for two year-olds, as part of the process of free education. It is not compulsory before the age of five but it is an opportunity—a free entitlement for youngsters below that age.
Amendments 2 and 7 seek to maximise the impact that this excellent entitlement will have on such youngsters. Amendment 2 seeks to impose a duty on local authorities to maximise the take-up of the free entitlement among groups of disadvantaged children. Noble Lords will know that the take-up of the free entitlement by four year-old children is pretty high—it is well above 90 per cent—but, more importantly, there is a great variance in the take-up among three year-olds in different parts of the country and in different neighbourhoods. Of course, unfortunately the lowest take-up is in the most disadvantaged areas. This is for all the reasons that we have been talking about—the difficulty of engaging with parents and parents being suspicious of what they regard as statutory services, and so on.
In order to improve the impact, particularly on disadvantaged groups—this will have to be done for two year-olds anyway; at the moment, it is a targeted provision—local authorities should be under a duty to maximise the take-up among disadvantaged children whether they are three, four or two years old. In so doing they should make sure that they reach the children who most need it and will benefit most from it but who, at the moment, are least likely to access the entitlement.
Amendment 7 relates to the second big issue that maximises the impact of good early-years education—the quality of provision and the flexibility with which parents can use it. If they are being helped into employment, they should be able to use it in ways that fit in with that employment. However, quality is the main issue. I am concerned that the Government have recently relaxed some of the standards on quality—for instance, the qualifications required by people working in Sure Start children’s centres and the dropping of the qualified teacher status, early-years professional status, and so on.
Amendment 10 seeks to reinstate both the qualification requirements and the ring-fencing of funding for Sure Start children’s centres. This is particularly important and will send a strong signal to local authorities and their partners—in health and elsewhere—that the Sure Start children’s centres will be the bulkhead of the progress that we need to make in early years. It is where some of the best practice has been generated, for example, on multi-agency working, targeting the most disadvantaged children, engaging parents and making a real difference. At the moment the relaxation of the qualification requirement is confusing for providers and the lack of ring-fencing on funding has meant that everything is lumped together in the early intervention grant.
As I have said, we are seeing a great threat to the level of Sure Start provision. This provision is particularly important for the pilots and the development of the offer for disadvantaged two year-olds. Such children require a considerable outreach effort and an engagement with parents—this was funded by the previous Government—because it is not only a provision for getting children into good early-years education but for persuading parents to go along with that. It allows work with parents to continue to enable them to learn good practice in parenting—for example, the importance of reading and singing and all the other things that we have said and understand are important for young children.
Does the funding the Government have set out for the build-up of the entitlement for disadvantaged two year-olds include the cost of the work that was being done through the children’s centres where the early pilots on the two year-old extension was taking place? Does it include the elements of outreach work, parenting support and the communication specialists who are frequently required for these disadvantaged young children? The parents of these children are often teenage single parents who use substances and have all the attendant problems themselves. It is very important that resources are available for working directly with the parents as well as for providing two year-olds with a good quality early education. I beg to move.
Lord Laming
My Lords, there is only one thing that I want to ask the Minister about this. Everything in the Bill is to be welcomed and I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has been saying to the Committee. I just wonder what mechanisms the Government are going to employ to ensure that the benefits are going to be felt by those children who come from homes where the parents are least motivated to take advantage of what is in the Bill. In other words, I do not think that we need to worry too much about the highly motivated parents but we need to worry a great deal about the children of the families where the parents have not seen the value of taking advantage of what is in the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 10 in this group, on Sure Start children’s centres. I share the view of all your Lordships, I am sure, about the importance of quality of staff, especially when working with vulnerable children in these important early formative years. I look forward to hearing reassurances from the Minister on that point.
I have a wider point about the qualifications of those working with children in the early years, especially if we are encouraging parents to give their two year-old children to these settings. These are very young children at a formative stage of their development. Visiting a children’s centre recently, I was introduced to two young women who had just started. They may well make great Sure Start workers but one of things that the manager had to do, and said that she would be doing, was teach them to speak English. Their accents were so strong—they had not had the best of educations; I think that that is what I am trying to communicate. Because of the low status of the work, women who are attracted to it—and it normally is women—quite often may have had bad life experiences themselves. They need to be carefully chosen and very well supported in these settings
I am led to think about recent reports about care of the elderly, residential care and the care of adults with learning difficulties in residential care. I may be wrong, but we seem to have a problem in this country with giving priority to the workforce working with vulnerable adults or children. I do not know how we manage to do it, but somehow we seem to miss the point that this is the most important job in this society, and we need to attract the best people and reward them correctly. In those cases that related to residential care for the elderly and adult learning, we saw some of the difficulties of relying on inspections, which we rely on heavily to ensure quality. Inspection has an important role, but I imagine that most of your Lordships would agree that recruiting and retaining the best people is the best way to ensure that people are well cared for.
I was speaking on Friday to the manager of a residential care setting for young people. She said that in her experience there was such pressure to cut costs that she was always having to pay people less and reduce the amount of training that she could give them. I understand that the market of early-years provision and nurseries is predominantly a private one. While there are many wonderful private foster care providers, for instance—run perhaps by people who are disillusioned from working in social services by the way that their discretion was fettered and have set up their own company to give a better service for vulnerable young people—it is also the case that some of these companies come to be run by people who have a very close focus on what profit can be made and do not give enough regard to the practitioners and their advice on what direction should be taken.
I am going some way from the amendments, for which I apologise, but this whole issue of quality and the qualifications of the workforce is, to my mind, vital, as is stability. If one has a workforce whose members are not well paid and are not properly trained, it is hardly surprising that there is a high turnover of staff. The key principle that we all recognise young children need, especially very young children, is stability and stable relationships with carers.
My noble friend Lady Massey talked about the impact on children’s emotional development and brain development of not having a stable relationship in their early years. Evidence from research shows that where staff are poorly paid and poorly funded, and there is a high turnover of these young women, the children do not get the opportunity to build a relationship with their carers. In each nursery there is supposed to be a key person for each child. That key person is supposed to carry forward a relationship with that child when the parent is absent and keep that child in mind, perhaps change the child’s nappies and give the child food; that is, pay particular attention to that child. However, given that workers work shifts it is difficult to make that emotional investment in young children; if they do, staff feel distraught when the children leave.
A foster carer who works with young babies recently told me that she cares for young babies who are addicted to heroin, sees them through the first year or so and then has to pass them on to somebody else. It breaks her heart each time she does it. We are asking workers in these settings to act as parents for several hours a day for a long period and they become attached to these children. Unless one supports them in that, they will avoid that attachment. They will sit down with their friends and talk about what they did on a Saturday night, but they will not be thinking about these children.
This is such an important issue that we should insist on entry thresholds that are as high as possible and support the staff working in early years, especially as we are now encouraging parents to put their two year-olds into such care. We should set good clear minimum qualification standards, particularly in Sure Start centres.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I want to pick up the point about staff qualifications. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the EPI report, which was a very rigorous piece of research on the quality of early-years education and its effect on young children. It clearly found that high-quality early-years provision can have enormous personal and financial benefits all the way through the lives of the young people concerned but that very poor-quality early-years provision does not produce any benefit at all and may even have the opposite effect. I am very keen on evidence-based policy-making. That is why we on these Benches have always promoted high-quality early-years provision. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept any of the amendments that we are discussing, I hope that he will be kind enough to say something about what the Government propose to do to increase the quality of this provision, particularly as regards the qualifications of staff working in early years.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, I note—whether with glee or cynicism, I am not sure—her desire to include this provision in the Bill. I have been in this House for 25 years and if I had a tenner for every time this matter had come up I would be a very rich man indeed. I am sure that the Minister has the word “Resist” on a piece of paper in front of him, and that that was done independently of party considerations because we know that all Governments are perfect and never get anything wrong when drafting legislation. However, I still naively believe that one can improve legislation in your Lordships' House so I totally support my noble friend’s desire to include this provision in the Bill.
Leaving my cynicism mode and getting on to more substantive matters, I note that the word “disadvantaged” appears here. We are not going to remove disadvantage from our society via an education Bill, but I firmly believe—that is why I became an adviser and a politician—that one can improve the society in which one lives via one’s contribution to your Lordships' House. That does not mean that all the disadvantaged will suddenly cease to be disadvantaged, but if we go down this path some of them will cease to be so, and that will be highly productive, both socially and economically, because to the extent that we can improve some young people's lives, they will become the parents of the future and will in turn improve their children's lives. One should not assume that this matter is just about using up resources; we should take a longer view and realise that we will be creating resources by going down this path.
It is broadly my view that if we can achieve anything, it will be a step forward. Although we can nitpick—I am an expert at that if I am in the mood—that is not what we are here for. We are here to make a contribution so that the Bill can be made better and, more importantly, so that the world in which we live can be made a little better.
Lord True
My Lords, I intervene not to spoil the party but to declare an interest as leader of a local authority, so I have an interest in the way in which the amendments are framed. As I declared at Second Reading, my wife is principal of a Montessori nursery school. I agree with almost everything that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. I do not think that he intended to imply—and I certainly could not accept—that private provision is necessarily more to be worried about than some of the bad public provision that I have had occasion to see during my long interest in nursery education.
I apologise to the Committee: I want to take a great interest in the Bill but am involved also in the Localism Bill. If I disappear suddenly after debating the amendments that I am involved with, it will be not because I am uninterested in the clauses that we are discussing but simply because I have tabled amendments to another Bill.
I agree with a lot that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the amendments. We cannot save the world but one should start every day as optimistic as one can be, provided that one does not set oneself unrealistic goals. I am not sure that I would accept the wording that local authorities have an absolute duty, which seems to carry with it a range of potentially legalistic issues. However, of course a local authority will recognise, as we all do, the importance of the early years—that must be common ground here—and will wish to maximise as far as possible the take-up of groups that are defined as disadvantaged. I am sure that most local authorities will voluntarily accept that. The noble Earl referred to Traveller people, who are one example.
I cannot support some amendments so warmly. My problem with Amendments 4 and 5—we will discuss this matter when we come to a later group—is that they are potentially too rigid. Good law should be realistic. As regards so-called pre-entitlement, neither this nor the previous Government willed the resources to make it a reality, and certain consequences have followed which we will discuss later. I see in the financial memorandum to the Bill that the Government are setting aside £308 million to extend provision to the two year-old age group, which all noble Lords in the Committee will welcome. However, the reality is that the country is plunging into debt at a rate of £16 million per hour and we should not set out in legislation things that we are incapable of delivering. That would come outside the definition of optimism that I put earlier.
I agree with what the noble Baroness has set down in Amendment 7. Local authorities will wish to secure high standards and—I have underlined this—flexible organisation. Some other amendments that the noble Baroness tabled seem to be rather inflexible in their constraints: no Government shall ever again change anything that is set down in law. Surely the reality of good early-years provision and good educational provision generally should be flexibility, diversity and a range of provision. So I found a slight conflict in those amendments, but I could welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment if she looked equally kindly on my Amendment 8 in the next group.
The aspiration is welcome but realities on the ground, the speed at which we can go and, frankly, the issues that could potentially be raised by the rigidity of some of the amendments mean that I could not support them in the main.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his astonishing mindreading powers. We have been here only an hour and already he knows my innermost thoughts and what my briefing is likely to tell me.
It is clear that all sides of the House recognise the crucial importance of investing in the early years. We all know what difference high-quality early education can make in the long term to social mobility and the life chances of all children. That is why I was struck at Second Reading by the widespread welcome that there was for Clause 1, a clause that builds on the legacy that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, established through the Childcare Act 2006. Because of her experience in this area I listened to what she had to say with a great deal of care. I was also pleased to see that the JCHR welcomed the extension of free early-years provision as a human-rights-enhancing provision.
I think that noble Lords accept the Government’s commitment to improving opportunity for all our children but particularly for the most disadvantaged. I argue that we have shown that in a number of ways—in difficult economic circumstances, as my noble friend Lord True has reminded us. My right honourable friend the Chancellor managed to protect funding for the three and four year-old entitlement and provide additional funding for disadvantaged two year-olds. That additional funding amounts to £64 million in 2011-12, £223 million in 2012-13, £331 million in 2013-14 and £380 million in 2014-15.
In response to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, we have put some additional funding in for 2011-12 through an early intervention grant to 15 local authorities to help prepare for the new entitlement for two year-olds and for helping us to test various approaches to the expansion of places in readiness, with the entitlement to be rolled out in 2013.
We have also seen the introduction of the pupil premium, building up to £2.5 billion by 2014-15. I should also say that the Department for Education—with the Department of Health, as I have mentioned—will be publishing a policy statement in the summer that will set out our joint vision. Part of that will look at the important issue of outreach and family support through Sure Start children’s centres.
Amendment 2 would place a duty on local authorities to maximise the take-up of the free entitlement to early-years education by groups defined in regulations as disadvantaged. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, alluded to, there is already a high level of take-up of the current free early-years provision. The most recent statistics, released last week, show that last January 95 per cent of all three and four year-olds were benefiting from some free early-years education—I think that it is 97 per cent for four year-olds and 93 per cent for three year-olds. That is nearly 1.25 million children, a high figure. However, I agree that we must not forget the small minority of children who are still not receiving that entitlement, particularly since, almost by definition, they are the ones likely to be the most disadvantaged.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Does the Minister agree with my point that underneath that figure of 93 per cent for three year-olds there is considerable variance, and that the lowest take-up is in the areas of the greatest disadvantage?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I suspect that that is true. I do not know the precise figures, but that sounds as though it could be true, which is why it is extremely important that we do all we can to make every effort to reach out to those families and to encourage them to take advantage of that entitlement. I will come to that.
We know that children who achieve a good level of development at age five go on to do much better at school. I do not need to rehearse the argument why that is important. There is wide acceptance that extending that entitlement to disadvantaged two year-olds and engaging their parents earlier is a key part of our strategy for taking up entitlement at the age of three and four. If we can do better at the age of two, that will help, in part, to address the noble Baroness’s point about take-up at three.
With that same goal in mind, we are committed to retaining a network of Sure Start children's centres, but with a greater focus on identifying and supporting the most disadvantaged. I completely accept that children’s centre outreach workers play a critical part in reaching the most vulnerable families and are well placed to make them aware of all the support available. As was mentioned in our earlier debate, we have invested funds to create another 4,200 health visitors. I hope that that will also help to spread the message.
We are taking a range of measures to help disadvantaged young children, with the goal of increasing the take-up of free early education and their readiness when they start at school. On the additional duty that the amendment proposes, I believe that the existing legislative framework provides for what the noble Baroness seeks. Section 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 already requires local authorities to take steps to,
“identify parents or prospective parents in the authority's area who would otherwise be unlikely to take advantage of early childhood services that may be of benefit to them and their young children, and … to encourage those parents or prospective parents to take advantage of those services”.
Existing legislation places duties on local authorities to that end.
Amendment 4 is intended to ensure that the existing offer of free early education for three and four year-olds and the new offer for disadvantaged two year-olds continue at least at their current level. The amendment would make the current entitlement the baseline, which is an aim that I understand. We decided to implement the extension of the number of hours per week from 12.5 to 15 hours from September 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, was kind enough to recognise, we have made clear our commitment to continue to fund the enhanced three and four year-old offer and to build to the new two year-old offer during the rest of the spending review period until 2015. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government have given absolutely explicit assurances about those priorities.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve by her amendment, but it could restrict our aspirations, or those of a future Government, to improve the entitlement for parents by allowing it to be taken in more flexible ways. I know that that would not be her intention. As drafted, it is possible that it could prevent future regulations giving entitlement to fewer hours in one year and a greater number of hours in another year, if that suited the family circumstances.
I now come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that we should try to avoid that degree of prescription in the Bill. The Childcare Act 2006 provided for the entitlement for three and four year-olds—both the amounts and their ages—to be set out in regulations. That has worked very well. The original regulations, which I think were signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, came into force in 2008. I argue that now, as then, we should continue to set out the principles in primary legislation and details in regulations.
Amendment 5 would require that regulations made under new Section 7 set out that all children are eligible for free provision from the start of the term following their third birthday. That position is set out in the current regulations.
I will make it as clear as I can that the Government have no intention of removing free provision for every three and four year-old. That commitment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, was made during the passage of the Bill in another place, and I am happy to confirm it today. I am also glad on behalf of the Government to have the chance to build on the current free offer of entitlement by extending it to the most disadvantaged two year-olds. Current legislation would not allow us to target that provision; that is why we need Clause 1.
Amendment 7 deals with the important issue of the quality and flexibility of the early-education settings that offer the free entitlement. I hope that I will be able to assure noble Lords that we take seriously the issue of quality in the early years. Clause 1 provides that, in discharging their duties, local authorities must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. That mirrors existing legislation under which local authorities must have regard to the code of practice on delivery of free early-years provision. The current code was published in September 2010 and includes sections on flexibility and quality.
We plan to consult in the autumn on revisions to the code of practice on free entitlement, including on provision for disadvantaged two year-olds. The consultation will make proposals and invite views on the issues both of flexibility and quality. We want to hear the sector's views on what we can do to ensure that children can access the free entitlement in a high-quality setting and in increasingly flexible ways that will work for parents and providers. Therefore, it is right that matters such as this are included in the code of practice, where they can be set out more fully and can allow for departure from guidance where local or individual circumstances mean that there is good reason for this, rather than in legislation. That approach has served us well to date.
Local authorities are funded through the early intervention grant to provide, among other things, advice and support to early-years providers to help them to improve their quality. The Department for Education is also grant-funding a range of voluntary sector organisations, including the National Childminding Association, the National Day Nurseries Association, the Pre-school Learning Alliance and others, to provide support to local authorities and providers with the aim of improving quality.
In response to the question of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, I say that we are committed to a high-quality early-years workforce. The Children's Workforce Development Council will continue to deliver the early-years professional status and the new leaders in early-years programmes. We are also considering recommendations made in Dame Clare Tickell’s review and have set up the group chaired jointly by Bernadette Duffy, who is head of Thomas Coram Children's Centre, and Jane Haywood, chief executive of the CWDC. The group will take forward recommendations, including those about improving quality in the workforce.
Amendment 10 concerns children’s centres: their sufficiency to meet local needs and the qualifications of staff working in them. There is broad agreement on the importance of Sure Start children's centres as a way of providing parents of young children with access to services that include family support and healthcare, early-years education, childcare and advice on training and employment. These are the main way in which local authorities bring together these services to improve results for young children and their families. We know that overall there have been improvements in early-years foundation stage outcomes and that children's centres form an important part of that landscape.
Section 5A(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 requires local authorities to ensure sufficient children's centres to meet local need so far as is reasonably practicable. This relates to the points made by my noble friend Lord True. Local authorities must be able to determine local priorities in the context of their many responsibilities and available resources. As the previous Government recognised when they proposed this provision in 2009, “so far as is reasonably practicable” should be included in the wording because local authorities need to be given flexibility. In any financial climate there are always constraints on the resources of those responsible for commissioning services and there are always competing priorities. It was got right back in 2009 and that is where one should rest.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Baroness replies, can I pick up two or three points in what the Minister said? To begin, I again warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to recruit more health visitors. That just seems so vital and may well answer some of the noble Baroness’s concerns.
I mentioned recently a visit to Walthamstow where a health visitor saw a mother with a young infant. She tried to persuade the mother to go to the local children’s centre but only had one bite at the cherry to do so. She had a statutory responsibility to see families something like five times before the age of five. She only had a short period—some 15 minutes or so—to spend with this mother. There was no father; he was absent. The mother’s family was in Africa. The only people she knew in the area were local church people who came and helped her. She was otherwise completely isolated. If we reinforce health visiting and strengthen family/nurse partnerships, people like that mother might be encouraged to use children’s centres and engage. We might reach out to more vulnerable families. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in that area.
I may be wrong about my concern with regard to private providers; I reiterate that there are many outstanding private providers in many areas. However, when we discussed the Childcare Act, some of the evidence appeared to indicate a higher staff turnover among some of the private providers. Can the Minister provide information about staff turnover in early-years nursery provision as that seems to me the crucial piece of data? If we can see how private providers compare with local authority providers and voluntary providers, we can get a sense of their performance. Although that information obviously needs to be put in context, I think we all agree that the most important thing for any infant is a stable relationship with their carer. A high turnover of staff in a setting certainly gives cause for concern. I have had the privilege of speaking with a manager of a Montessori centre on a number of occasions and have great admiration for that approach. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the other comments that I have made today.
I understand the Government’s concern not to be overly prescriptive and to avoid rigidity as far as possible as regards setting minimum standards. However, the noble Lord spoke about the health service setting certain minimum standards for its practitioners. If we all agree that the early years are the most vital point in a child’s life and that this measure is a very important way of breaking the cycle of disadvantage, perhaps we need to think a bit more about whether, given the current enormous financial pressures on local authorities, we might do more to assist them to make the best decisions for children in these circumstances. I am sure that we will discuss this further.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank the Minister for a very detailed response to these amendments. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on disengaged parents, the importance of qualifications, how that relates very clearly to quality, and how quality is the key factor that makes the biggest difference to children’s experience of a setting. That is all very positive and I am grateful to them for their comments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord True, felt that there was a conflict between the various amendments in the group; perhaps I did not explain them well enough. I did not perceive that conflict, but perhaps when we return to the amendments on Report—I think that we will do so—I can iron that out for him.
I want to comment specifically only on the Minister’s response on Amendment 5, which would enshrine in legislation current provision for three and four year-olds. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for his comments in that regard. Including this provision on the face of the Bill would consolidate the progress that has been made. I am not requesting that it should be included simply to nail it down; the measure would indicate powerfully to parents and to the private and public sector early-years providers that any future Government who rolled back the provision would be subject to the full scrutiny that is involved in changing primary legislation. As the Bill stands, the regulation that enables provision for two year-olds to be extended also allows the entitlement for three and four year-olds to be reduced if a Secretary of State chooses to do so. It is a lost opportunity not to make clear to parents and providers—
Baroness Walmsley
Can the noble Baroness cite any single word that she has heard from this Government which suggests that that might ever be our intention?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
No. I made it very clear that I do not doubt the commitments that have been expressed both here and in the other place. I said in my opening remarks that while these Ministers and this Government can speak for themselves, clearly they cannot speak for any future Government. Therefore, to capture this entitlement for parents and children in legislation would protect it and send a signal to both parents and the private and public sector providers that it will take any future Government something other than the diktat of the Secretary of State through the negative procedure of secondary legislation to remove it, which would be allowed under the Bill as currently drafted.
The Minister said that he felt the current wording of our amendment might be too restrictive and would not allow the Government the enormous flexibility they would need if parents were unable to accept the offer of 15 hours over 38 weeks. However, it should not be beyond our wit to find a formulation which would allow us to put the offer in the Bill and make it subject to any subsequent provisions for increasing flexibility. I should like to talk to the Minister between now and Report to see if we can find a way of achieving the spirit of the amendment in a way that does not restrain any future thoughts on flexibility.
The Earl of Listowel
I omitted to ask the Minister whether he could remind the Committee of the present situation on the requirement for a graduate lead provision in early-years settings. I think the Government have introduced some exceptions; can he remind me of the situation or perhaps drop me a line?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think the absolute requirement that there should be such a provision was removed at the end of last year. However, we expect that there would be at least one early-years professional or a qualified teacher to provide leadership in centres. There would be more local judgment on which people would be appropriate in the setting. However, we will speak further with the noble Earl.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in Committee but we shall return to these amendments on Report.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not share remotely the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who I see leaving. I do not wish to stay him; I merely wish to say that having seen a great deal of legislation coming and going, both in government and Parliament, I expect that “resist” will be on the file for these amendments, too. However, I shall speak to them none the less.
I spoke at Second Reading about the problems faced by many private and voluntary nursery settings as a result of the operation of the free entitlement and the injustice and, to some degree, dishonesty that results from it. I shall not repeat those arguments in Committee.
The reality is that we rely, and will continue to rely, on private and voluntary settings to provide much of the nursery education that people freely choose and that successive Governments have held to be desirable. I wish to see no change in that situation and I hope that that is also the position of the Government. I take as my text a letter written by the Secretary of State, Mr Gove, to a nursery provider when he was an opposition spokesman. He wrote as follows:
“We think it is incredibly important”—
you can almost hear him—
“that parents are given the widest possible choice of childcare. Each family is unique and has unique circumstances; thus they should be able to access childcare that is affordable and flexible to their needs. It is disappointing therefore that the Government”—
he meant the previous Government—
“have not done more to help Private, Voluntary and Independent … nurseries. We believe that at present there is not a level playing field among nursery providers and that the financial pressure on private, voluntary and independent providers is simply not sustainable”.
He called in the letter for the code of practice to be suspended to allow nurseries to charge supplementary fees to parents as a temporary solution. I agree with what the Secretary of State, as he is now, said then about the importance of the private and voluntary sector, but there is still no level playing field. There is still financial pressure on smaller providers and it is disappointing that there is not more recognition of the value and viability of those small, diverse, and, I submit, outstanding settings.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, my name is on these amendments as I very much support their purpose and agree wholeheartedly with the views so well expressed by my noble friend Lord True. In doing so, I declare an interest as a governor of Bolton School, where we have a nursery which I helped to establish and which, luckily, is flourishing. That is a matter of luck because, as my noble friend said, it can vary from authority to authority.
In my Second Reading speech, I welcomed the extension of the free provision to disadvantaged two year-olds but sought reassurance from my noble friend the Minister on whether nursery providers had been consulted regarding their ability to deliver the Government’s ambitions. I asked this because under the previous Government—although I genuinely believe that this was never their intention—good, long established, private, voluntary and independent providers either went out of business or reluctantly shut their doors to free provision. They simply could not reconcile the service that they provided with the changing dynamics brought by free provision. That is a tragedy because parental choice should be central to nursery education. Without the diversity that a strong and resilient private and voluntary sector provides, there is no real choice. These amendments seek to redress the unforeseen consequences of free provision. I hope that they will find favour with my noble friend.
The Earl of Listowel
I support my noble friend Lord True in what he said about allowing providers flexibility in what they charge parents. I had a discussion with a manager of a children’s centre—in fact, she had responsibility for 10 children’s centres across London. She said that we need innovative ways of finding the money to keep these services going in the current recession. In particular, she highlighted that we should encourage parents who can pay to pay, so that parents who cannot can get a service. That seemed to be line with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said. It seems sensible. I will perhaps need to look more carefully at his proposal but hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to what he said.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I will make a few brief remarks on these amendments. First, in terms of Amendment 8 and the principle of having a diverse sector, I have personally always strongly supported that—as did the previous Government. It is in the interests of parents and children for us to maintain that diversity and to try to raise the quality right across all parts of that sector. There is no difficulty there.
My problem with Amendment 6 and Amendment 9 is that they would basically allow individual nurseries to charge top-up fees to parents in one way or another. They would either say, “You can bring your children for the 15 hours but then you have to pay an extra X pounds per hour because that is our charge”, or they would apply a condition that the parent had to take more than 15 hours. There would be a very high charge for the hours over 15 so as to cross-subsidise. As the noble Lord, Lord True, alluded to, there are other kinds of conditions as well, such as parents having to pay for certain facilities or other items. This is just a way of getting extra funding in.
I appreciate some of the problems that nurseries have had. In discussing this, we have to recognise what the impact of allowing it would be. Instead of an entitlement with equal access to all provision for all parents whatever their circumstances, we would have a different two-tier system from that which the noble Lord, Lord True, alluded to. We would have a two-tier system in which parents who could pay the extra fees could go to the nurseries of their choice but other parents with less income would be restricted to going to those nurseries that were not charging a top-up—that did not have to. That is in fundamental contradiction to what this entitlement is trying to achieve.
Having said that, I also investigated this at some length. I have long relationships with some of the private providers and great respect for many of them for the work that they do. We commissioned a report to try and understand why some but not all private nurseries were having this kind of problem. That independent report identified two main factors. One was that not all local authorities were distributing the funding allocation quite fairly, and that some were supporting public sector provision, particularly nursery classes in schools—there is a higher cost there—more than the private sector. We introduced, and I think that the current Government are going to proceed with this, a proposal that each area has to agree a single formula for the allocation of funding so that there is parity across private, voluntary and public sector providers.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this but I think I will. I am reminded of what happened under the previous Government regarding diversity and the range of provision. I declare an interest: at this precise moment I have a granddaughter at a Montessori school who is enjoying it very much and doing very well. I am also president of a settlement in Peckham, one of the areas where, when the previous Government did a great deal of spending on nursery provision, that actually had quite an adverse effect; the local authority wanted to provide everything and put the squeeze on settlements and other providers. Although I take the point that some public money already goes towards diversity, training and expertise among early-years teachers, there is more than one side to this issue. We should think of the range of diversity in serving different needs of people right across the board, all of whom increasingly believe that nursery education is important.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, like a number of noble Lords who have spoken, the Government are sensitive to concerns about the sustainability of private, voluntary and independent provision. I agree with my noble friend Lord True that we want the early-years sector to remain diverse and to continue to provide parents with a range of options for their children. We know that something like 37,000 different providers currently offer free entitlement, and it is good that we have that range and diversity. The PVI sector plays a significant part in that provision and we want to see that continue.
I understand the points that the noble Lord made; as always, he makes his case forcefully and clearly, but I find myself in the same position. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, set out her concerns about the amendment clearly, and I was interested to hear some of the history of the independent review to which she alluded. The current Government have gone ahead with the early-years single funding formula introduced in April this year. I hope that that will provide greater transparency in how funding for three and four year-olds’ early education is distributed. Greater transparency should help flush out some of these issues.
The noble Baroness recognised that, in the past, there was concern that private providers were not getting a fair crack of the whip compared with maintained sector providers. The single funding formula will help. It will mean that parents and providers should be able to hold local authorities more to account. That formula is based on a common set of principles to ensure that funding is distributed to providers based on clear and common criteria. To increase efficiency and fairness, that funding will be participation-led—it is based on children actually participating—rather than place-led, as it was in the past, whether or not the place was filled. That will also help.
My noble friend's amendments raise the question of whether providers should be able to charge top-up fees. The Government have considered the issue carefully, but we are clear, as were the previous Government, that provision guaranteed by the statutory entitlement must be free to parents. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Children and Families, Sarah Teather, who is responsible for this area, is clear that she does not see top-up fees as an answer to the concerns that some providers have expressed.
Local authorities have a statutory duty under Section 7 of the Childcare Act to secure a prescribed amount of early education free of charge for eligible three and four year-olds. Under Clause 1, we will extend that duty to include disadvantaged two year-olds. There is a danger that allowing providers to charge top-up fees could put the entitlement out of the range of the very people that we most want to help. It would mean that those children who have most to benefit from the early-years help—the most disadvantaged—might be unable to access it. We could not support that.
Amendment 8 would ensure that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 1 addresses the issues of sustainability and viability. As I said, we have the early-years single funding formula. The Government's commitment to the free entitlement does not prevent providers charging fees for hours outside the 15 free early education hours per week. We take the view that additional hours and services outside those for which the provider receives funding from the local authority are a private matter between the provider and the parent, and it is perfectly reasonable for providers to charge for additional hours or optional extras, provided that access to a free place is not conditional on taking those options.
Funding for free entitlement places is one part of a broader package of support to which providers have access. Many receive training and other assistance to support improvements in quality and to secure sufficient childcare provision. We want to work with the sector on issues such as this. I recognise the points that my noble friend raised. As he knows, I always listen to what he says with particular care. We have invited sector representatives, including the Pre-school Learning Alliance, the National Day Nurseries Association, the Daycare Trust and the National Childminders Association, as well as local authorities, to discuss with the department some of the issues that he raised.
At bottom, as my noble friend suspected when he rose to move the amendment, we do not want to run the risk of placing barriers in the way of our most disadvantaged families. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
I am sorry for tiring the Committee, but just to help me understand better how sufficient the funding is that the Government are providing to providers, could the Minister break it down a little further? I think I missed the figure per hour. How much would an early-years worker get funded to work in a setting? If we strip out the training, how much would we expect them to get paid per hour? How does that compare with someone working at a cash desk in Tesco or a teacher? I recognise that this may be down to the discretion of the setting. Maybe this is something that the Minister would be kind enough to write to me about. How much would one expect the person working on the ground to get out of the sum that is being paid to providers?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the short answer is that it will vary considerably from area to area. If I am able to provide any better particulars, I will write to the noble Earl.
Lord True
My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised that I am immensely disappointed by his response. That will be shared by the many people who have been in contact with me since I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am grateful for the support that was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I say to him, regarding the figures that I gave in my speech, that you have only to calculate on the amount of money that is made available to a setting what kind of pay is possible under that if—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and my noble friend maintain—the total money available should be limited to the free entitlement only.
The only crumb of comfort is the suggestion that the fiction that goes on around the edge—that people can go on charging outside the so-called free entitlement —should go on and we should go on nodding and winking at that. That is very disappointing.
We heard a lot of talk about certainty. There is no certainty in this. The free entitlement is not fully resourced—it never has been—and public policy should not be based on something that is essentially not true. As someone who loyally went through the Lobbies to support top-up fees in universities and would do so again, there is a certain irony in being told that top-up fees in a non-maintained sector like nursery schools would bring the United Kingdom to its knees.
I will reflect on what has been said. I cannot promise my noble friend that I will not return to this matter on Report, but in the interim I am grateful to him for elements of his response and to other noble Lords who spoke. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I suggest that this might be a convenient stage to have a 10-minute comfort break. The Room is quite hot and people might want to top up with water as well.
“Early years schools workforce: Montessori schools
The Secretary of State may issue directions to the Child Workforce Development Council in relation to the training and qualifications of teachers of children under 5 in Montessori-accredited nursery schools, and shall in particular ensure that recognition continues to be given to Montessori qualifications and Montessori training courses, where these are provided by practitioners qualified and experienced in that approach, and use recognised Montessori accredited schools for practical training experience.”
Lord True
My Lords, Amendments 11 and 70 relate to nursery education and are intended to apply pari passu to Steiner schools as well as to Montessori schools. If these amendments or something like them are brought back on Report, they will include protections for the specific training required by Steiner schools. I have made that clear to representatives of Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship. They in turn have made it clear to me that they welcome, and feel the need for, the protection offered by amendments such as these.
Both the Montessori and Steiner systems of pedagogy are proven in action, much trusted by the parents who choose them and are undeniably diverse compared with the approaches to learning offered in other settings. Each system has its own set of qualifications; each system polices its own settings; and each system requires that schools purporting to be Montessori or Steiner should reflect their values and approaches.
Most Steiner qualifications are levels 4 or 5. Almost all Montessori qualifications are level 4. They are administered by Montessori colleges, but the Montessori Centre International has an independent board that advises on academic standards and meets three times a year to validate all diplomas. The Montessori Centre International is one of the largest training organisations in the world in its sector. It has around 400 graduates every year. The other three colleges have between them 80 to 100 graduates going into nursery provision. The majority of these graduates are UK or EU-based, although more than 100 come from outside the UK. There are some 800 Montessori schools in the United Kingdom, with approximately 6,000 teachers. Therefore, there is a clear requirement for specific training. I believe that the system works: 88 per cent of Montessori schools have received the highest ratings in Ofsted inspections, which is far higher than the average for early-years settings.
So why change it; why interfere with the training system that is delivering a perfectly satisfactory position; and why do we need the amendments? There is a large quango called the Children's Workforce Development Council, which has a budget in excess of £100 million and a turnover that is larger than all the excellent Montessori schools combined—I definitely prefer the private to the public here. The body advises the noble Lord’s department. For a reason that I am not entirely clear about—although the early-years foundation stage document published in 2008 stated that Ofsted would recognise qualifications recognised in turn by the CWDC—the body set out to create a new, generic qualification at level 3 only, which is intended as the one and only qualification that will be used by everyone working in settings with children.
I understand and share the aspirations of noble Lords who spoke on earlier amendments for high-quality provision and good training. However, the general aspiration should not squeeze out a particular good that is proven. The CWDC says that it has undertaken extensive consultation. This was claimed again at the conference of the National Day Nurseries Association that took place earlier this month. In fact, many at the conference said that they had not been consulted at all, and there was severe criticism of the CWDC, which was reported in the professional press. The Montessori and Steiner organisations tell me that they have not been consulted or approached in a systematic way.
The proposed CWDC qualification is at a lower level than the existing Montessori and Steiner qualifications. It is very basic and focuses as much on policy as on practice—perhaps more. It is considered by many early-years practitioners, certainly in the Montessori and Steiner sectors, as not fit for purpose. However, if Montessori qualifications are not included on a recognised list, Montessori colleges will not be able to train teachers, and Montessori schools will not be able to fulfil their quota need for Montessori-qualified teachers. The same goes for Steiner schools. I submit that that would be absurd. Representatives of Montessori bodies twice sought meetings with the CWDC and asked for exemption from its level 3 course in recognition of Montessori’s unique pedagogy, philosophy and proven excellence. So far, Montessori has had no concrete response except a demand to map its qualifications against the lower-level qualification proposed by CWDC.
Now, I thought that this Government believed in excellence and diversity, which we have all subscribed to today. I thought that they were seeking, as the Bill does, to rein back the influence of quangos and reduce bureaucracy. Will my noble friend consider positively the idea put forward in these amendments to protect both Steiner and Montessori schools and lift from them the fear that is now widespread in those sectors as a result of the unwelcome attentions of the CWDC? In short, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If my noble friend is not ready to incorporate this into the Bill, it need not be there but it needs to be in black and white somewhere. It needs to be done soon and in a form that leaves no room for doubt that these excellent colleges and schools with their excellent qualifications will continue to be part of our education landscape. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to acknowledge the excellent work of Montessori practitioners by putting my name to this amendment. As my noble friend Lord True explained, that goes for Steiner schools too. Montessori schools have provided solid teaching for the nursery and school workforce for almost 100 years. In the early-years foundation stage, as my noble friend told us, 88 per cent of Montessori schools were judged to be outstanding or good—so much so that the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was then called, paid for a booklet saying how good the Montessori method was.
The national framework of accredited qualifications fully recognised the Montessori and Steiner qualifications but, as my noble friend Lord True explained, the Children’s Workforce Development Council appears to want to change this. I am sure that that is not what the Minister would want.
We must ensure that Montessori and Steiner schools, which provide parents with real choice and children with an excellent education, are allowed to flourish. We should celebrate their difference and ensure that a creeping bureaucracy, with its attendant craving to fit everyone in the same box, does not prevail.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support what has been proposed. I put my name to this amendment because I have spoken on a number of occasions with the manager of a Montessori nursery and been impressed with what I have heard from her about her work. Indeed, she is a very impressive individual, having worked in the private business sector before coming into nursery teaching. Recently she was telling me about her experience of continuing professional development, where she had a senior practitioner observe her in the course of a whole day’s teaching, taking careful notes of what she and the children were doing and of the interactions between the teacher and the children. She learnt from this. The senior practitioner said, “Very good, but you do tend to lift your finger a bit too much”. She said, “Yes, this is what my mother did to me. Aha; I am bringing it into the nursery classroom”. That is the sort of model that I think the Government are proposing more widely in schools generally in their White Paper: classroom-based learning. I would regret if anything were done to the detriment of such a good approach, so I hope that the Minister can be reassuring in his response.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I support the amendments. We are not talking here about some new provider on the block with bright ideas. Montessori is an established, tried and true, long-lasting provider of education. It is of a high quality. In days long ago when it was inspected regularly by HMI, inspectors always came back with very high-standard reports of what was going on. Montessori also has its own system for training its own teachers and staff, which again is of a very high quality and thorough, and produces people who are well versed in the Montessori way. There are many people of all ages, some probably now in their 80s and 90s, who have been through the Montessori experience and can testify to its importance in their own lives. I hope, as others have said, that the Minister will at least give a warm response to the amendments.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I was not able to support the last group of amendments of the noble Lord, Lord True, because I tended to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, about the danger of a two-tier system. However, I am very pleased to be able to support this group of amendments enthusiastically.
My knowledge of Montessori is that my grandchildren went to a Montessori nursery. Indeed, my daughter-in-law, their mother, herself already highly qualified with a PhD in biochemistry, was so impressed by the system that she started to train as a Montessori teacher. This delighted me. We need highly intelligent and highly qualified people in the nursery sector and I thought that was excellent.
If we want to offer parents a wide choice of early-years provision we ought to do everything that we can to encourage proven, high-quality systems such as Montessori and Steiner and, if necessary, make them special cases.
Lord Elton
My Lords, what my noble friend’s amendments seek to do is not only desirable but in line with the Government’s policy. The Minister’s problem is not whether or not to agree but how to set about obtaining that end, which may not be as proposed in the amendment. However, the issue is so important that if it is in doubt it should be protected, if not in statute then in supplementary legislation. I hope my noble friend will be able to give reassurance in that direction.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I, too, have had grandchildren at a Montessori school and I have a great regard for the system. Why are we suddenly throwing in Steiner schools when they are not mentioned in the amendment? I understand that there are good reliable figures to show the effectiveness of the Montessori system; are there such figures for the Steiner system? I simply do not know.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I support the amendment. I, too, have great admiration for the Montessori system because my daughter went to a Montessori school and it got the best out of her. I believe that young children need to be excited by learning, by discovering who they are, by play and by forming their own self-opinion and doing things that are beyond them. The Montessori system is one of the best ways of getting children to understand who they truly are, especially if they then go on to conventional education in schools. It broadens their outlook, it makes them excited about learning and the amendment should be supported by everyone in the Room.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I also agree that Montessori offers a high-quality experience for children and one would want to support it. In talking about Montessori and supporting it, I was very keen that more children from disadvantaged backgrounds should be able to access this high-quality provision. What progress has been made in the proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds who now attend?
I would not have thought that mapping the qualification is an insuperable problem. I am sure the Children’s Workforce Development Council will be positive in resolving the issue. When the Minister replies, will he enlighten us as to what is going on in the CWDC? It has been doing good work in raising the level of qualifications and ability of early-years professionals, in improving the infrastructure of qualifications and in supporting all parts of the sector going forward. I understand that the Children’s Workforce Development Council is going to be brought in-house and that its annual grant of £110 million has been taken away, as has its non-departmental body status. What are the implications of that for the progress that has already been made in early years and for continuing that progress in raising the level of qualifications and so on which we are all so concerned about?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Amendments 11 and 70 relate to Montessori nursery schools and qualifications of Montessori teachers. I hear what my noble friend also said about Steiner schools and the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, as to whether it is legitimate to add these in to the amendment when they have not already been mentioned. Perhaps we can discuss that at a later stage.
I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment because it gives me the chance to say that we fully understand, as has been reflected in the comments from noble Lords today, that for many parents the Montessori ethos is valued and reflects the early education that they want for their children. The Government are committed to maintaining and supporting a diverse early-years sector and I welcome the continued role of Montessori nurseries within that sector.
As my noble friend Lord True will be aware, Montessori organisations opted out of becoming part of a national qualifications framework which was part of the previous Government’s efforts to raise the quality of the early-years sector. Montessori qualifications would have gone unrecognised by the Child Workforce Development Council as relevant qualifications under the early-years foundations stage if it were not for the previous Government’s decision to give temporary recognition to those qualifications while discussions with the relevant bodies were continuing. This was due to expire in January 2010. These conversations are continuing and Montessori qualifications will be recognised on a temporary basis until January 2012.
The position beyond that point is the subject of discussions between representatives of Montessori organisations, officials at the CWDC and officials at the department. I am sure that they can also include Steiner organisations. I can assure my noble friends that we have not ruled out extending the period of recognition beyond January 2012 and that we are clear that we will not do anything that may disadvantage those who take Montessori qualifications. I am sorry to hear from my noble friend Lord True of what appears to have been poor communication. I understand that the CWDC carried out a wide-ranging communications exercise with local authorities, employer settings and the workforce. The thrust of this was information sent to local authorities tailored for different audiences that should have been sent on to providers including Steiner and Montessori settings. Further discussions need to take place on that.
Amendment 70 concerns Montessori education and qualifications and would require teachers in Montessori schools to have served their induction period in a Montessori-accredited school or any other school approved by a Montessori training body. Later in the Committee’s deliberations, we will consider teachers’ induction periods in more depth but I take this opportunity to provide my noble friend with some assurances on induction for Montessori teachers.
Independent schools, including Montessori schools, can offer statutory induction if they so wish, although there is no legal requirement for them to do so. Should they choose to offer statutory induction, the teacher must hold qualified teacher status—QTS—before they start their induction. The post must of course be suitable and include the necessary support mechanisms. The conditions under which a teacher is employed in any independent school are contractual matters between the employer and the employee. I can assure my noble friend that if a Montessori school wished to employ only teachers who have served statutory induction in a Montessori school or a Montessori-approved institution then that would be a matter for that school, not for legislation. To legislate in such a way would create unnecessary government interference in a very small section of the independent schools sector. Government’s role is to enable the independent schools sector to access statutory induction arrangements rather than to dictate how they should run their schools. Legislation is not the right approach to securing the terms under which an independent school employs its teaching staff.
Briefly, on the future of the Children’s Workforce Development Council, the CWDC will cease to be a Department for Education NDPB as the department will withdraw its investment in the council. The department is now in the process of carefully considering all the current functions of the CWDC in light of the spending review before deciding what will end, what will continue and where responsibilities will lie in the future. Our expectation is that work transfers will be completed by 2012 and that the CWDC as a company and employer lead body will be free to seek alternative funding.
I hope that my remarks have gone some way to giving comfort to my noble friend. In light of this, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I am rather happier with that response than with the response to the previous group. I am very grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I apologise to the Committee for discussing Steiner schools when they are not mentioned in the amendments that we are discussing. However, I am sure that they will be grateful to my noble friend for her comments and will pursue the matter separately. Montessori schools will be grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee for their firm support. I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who warmly support this excellent system and these excellent schools.
I note that my noble friend extended the invitation to these schools to continue in existence until 2012. I have sought to express that positively as opposed to describing it as a stay of execution. I hope that as discussions continue, the temporary nature of that arrangement can be lifted and that—
Lord Elton
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trembling on the edge of withdrawing the amendment. However, I remain rather anxious about the extension to 2012 and a possible extension after that. I would like to hear from one end of this Bench or the other what the effect of that would be on recruiting people for training in this area of teaching if there is a possibility that the railway will end a mile or two down the line.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
I cannot understand why there has been such consultation given that we are still in a temporary situation. I cannot understand why it cannot be put on a firm footing—I hope before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
Lord True
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for those interventions. Having veered away from using the phrase “stay of execution”, I think my noble friend will understand where I am coming from. As there seems to be such universal recognition of the value of this sector, surely we can give certainty to it. I hope that before Report my noble friend will consider further what noble Lords have said in this debate and find a way to extend that period of certainty beyond 2012. Perhaps the word “perpetuity” could come into that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I wish to speak also to Amendments 19, 27 and 32 in this group. My noble friend Lady Jolly will speak to Amendment 20.
Clause 2 extends the power of teachers and heads to search pupils and repeals some of the safeguards in legislation regarding searches in schools. These searches constitute a significant intrusion into children’s privacy which is protected under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, there is an enormous onus on the Government to justify them.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to give due consideration to the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when making new policy and legislation. I urge the Minister to ensure that when this Bill leaves your Lordships' House it complies fully with this important convention. I am particularly concerned with regard to Article 28(2) of the convention which states that we must,
“ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention”.
When the powers to search were extended in 2009 to include alcohol, drugs and stolen property, they went ahead without any published evaluation of how the previous powers were working. This is happening again, which causes me great concern. We need a thorough review of these powers with sufficient detail for us to determine whether any particular groups of children are being searched more frequently than others. It is essential to avoid any possible discrimination in the use of these powers.
The first group of amendments concern appropriate training. Amendments 12 and 19 seek to ensure that any member of school staff expected to search a pupil has had appropriate training before attempting to do so. My intention is to highlight the importance of proper training in such matters. When I was a teacher, I would not have dreamt of attempting such a thing without proper training, and I am sure that your Lordships would have felt the same in my position. Many teachers are currently reluctant to use the powers that they already have to search pupils, and would not have the confidence to do so even in the circumstances where it may seem necessary to prevent imminent harm to others unless they had confidence that they knew what they were doing. No teacher or member of staff should be expected to search a child without good-quality training, especially since current legislation allows them to,
“use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances”.
Training is essential, particularly in delicate situations where the pupil has special educational needs or has particular cultural or religious concerns or is of the opposite gender from the person carrying out the search, or there is no other member of staff present—although noble Lords will know that I do not approve of either of those last two situations.
It is not just about training. Information about the child is important too. How is a child who has been touched inappropriately or even abused going to react if someone approaches to search their person? That could escalate a fairly low-level problem into something violent and critical. Training should ensure that searches are conducted in such a way as to avoid harm to the child being searched, as well as to avoid unfounded allegations of improper behaviour by the teacher or lecturer.
Amendments 27 and 32 cover the same matters relating to searches in FE colleges. It is true, however, that most colleges have specially designated and trained security staff who would probably be called in to conduct a search if necessary. There are particular issues in colleges that may need to be addressed differently from searches conducted in schools, as many of the students may well be over 18. The current DfE guidance that was published in 2007, called Screening and Searching of Pupils for Weapons: Guidance for School Staff, mentions colleges only briefly, on page 4, which is insufficient.
Further training and advice are essential in order for staff to understand the powers under this clause. Such training should ensure that searches are conducted in such a way as to avoid harm to the child being searched, as well as to avoid unfounded allegations of improper behaviour by the teacher or lecturer. In colleges there may be only a very few years between the searcher and the searched. Such training could also usefully include managing potentially inflamed situations, identifying particular cultural or religious sensitivities, de-escalation techniques and risk assessment.
I know that the Association of Colleges is not keen on my idea of statutory training; it has said so. It says that unqualified cowboy operations will be set up to provide so-called training and might give teachers and lecturers an unfounded sense of confidence. My answer to that is that the college principal has a duty to ensure that all CPD is of good quality by getting recommendations and feedback and by checking qualifications. The association suggests that bad things can happen if people have been inappropriately trained. My opinion is that bad things can happen if people are not trained at all. We should put this requirement in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, as a number of amendments are in our names, I thought that it would be sensible to get up at this stage and speak on Amendments 15, 18, 26, 29, 30 and 31. In introducing these amendments, I should make it clear that we understand and support the Government’s stated intention to support schools in improving discipline. As noble Lords will know, the previous Government took the first steps towards bringing in new powers to help teachers enforce discipline, and at that time they were broadly welcomed by the profession.
Our concern with what is being proposed today is that, although on the face of it the Bill seems to build on the legislation, it takes away the important checks and balances that had been built in to protect both pupils and teachers. It remains unclear why proposals to extend those powers have been put before us.
Many of our comments echo those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that staff undertaking searches are appropriately trained to search all pupils, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, in a way that maintains the dignity and rights to privacy of everybody, in order to foster a school environment of mutual respect. Amendment 18 also makes it clear that searches should be carried out by a member of the senior management team. In the Commons evidence that we read, this was described as good practice by a number of head teachers.
The Children's Society and the NUT, among others, made a compelling case for staff doing searches to be trained and given advice on the effect of searches on young people, including the effect on their self-esteem and confidence. In addition—I am sure that we will hear more about this—Ambitious about Autism told us that staff require proper training to carry out safe searches on children with autism so that they understand the children's potential issues, for example around physical contact. The Children's Rights Alliance for England reminded us that searches can be very invasive and unpleasant experiences, causing children embarrassment, anxiety and humiliation. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, children with a history of physical or sexual abuse have a very different experience of searches; there is a need for training in that respect. It is also vital that staff carrying out searches on children with special educational needs and disabilities have an awareness of those issues and make reasonable adjustments for those needs.
We are concerned also that the new powers could put staff undertaking searches at risk. For example, the NUT highlighted a concern that, without training, teachers could be vulnerable to unfounded allegations of “improper behaviour”. Again, this underlines the case that we made earlier for searches to be carried out by someone of sufficient seniority that their intention and authority cannot be brought into question when the searches are carried out. This may be best practice in many schools, but the amendments build in safeguards for all pupils, particularly the most vulnerable, to ensure that their needs are recognised and that they are treated with respect.
Finally, Amendment 26 would require schools to keep a written record of all searches, including equalities information on the SEN, ethnicity and disabilities of the pupils being searched. Just as the police powers of stop and search were found to be disproportionately targeting certain ethnic groups, there is a risk that the same thing could happen unintentionally in our schools. Without proper records, we will not be able to monitor and follow up on the consequences of those trends. This concern has been highlighted by the Runnymede Trust, which stated:
“Runnymede is concerned that this power could result in disproportionate numbers of Black children being searched. If Black pupils are searched more than other pupils or feel unfairly targeted, trust may be undermined, potentially leading to more negative behaviour in the classroom”.
The amendment will enable that record to be kept and research to be pursued to follow up on it, both within the school and more widely, to make sure that unintended consequences do not arise. It will enable us to ensure that minority ethnic groups are not disproportionately targeted, and that groups such as pupils with SEN or disabilities are also not disproportionately targeted unintentionally. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the sense of the amendments and the comfort that they might bring by protecting the interests of vulnerable groups who are concerned about how the new powers will operate.
Other amendments to Clause 3 in this group—Amendments 29, 30 and 31—mirror the amendments that we laid to Clause 2 but relate to further education. The same arguments apply in terms of checks and balances, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, because of the potential narrowing of the age gap it is particularly important that teachers are trained to treat the students with respect and be aware of their vulnerabilities.
I have one final quick comment. I am aware that a guidance note is in full consultation from the department at the moment on the powers to search without consent. I am sure that the Minister will say, “Do not worry, because this document is being consulted on”, but it increasingly gives us concern that we are being asked to make legislation now, not further down the line when some consultations will come to fruition. It is asking a lot of us to trust that those consultations will come out with the right answer. We need to ensure that we get the legislation correct now, when we have the chance to do so.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20, which is narrow in scope but concerns an area that has been completely missed out. It is for those schools—I suspect that they will be predominantly secondary schools—which have security staff on the premises who will be employed, appropriately trained and well fitted to carry out such searches.
One of the most difficult relationships to keep nurtured is one between a teacher and a child. I taught for 15 years. You work really hard, and when they are good they are very good and when they are bad, something such as searching a child cannot help. The amendment suggests that where there is a security member of staff, no other member of staff should be asked to search a child. It would be the role of the security staff to do that. They are appropriately trained; they know what they are doing. That will also help to keep the relationship between the teacher and the child. It will give clarity to all concerned. The children know that if any circumstance crops up, it will not be a member of staff doing that; not only the child but the governors, the head teacher and the parents know; it is crystal clear that a member of staff whose role is security will do that. I ask the Committee to view the amendment favourably. The Minister is nodding, so that is very positive. I hope that he will view this as something that will plug a gap. He says, “No, resist”.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I have real concerns about this part of the Bill. If ever I saw a can of worms—I do not see them very often—this is it. It is contentious and sensitive. Obviously, ideally, we do not want young people to be searched at all, but I want to get over negative and punitive provisions and move on to more positive ones. I will give a couple of examples to illustrate that in a moment.
This part of the Bill is likely to result in a lack of dignity for both pupil and teacher or a security person—the person who is doing the searching. Some amendments about boundaries for examination, issuing rules about items for which a search may be made, training of staff and the search being carried out by a senior member of staff, may mitigate all that, but consider the chaos that may ensue.
Many years ago, I went to school as a pupil in Darwen, Lancashire, a sleepy little town in the foothills of the Pennines. It was in the news about two months ago because teachers had gone on strike due to a breakdown in discipline because of confiscated articles. As I said, the town is very sedate, and I could not believe what was going on. They had gone on strike because of discipline issues about confiscating mobile phones, I think. It was about who confiscated what—it was highly subjective—and why they were confiscated. One minute, something was confiscated; the next minute, it was restored. It was absolute chaos.
The other example that I recall from when I was teaching was of a male teacher grabbing a 15 year-old girl’s handbag. A nasty fight broke out, which I could hear from down the corridor. I heard her yelling, “Get your hands off a lady's handbag”. I had to intervene, being her head of year. I said, “What is in the handbag?” She said, “My hairbrush and some personal items”. I merely use that example to show the inappropriateness of a male teacher being seen to interfere with what a girl pupil sees as her private items.
What is in the Bill is more contentious and dangerous than the examples that I have given. It states that staff can go through phones, laptops and delete information,
“if the person thinks that there is a good reason to do so”.
Imagine what that means. It could set up conflicts between pupils and teachers, staff and senior management, staff and parents, pupils and parents, pupils and pupils. All kinds of things could go on. There is the same-sex issue. There are cultural issues, abuse issues and special educational needs issues.
I accept that pupils should not be bringing into school items that can harm others, which are illegal or which can cause chaos in the classroom—for example, mobile phones—but, and it is a big “but”, surely a school must have rules and contracts which do not permit certain items to be brought in or, if they are, insist that they should be placed in the pupil’s private locker. That provision exists in many schools.
I know many schools where searching is not an issue. A head teacher at a school in east London said to me recently, “We have no tolerance of mobile phones, not an issue about searching at all. Pupils understand this; parents understand this”. Much of the provision is heavy-handed and can give rise to real negative, personal, contentious issues arising. Surely an amendment can be thought of which gives schools the power to ban certain items and make that clear to pupils and parents.
Educating to encourage respect for people and property is a must. No doubt we shall come on to that when we discuss personal, social and health education. Discipline in schools is not just about punishment; that does not work. This part of the Bill is about punishment and creating difficulty for parents, teachers, pupils—the lot. I plead with the Minister to look carefully at it again. Otherwise, in searching pupils, schools will provide the catalyst for conflict for young people in any context.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, always talks a great deal of sense, and I absolutely agree with her about the can of worms. The whole issue is a can of worms, not just what the amendments address.
It would be wonderful if we could assure ourselves that every school in the country had such excellent discipline that rules about what can and cannot be brought into the school would be instantly obeyed, that children who have been told that they had to put things in lockers would do so, and so on. Unfortunately, in many schools, that is not the reality. There are crisis incidents where a teacher will suddenly become aware that not a child but a large, hulking teenage boy is carrying a knife and bringing it into the classroom at the end of a fight or row outside and there is every chance that he may intend to use it. At that point, a teacher has to take action. Whatever legislation and whatever framework the House or Parliament can produce has to allow for such a crisis for teachers.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Does not that particular scenario—which is obviously a real and concerning one for teachers in some schools—of a large physical presence with a knife underline the need for proper training? Without proper training, the danger into which the teacher might be putting himself or herself by using force, however reasonable, to try to confiscate the knife could be profound, however great the crisis may be there and then.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I was about to move on to training. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I do not think it could be only one person who is trained because the scenario I was describing could happen to any teacher. It could happen to a very small female teacher like me—I have taught in some tough schools in my time, with some very tough, studded-black-leather-jacket chaps in my classes—and so every teacher needs to be trained. They need to understand how to deal with someone who is carrying a knife in his back pocket, his sock or wherever it is. I would certainly argue for minimal training for all teachers in how to deal with such issues.
However, that is not to make them think that they should therefore be doing searches all the time. Rather than training in how to do a search—although that must be an element—there should be much better training for teachers in when a search is or is not appropriate. I would keep it very much to the crisis situation and to previously known offenders who have tried before to smuggle things into the school and classroom. That is where a teacher’s judgment is the most important thing of all. We are imagining helpless, innocent pupils with aggressive teachers; however, as I have said, it can be exactly the opposite way round. The training needs to give teachers the ability to make the judgment as to when a search is or is not appropriate.
I heartily support the need for training but ask that we reverse some of our mistrust of teachers and our assumption of innocence among pupils and allow for the other way round.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I particularly support Amendments 26 and 31 which deal with the keeping of records. It is immensely important that in such situations proper records are kept with the kinds of information specified in the amendments—we could perhaps look at them again—and that these records are available to Ofsted and the governing body. This is quite fundamental and will enable the school to know what is going on and what the balance of activities amounts to.
I certainly support the importance of training but I think that it should be school-wide. Any teacher could run into such a difficulty and be faced with a problem that could be both threatening and frightening if they had not had to formally think about it before.
On Amendment 20 and the reference to security staff, I was left uncertain about how this would apply in small primary schools. If we press ahead with the amendment, small primary schools probably would not have the capacity to have someone specially trained. It would be useful to hear what the intention of the amendment is because there seems to be some variation.
I accept what my noble friend Lady Perry says is critical: there are crisis situations and legislation must allow for dealing with these. A last, doubtless very naive, thought: could some of the problems of intimacy and same sex be dealt with if schools had electronic scanning devices available? These would probably be as cheap as specialist training courses and would pick up electronic implements—phones and so on, which can be a source of great trouble—and weapons. They would not pick up drugs—I accept that—but electronic implements and weapons cause crises which have to be dealt with very quickly. Regulation is very important but the threat that you will be scanned then makes an issue of it. It could be a practical, simple way of taking some of the sting out of this.
Baroness Walmsley
It may be convenient for the Committee if I answer the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about Amendment 20. I think that was a slight misunderstanding of the amendment. My noble friend meant that no teacher other than the security staff could be required—in other words, forced against their will—to carry out a search if they did not want to.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I support several of the amendments in this group but would like to focus on black and ethnic minority children. If you ask any black young man how many times he has been stopped and searched in the streets, you will find that it has been more times than his white equivalent. In some cases, there is a just reason to do so and some young people warrant the action of being searched. This does not mean that everyone should be categorised in the same way. Sometimes there needs to be a sympathetic approach towards young people who have what can perhaps be described as a “street attitude” or come from backgrounds where there is little or no parental or family support or guidance. There needs to be understanding of what might be going on in that young person’s life to make them behave in a certain way.
The same can be said about young people in schools today. Stop and search has become an accepted attitude towards many young black children and young people. Sadly, many of them will most likely grow up having to face the same ordeals and indignities as generations before them. This leads to young people feeling worthless, disillusioned and having an anti-social attitude—they act in the way that they believe they are expected to by society. Many look to gang culture to feel safe, accepted and important. It is a case of safety in numbers in order to survive. Those misguided young people need our help and understanding. They do not need to be condemned and vilified.
As touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, earlier, many are concerned that the power of members of staff to search pupils could result in disproportionate numbers of black children being searched. If black pupils are searched more than other pupils or feel unfairly targeted, trust may be undermined, potentially leading to more negative behaviour in the classroom. Evidence shows that black Caribbean boys in particular are disproportionately excluded from school and routinely punished more harshly, praised less and told off more. Explanations for this cannot be attributed solely to things like culture, class background or home life, and government research concluded that teacher’s attitudes—sometimes subconsciously—towards black children can be a contributing factor.
Given the overrepresentation of black Caribbean children in other areas of discipline, it is likely that they will be disproportionately searched under this new power. As the Runnymede Trust and others have argued elsewhere, institutions are required by law to assess the impact of their policies upon individuals from different ethnic backgrounds under the Equality Act. Given this legal requirement, I plead with the Minister to make sure that careful monitoring takes place of those searched in schools and action is taken to decrease any arising disproportion.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I echo something that the noble Baroness just said. The carrying of a weapon is often an essential part of a person’s sense of security. If he is in a community where everybody else carries a weapon outside, he will bring them into school. We are probably going down the wrong road by treating searching as the response to an emergency. I know as a former teacher that the emergency arises when the weapon has been produced. A knife was produced in a class I was teaching. It was quite a large knife, but luckily the owner of it was slightly smaller than me and there was no struggle. We had a discussion and it ended amicably. I am very much aware of the little thrill of horror that went through me when I first saw it and of the need for teachers to be protected from that.
Searching is preventive. It is not to discover something in an emergency but to prevent the emergency arising by applying the search before the weapon can be used. One way is if the whole school is searched when everybody goes in, as you are at an airport. Another is if the whole class is searched because there is known to be a problem there. But to search individuals can produce exactly the difficulties to which the noble Baroness referred. This needs a good deal more practical thought about what happens on the ground, rather than just legislative thoughts about how easily it could be provided from an administrative point of view. We have not yet got to a point where we should legislate. There needs to be much more discussion, perhaps outside this Room as well as inside it.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for disappearing for a bit during her contribution. I had to move my car before it was searched.
I do not want to stray too far into anecdote, but I visited a school perhaps two years ago where a woman teacher told me that the previous day she had been in a classroom when a boy had stabbed another pupil with a small penknife, luckily not doing much harm, and had then put it back in his pocket. There was no one else around, so she searched him and took the penknife away from him. She did absolutely the right thing for that particular occurrence.
This brings to mind something terribly important: there were no male teachers in that school at all. We have to remind ourselves that recent statistics suggest that the percentage of male teachers in primary schools has now reached something like 15 per cent, and in secondary schools the figure is around 20 per cent. A large number of primary schools have no male teachers at all. That teacher would therefore have fallen outside the current legislation. As I understand it, the Bill is meant to repair that. Of course training is hugely important, and in that school the teachers had received training—although it was of what you might call the informal kind, as so much training in schools is.
I would not support putting into the Bill a training programme or qualification for searching, but I would support the Government giving high priority to ensuring that guidance for schools suggested that training was hugely important in this area. It is vital that we send out a message to teachers that they are going to be backed when faced with serious discipline problems of this kind. We know that many of the children involved have special needs and are particularly vulnerable but we nevertheless have to send out that message to teachers, and my view is that the Bill will help that enormously.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Massey and others who have described this as a bit of a can of worms. With all respect to the Minister and his colleagues, I know how this comes about: you hear of difficult incidents in individual schools, you want to satisfy the perception in certain parts of the media that behaviour in schools is dreadful and you want to be seen to be doing something about it, so you move to legislation. As we have discussed, though, once we start to explore the issue we then see that there is a need for training, be it enforced through guidance or through legislation, and we soon arrive at the notion that there needs to be whole-school training. Once you get into training the whole school workforce, if they are going to use these powers, I imagine that many head teachers looking at their budgets would say, “Well, I probably won’t use these powers because I can’t afford the training of the whole school”, and then the legislation would become largely redundant. There are many other cans of worms that could wriggle out, which we could explore if we had time.
What will the powers do that the current powers do not? Paragraph 61 of the Explanatory Notes explains that the current powers under Section 550ZA of the Education Act 1996 allow other prohibited items to be searched for as specified in regulations. I would be interested to hear what Clause 2 does to extend the list of prohibited items from what would have been prohibited previously under regulations that the Government could have deployed using current powers.
I say in passing that it is easy in this debate to write off mobile phones as things that should be confiscated. However, mobile phones in classrooms can be used as very powerful computing devices. I would not want this debate to pass without standing up for the use of mobile phones as handheld computing devices that need to be managed. When I was at school, the pen was abused by many pupils who wrote nasty things about teachers and other pupils, yet nobody suggested that we ban the pen, because it was an important learning tool. Some electronic devices are also useful learning tools in the current century.
My final question to the Minister is: how will an appeals process work if the powers are used by a school? Will the process be governed by the school rules, with pupils and parents being able to go to the head teacher and then, as a final recourse, to the governing body? Many schools will be academies, so there will be no referral to a local authority if parents are dissatisfied with what the governors say. Will there be an appeal to the Secretary of State, or will the parents have to go to court, if they have the resources to do so? It would be helpful to understand how the appeals process will work.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I have listened very carefully and tried to think, if I was the head teacher of a school, how I would approach the problem and what I would say to my governors and to the political system. Clearly it is a deeply cultural issue which carries an enormous content of expectations. The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, needs to be followed up.
I would try to turn this into a routine exercise—something that is as emotionally and culturally unloaded as it can be. We all go through a form of search whenever we go to an airport. I do not think that we like it. In fact, I remember one or two famous occasions when people did not behave very well when they were crossing borders or going through airports. I have knocked about a lot in the third world, where things can feel very undignified. I remember trying to get into Brazil from Paraguay. The queue was held up for a very long time while all sorts of unpleasant things were suggested by the people at the border. I think they were looking for money, which of course was a different circumstance.
Perhaps we should turn our minds away from bad expectations. Do we not talk too much about disadvantage and vulnerability? Are we really sure that many of the circumstances in which people bring the wrong thing to school are the result of disadvantage or vulnerability? It could be the result of many other things. I urge the Committee to urge the Minister to think hard about the best advice that could be given to head teachers and governors about how to cope with the particular circumstances in which they find their school, and how they could turn the question of controlling the arrival of unsuitable things in their school into a routine matter, so that the measure referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, which is terribly important, can be confined to emergencies. I suppose that as a head teacher, one would hope to find no emergencies and no searches resulting from emergencies.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, after listening to the emotions raised, it is quite clear that this is an explosive situation. As to the longer term, after looking at my diary I can see that we have a few more sessions in Committee and then a break. This will give us longer to work out the best solution to the problem for when we get to Report.
All kinds of issues have been raised: race, where there is an element of real concern, the use of phones and the danger to teachers. One view is that phones are good things and can be useful—and no doubt they can be—but you have to adopt a different approach to a situation where children, particularly girl children, have had these phones used to record certain incidents that might be used against them. As president of the NGA, I believe that there is a role for the governors and I intend to ask about the advice given to schools. I would have thought that somewhere between the head teacher, the chairman of governors and the governing body there would have to be a policy anyhow on what happens under these circumstances.
I hope that we can put this off a while. We need a real teach-in, if possible before the end of summer or on one of those splendid occasions when we are dragged back into the building. However, I am ambivalent. I can see some of the problems from the school viewpoint but it will remain a worrying situation until we can draw out something which is satisfactory to all sides.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I want to flag up for the Minister that this might be relevant to his interest in the training and development of teachers more generally and that he might seek confirmation from those of your Lordships who have been in practice in this area whether my concerns regarding the teacher-pupil relationship are right. I know from other settings working with children that it is vital to build a relationship of trust. All kinds of emotions can emerge from that. There can be love, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has often said, but there can also be feelings of hate.
I remember observing a teacher—a man in his late 40s, perhaps—working with a 16 year-old girl with Down’s syndrome. We were taking her out on a summer expedition to picnic in the park. She was a lovely girl but she was unmanageable; she would push the boundaries. She would walk away, and what could he do? What could any of us do? As we went back in the minibus I observed him—I may have been incorrect in my observation—start to tease her about her boyfriend who was sat next to her. We are all human and when we are put under pressure certain people get under our skin and certain things come up. The way in which we can avoid taking such things personally is by reflecting on what we are doing—just as that Montessori teacher was helped to observe that wagging her finger at pupils was not helpful and perhaps came from an experience in her past that she does not want to bring about again.
Rather long-windedly, I am suggesting to the Minister that his work in bringing in Charlie Taylor to advise about behaviour and in thinking about how we can better train and develop teachers might be useful in this area—not only to avoid having to bring about the searching of children but the danger that certain children might be targeted by teachers who find them annoying. This might be one way of dealing with that annoyance.
People have always emphasised to me that—I wanted to check this point with those who have teaching experience—little attention is given to the teacher-pupil relationship in teacher training and development and that there is a vacuum in that regard. In the initial teacher training there is very little about child development and how you interact with children. Continuing professional development is also lacking in that regard. Teachers report that it is wonderful to be given training in child development and managing difficult behaviour. Indeed, the training that foster carers say is most valuable to them is that concerned with managing difficult behaviour. I flag up the point to the Minister that the broader issue of the training and development of teachers is involved here. I know that he is doing some work in that area and he may want to say something about that in his response.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, as the debate has revealed, this is a very sensitive issue which has to be dealt with with the greatest understanding in respect of the problems that can arise, including the possible disruption of a school. Before this issue arises again on Report, the Minister might wish to consider producing detailed guidance to assist teachers in this area as regards the dos and the don’ts, what is prohibited and, indeed, what is acceptable. One point that has not emerged in the debate is that of who searches who and whether a pupil should be searched by a teacher of the same sex as himself or herself. That issue needs to be addressed; if not, teachers will be left vulnerable and exposed and may be subjected to unfair criticism and accusations. I hope that the Minister will consider bringing forward guidance to support teachers in this respect.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Perry. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked in detail at this clause. We sought to draw a distinction between searching a person and searching belongings. I think that this has been illustrated in our debate today. Certainly from my perspective, the searching of persons is the area which attracts most comment and requires a great deal of care. Notwithstanding the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, greater latitude and flexibility should be afforded to teachers when searching lockers and bags. I thought that it might be helpful to point that out.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it is clear from this excellent discussion that improving standards of behaviour in our schools is a major priority for us all. It goes to the root of how we raise standards and lies at the heart of our determination to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and those from wealthier backgrounds. Most importantly, it goes to the root of how we keep children safe at school and college, particularly the most vulnerable because we know that they are the ones most likely to suffer from a disorderly environment.
I want to say at the beginning how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, about the sensitivity of this. She was kind enough to invite me along to the All-Party Group on Children where we debated some of these issues. I agree with her entirely that discipline is not just about punishment. Unfortunately, one of the ways that the various amendments have been grouped means that we are jumping from one strand of the clause to another and have not really had the opportunity to set it out in its context. I will try to do a bit of that. We will come back to some of the more sensitive issues around opposite-sex search, which I know a number of my noble friends and noble Lords will want to raise, and issues more generally such as those to do with electronic devices and deletion—which, again, I know is sensitive. With the agreement of noble Lords, I intend to concentrate on the issue of training, which is the core issue lying behind these amendments.
The Government know, as do noble Lords, that having a clear behaviour policy that is widely publicised and consistently applied, and which includes positive incentives as well as sanctions, is at the core of what good schools ought to offer. We can all think from our experience of schools which demonstrate excellent practice and we want more to do so. One way that we can help with that is to hold schools to account for the behaviour and achievements of all their pupils. Our proposals on Ofsted inspection will relate to that.
We know that, despite good behaviour management, serious incidents sometimes happen in schools. We cannot always predict when they will happen. The measures in the Bill are designed to support teachers’ powers to maintain an orderly environment, building on the measures introduced by the last Government. The powers to search in this clause are likely, thankfully, to be used rarely in most schools and only in serious cases. The overall purpose of the clause is to ensure that teachers, head teachers and principals have the powers that they need to deal with incidents when they occur.
My top-line response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, as to what the clause does—we will come back to that—is that in general terms it is trying to give schools the ability to respond to local issues and problems that they may face day to day, rather than having to wait for the Government to amend regulations or to sit here considering a whole range of specific issues that we might think that they need to respond to, then renewing the regulations each time in response to every challenge that they face. We are trying to provide a framework so that, if they need to, they can search for any item that can be used to commit an offence, cause injury or is banned by the school rules. We will come back to that.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley raised the important issue of training. In addition to the measures in the Bill, we are clear that we want all teachers to be trained to manage and improve children’s behaviour from the start of their careers. In our ITT strategy, which we published yesterday, we said:
“Improving teachers’ skills in tackling poor pupil behaviour is also vital: no issue is more important when it comes to attracting good people into teaching ... We know that there is some excellent practice in this area, and we will encourage support between ITT providers, so that struggling providers can learn from the best ... We will also help local networks of schools to develop teachers as behaviour specialists”.
On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Secretary of State has asked Mr Charlie Taylor—our expert adviser on behaviour—to consider how initial teacher training could give teachers the best possible preparation in behaviour management. Mr Taylor believes that ITT cannot be the end of training on behaviour management. Some of it can only be learned in school. He is also working with the department on our teaching schools programme to look at the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the suggestion of a teach-in, which also came up at our APPG meeting last week. I think it would be a good idea to do that. I suggest that we organise a meeting with Charlie Taylor well in advance of Report stage where we can go through all these issues and noble Lords can explore them in detail.
Overall, these powers are permissive—I will come back to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Jolly in a moment—and no teacher can be forced to search a pupil or student. However, we think that it is right that the power should be available for an authorised person to use in extremis. The Bill builds on earlier legislation that recognised the usefulness of teachers having powers to search. In extending that legislation, it is important that we also add safeguards to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual, of the child and of all the children or students in the school or college.
Lord Elton
I use just a second to pick up one phrase that my noble friend used earlier: discipline is not only about punishment. I hope that the Committee and the Government will bear in mind that in matters of keeping order and quelling disorder, punishment is the last resort. Good order depends on a whole school behaviour management programme understood and operated by the whole staff. We need to remember that that is the prime source of good order and that punishment is what has to be brought in when it fails.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I want to make just a couple of quick points, given the lateness of the hour. The first is that the draft guidance that seems to be floating around, the status of which I am sure that the noble Lord will know better than I, explicitly states under the heading of training for school staff that there is no legal requirement for a head teacher or authorised member of staff to be trained before undertaking a “without consent” search. That is a statement of fact because there is no legal requirement, but if you are issuing guidance, would it not make sense to say something like, “But we think it is a jolly good idea”? It is almost a prescription not to bother to do the training. I may have the status of the guidance wrong, but my point is worth taking on board.
The second point concerns the final issue that the Minister raised, which was about keeping records. There was a contradiction with what a number of noble Lords said about the need for consistent record keeping so that Ofsted can check what is going on and the department can have an idea of whether there are unforeseen consequences of the searches. We all want to know what the big picture is, and we can only do that if we have consistent records. The noble Lord said that we should trust schools to keep their own records, but there is a contradiction here—and also with the requirement under the Equality Act that he talked about. I will return to the issue about what schools should be required to do in terms of keeping records to comply with fairness and meet the requirements of the legislation. I do not think that we have fully fleshed that out.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, this has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords who contributed, and in particular the Minister for his reply. Before I make a few comments, I will make one correction. I mentioned that it was the Association of Colleges that was against the statutory requirement for training: I meant to say that it was the Association of School and College Leaders. I am sure that Hansard in its usual inimitable manner will correct that for me.
I will pick up on a few disparate points from the debate. First, a number of noble Lords raised the issue of what would happen if a child were wielding a knife. I believe that a teacher or anybody else in the room would have a common-law right to intervene to protect themselves or any child there: they would not need these searching powers. Anyway, you do not need to search for something that is in full view.
I thank the Minister for his assurance that no teacher will be pressurised into doing a search. I am aware that this was in previous legislation. However, the Government are repealing a number of checks and balances in previous legislation, so I was a little concerned that they might be repealing that.
I very much agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Benjamin about stop and search. She made her points very passionately. These are things that we must bear in mind. I asked for a very detailed review so that we can make sure that no discrimination is occurring. Of course, if the incidents are reported and recorded, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, suggested, it will be very easy to collect the information. I know that the Government are trying to ease the bureaucratic burden on schools and are not implementing the duty in the previous Bill to record all incidents, but incidents of this nature are really quite serious and perhaps it should be suggested in guidance that best practice should dictate that these sorts of things are recorded under the school’s judgment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Is the noble Baroness aware that in some parallel situations, for instance in children's homes, a written record is required? One can only think that, if it is required there, perhaps it should be required in schools.
Baroness Walmsley
I quite agree with the noble Baroness. We need to have another debate about consistency in the way that we deal with children across the piece.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that searching might be a preventive measure. I do not think that this legislation would allow a whole class to be searched as a preventive measure. I may be wrong about that, but I think that it would not.
On the issue of how to search a child safely, I am not suggesting that there should be any kind of qualification—simply that the head should be satisfied that the staff have had appropriate training. The Minister pointed out, when he was talking about not forcing a member of staff to do the search, that the head would have to designate who could do these searches, and I accept that. However, we are making a number of assumptions here about what the head would know about the competence of the teacher. That is why we need something either in the Bill or in statutory guidance to say that, in designating teachers to do that sort of search, the head must assure himself or herself that that person is competent to do that. Without our being too prescriptive about the sort of training, it really is up to the head or principal to ensure that the training is adequate and appropriate. That would probably satisfy me.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, who is not in his place, suggested that if the CPD was expensive the head would not want to do it, and therefore all the legislation would be redundant. Nothing would make me happier than that. I point out that it was his Government who started down this slippery slope in the first place.
I pass on to the Committee a point that my noble friend Lady Sharp made; she is no longer in her place but was here a little earlier. She has been doing a report about FE colleges and has been visiting a great many of them recently. She said that the proposal in Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, would be inappropriate in a big college because its senior management would not want these powers and would very willingly delegate them to the security staff or to other senior staff in the college. The powers in Amendment 30 would not actually be welcomed.
As I said earlier, I would, reluctantly, not oppose these measures lock, stock and barrel. However, it is important that we get this right, which is why I have tabled a raft of amendments about training, gender, witnesses and various other matters that we will come to the next time we meet. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 2 pm.
House of Lords
Leave of Absence
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, I have been invited to represent the House at the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of the fourth Session of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on Friday 1 July. Accordingly, I seek leave of absence from your Lordships' House on that day.
Olympic Games 2012: Courier Industry
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Falkland
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they are considering to allow the courier industry to operate as normally as possible during the traffic arrangements for the 2012 Olympics.
Viscount Falkland
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as president of the Despatch Association.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, arrangements for couriers and traffic regulation during the Games are the devolved responsibility of Transport for London, but the Department for Transport is taking a keen interest in this area to ensure that the UK and London keep moving next summer.
Viscount Falkland
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for an encouraging reply—more encouraging, I might say, than the courier industry has received thus far from the Olympic delivery committee. Might the Government be able to persuade the Olympic delivery committee, which is in charge of the arrangements, that the courier industry is not the freight industry, which seems to be its only concern? The courier industry’s service is used and relied on by most of commerce and by other organisations. It offers a valued service of 24-hour or same-day delivery. If that is not available during the Olympic Games, many businesses may suffer.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, yesterday I had a meeting with officials from TfL in order better to understand its plans for helping to deliver a successful Olympics and Paralympics. TfL’s structured programme of consultation with the larger trade associations began some time ago. It is not my role to tell TfL what to do, as it is the competent authority. However, I did mention the desirability of allowing all responsible trade associations to be able to engage with TfL, including the Institute of Couriers and the Despatch Association. I also said that the courier industry is slightly different from the freight industry, a point which the officials well understood.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not the ODA but LOCOG which will be responsible for administration at the time of the Games and that if anybody should be working with the transport industry, which of course they should, it should be LOCOG?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend is nearly right. On 9 February 2011, responsibility for the 2012 Games travel demand management, Olympic and Paralympic route networks and road freight management programmes in London transferred to TfL.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that licensed black taxis should be allowed to use the Olympic lanes during the Games? If they do not do so, a lot of them will have to put their business on hold for the six weeks of the Games.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not absolutely sure of the answer to the noble Baroness’s question, but I am quite sure that TfL has taken this into consideration. Very few routes will be unavailable to cars.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the trouble with giving way is that one’s question is then addressed by the previous speaker. Could I just offer to the Minister a word of encouragement and warning? I am hot-foot back from the Olympic site this morning. Everyone who goes there is enormously encouraged by the preparations for the Games, which I am certain will be hugely successful when they occur. But perhaps I may give the Minister this word of warning: I had the misfortune many years ago to introduce the London bus lanes and left out the interests of the black cab trade. I still bear the scars to this very day, so I warn him lest he bear such scars.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, part of the reason why we are in such a good position with the Games is the good planning put in place by the previous Administration. With regard to the use of black cabs, noble Lords will understand that the primary route for getting to the Games should be public transport—buses, the underground and railway systems.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, given the role of the runner Pheidippides in bringing the news of the battle of Marathon to Athens, could my noble friend see whether there was any way, since he gave his name to the race, that the name of Pheidippides could be worked into the process that he has been recently defending?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that is an extremely interesting question which I am sure my officials will love researching to enable me to write to my noble friend.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that there will be no roadworks in London during the 2012 Olympics?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when I had my discussions with the TfL officials I was very impressed with the number of different problems they have considered, and I am sure that they will do everything they can to minimise all roadworks where they could cause a problem.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, when the noble Earl has his next meeting with TfL officials, if he has any spare time, can he tell them that there was not exactly dancing and singing in the streets at the news of the vastly inflated salaries that they are being paid and the fact that there are now more than 360 TfL officials being paid six-figure salaries?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I was impressed enough with the TfL officials to think that future meetings would not be necessary on my part.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, could the noble Earl impress upon the people organising the transport that some people cannot use buses or the underground because they are disabled and they use taxis instead and that these are a very important component of transport?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Countess makes an important point. The blue badge scheme has been provided for and there will be dedicated parking places for blue badge users. However, they will have to be booked in advance.
Europe Day
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Anderson of Swansea
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why No. 10 Downing Street and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not fly the European flag on Europe Day.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
No. 10 Downing Street and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office take a straightforward approach; they fly the union flag at all times, with limited exceptions mainly for the patron saints’ days for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, this is a change of policy. In what way do such silly gestures serve our national interest?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord speaks of silly gestures, but the idea that flying flags is any indication of the policy of commitment, in our case to the European Union, is frankly absurd. If we flew the flag for every relationship with every multilateral organisation, we would be for ever hoisting flags and taking them down again. There is frankly no relationship between our activist and forward position on the European Union—we are playing a major part, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister over the weekend—and the actual flying of flags, which is not the intention of 10 Downing Street.
Lord Dykes
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his renewed commitment to Europe, which he has just expressed. Is it not a pity that we do not fly the European flag a little bit more? The only European flags within the vicinity of this place and Whitehall are on the Slovenian embassy and the former headquarters of the Conservative Party, which is now the European Commission and the European Parliament. That historical irony could now be built on if the Government were bold enough to fly the European flag alongside the union flag, which is the routine of all other member states.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Some departments and some public institutions do fly the flag if they wish to do so. I repeat to my noble friend that the flying of flags is not connected with the very strong policy we have in relation to the European Union, in which we are paying a very active part and dare I say a slightly more successful part in some areas than was the case under the previous Government.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, would the Minister accept that the flag that is being talked about should not be referred to as a European Union flag? It is also the flag of the Council of Europe, and it was its flag long before it was adopted by the European Union. In view of the fact that later this year we assume the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe, will he make sure that we do not cause unnecessary offence during our presidency?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course one will make sure of that. I do not think I said “European Union flag”; if I did, it was certainly a slip of the tongue because rather than talking about the European flag, I was referring to the union flag of this union in which we live.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, given the growing anger of the British people with our EU membership, do the Government agree that they were, for once, rather wise not to fly the Union flag on Europe Day? Do the Government also agree that the British people are not fools, so they can clearly see that the riots in Greece—and soon elsewhere—are caused entirely by the euro and by the failing project of European integration? Would it not be better to get rid of the wretched flag altogether, especially as it has no legal status whatever?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is making the same mistake as others in associating the hoisting and waving of flags with policy, which is a quite different issue. He also raises broader questions about the position of Greece and the eurozone. Undoubtedly there are major problems, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and other right honourable friends have been taking a very active part in working to see that the eurozone system is at least able to stay together for the time being to buy time in order that longer-term solutions can be put in place. It is in our interests that the eurozone should prosper and not undermine the European economic system.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, in so far as our own national flag can be flown upside down as a sign of disaster, is it not possible that we could apply the same rule to the Union flag and perhaps resolve everyone’s difficulties?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not too expert on the art of flags. Indeed, there is a complicated word that I have forgotten to describe the whole philosophy of flag flying. I am sure one of your Lordships will know it. As to flying flags upside down, I think I would recognise when the union jack is upside down but I am not sure I would recognise whether the round stars of the European Union were upside down or the right way up.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, the Minister assures us today, as he has throughout the passage of the European Union Bill in this House, that this is a pro-EU Government. Will he now persuade his Prime Minister to make for the first time a major speech explaining our interdependence with the European Union and the eurozone, and how the stability of our banks and our prospects for economic growth depend on it, instead of saying that we simply will not pay a penny? Is it not time that the Government started to fly the flag for our membership of the European Union in a real sense when they talk to the media in this country?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not know where the noble Lord has been these past few days. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister needs no persuading and has made his position absolutely clear. As he pointed out in the other place the other day, the conclusion statement from the last European Council meeting included, at his behest, the crucial words:
“All necessary measures fully consistent with international standards must be rapidly taken to address any possible banking vulnerabilities brought to light by these stress tests”,
and by the developments over the situation in Greece. My right honourable friend is perfectly well aware of the vital importance of maintaining economic stability in Europe and the recovery of the economies in difficulties. No persuasion is required.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that what he has just recounted is quite different from the kind of major speech that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has called for? Is it not true that the Minister has given the impression that we are wonderfully clear of any problems because the eurozone crisis is a matter for the Europeans and that all we are concerned about is not paying any money?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I seem to be finding difficulty in communicating today because I have just given the opposite impression in great detail. I quoted my right honourable friend; I quote many other Ministers and I could quote myself ad nauseam. We are all extremely concerned with the stability of the eurozone. Going back 10 years, I admit it is perfectly true that some of us might not have thought that the idea of the eurozone was going to be perfect sweetness and roses all the way and there has been some proof of that. However, now it is here we have to make this work and see that the southern countries of Europe can overcome their terrible economic difficulties. It is utterly in our interests to do so, as my right honourable friends have said again and again. There is no such alternative impression.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Thank you for that. Many people will regard the action of the Government as rather small-minded and counterproductive. How do the Government see their way to advancing the interests of this country, rather than diminishing it? Is the Government’s attitude not to be deplored?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord was a very distinguished commissioner, as we all know, but on this matter he is again associating No. 10’s wish to fly the flags that I described with a symbolism far beyond the reality. The reality is that decisions about flags are one matter and our policy, commitment, strategy and the centrality of the European Union in our foreign policy are another, to which we give the greatest possible importance and adherence.
Parliament Act 1911: Centenary
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what events they are planning to mark the centenary of the Parliament Act 1911.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, the Government have no current plans to mark the centenary of the Parliament Act.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I am sorry that that is the Minister’s Answer. On 18 August 1911, there was an historic Act that changed the face of Parliament. While we are celebrating all this year the Armada, the Battle of Trafalgar, the Battle of Waterloo and the wives of Henry VIII, is it not time that we thought of the magnificent achievements of the last century in health, education and the extension of democracy? Is it not time that somehow this House and this Parliament were able to celebrate the more recent achievements of Parliament?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am all in favour of celebrating the achievements of Parliament and indeed of the last century and the many changes that took place. I am not entirely convinced that the Parliament Act was a victory for this House. In fact, it marked the time when we lost considerable power out of the foolishness of our predecessors. However, for those who wish to celebrate, I understand that on Saturday 16 July, from 7 pm to 11 pm, BBC Parliament will show a continuous programme on the causes and effects of the Parliament Act 1911.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1911 Lloyd George and many other Liberals were totally opposed to an elected House of Lords on the grounds that it would be much more reactionary on social reform by including, as he put it, people like glorified grocers? Apologies if there are any noble Lords who fulfil that description. Therefore, is not the Government’s proposed legislation on the House of Lords a totally inappropriate sequel to the Parliament Act?
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords, I could not possibly agree with that. I am surprised by what the noble Lord says, with all his knowledge about Lloyd George. You have only to read the preamble to the 1911 Act to understand that those who passed it clearly wished and hoped fervently for an elected House in due course.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
On the issue of a preamble—I am sure that its words are constantly in the forefront of the noble Lord’s mind—is it not the case that it is a massive misconception to believe there was any reference in it to an elected House? What was anticipated was a more popular House—a much broader concept than an elected House. Is it not the case that 47 years later, with the Life Peerages Act 1958, that was greatly achieved? It created a balance of gender, geography, ethnicity and background which is so necessary for a reviewing Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the passing of the 1958 Act was a significant moment and a significant improvement in the selection of Members of this House. I have no idea whether it was influenced in any way by what happened in 1911. All I know is that at the previous general election all three main parties stood on a manifesto in favour of an elected House.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government are not using the opportunity provided by the centenary to plan on using the Act for that purpose in the event that they were stupid enough to bring forward a Bill in, say, 2013-14?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that was a very complicated formulation. I think the noble Lord was asking whether we would use the Parliament Act to pass a new Parliament Act. I have said before—no doubt I shall be asked this many times—that the Parliament Act is part of a process when the two Houses disagree over a piece of legislation. There is no such legislation before the two Houses and no disagreement. Therefore, at the moment there is no prospect of using the Parliament Act. However, if such a Bill were brought forward, the Parliament Act would be available.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, could we not be constructive on this? Could we not commemorate the Act by unveiling a plaque in this House to commemorate the wonderful achievements, as Members of this House, of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith and Earl Lloyd George?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if my noble friend were to put forward a proposal to the House authorities, I am sure that the appropriate committee would consider it most seriously. However, 1911 was an interesting year for Acts that we rarely think about. The Geneva Convention Act was passed in 1911, the Official Secrets Act was passed in 1911 and the Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Act was also passed in 1911.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I do not want to be accused of driving a wedge between the two parties of the coalition, but will the noble Lord confirm what he appeared to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno? There was, in his Answer, a sense of sadness and nostalgia at the passing of the Parliament Act, which diminished the powers of this House. The noble Lord is a leading member of the Government. Is it the Government’s position that they regret the passing of the Parliament Act?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Government’s position is that we have no current plans to mark the centenary of the Parliament Act. In answer to the Question from my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I wondered whether it was appropriate for this House to celebrate the passing of the Act when it removed so much power from us, which might well have been used exceptionally wisely over the succeeding 100 years.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, after their rip-roaring performances in last week’s debate, would it not be appropriate to commission a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Iolanthe”, with starring performances from my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that another outing by my noble friend Lord McNally would be a show-stopper.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am sure that one of the tasks of the newly appointed Joint Committee will be precisely to look at the workings and applicability of the Parliament Act. Might it not be a good idea, to mark the centenary of the Parliament Act with further tangible House of Lords reform, to ask the Joint Committee also to undertake an immediate report on the Steel Bill, which would help the House and Government decide on the best course of action when the House returns in October? I understand that the noble Lord’s Bill might be debated then.
Lord Strathclyde
I am all for debate on that Bill. We should let the Joint Committee do its work. It has its terms of reference. If it feels the need to look at the Parliament Act, it should do so.
Armed Forces: Overstretch
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their reaction to the views, recently reported by the media, of senior serving officers about the overstretch of the Armed Forces as a result of involvement in current military operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, the vital expertise of military personnel is fundamental in the decisions made by the Government in operational matters. There are a number of fora at which Ministers and military chiefs routinely discuss operational issues, and the three service chiefs will retain the right of open access to the Defence Secretary and to the Prime Minister. At all levels of the MoD, service personnel and policy staff interact on a daily basis.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister and the Government are satisfied with the professional military advice of the chiefs of staff on current and future operations? While there can be every expectation that operations over in Libya will continue as long as is necessary, is it not inevitable that shortages of manpower, equipment and finance mean that other commitments may be adversely impacted?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord the confirmation that he has asked for. I cannot praise the chiefs enough. They are showing very strong leadership at a difficult time and when we are fighting two wars. As regards the noble and gallant Lord’s second question, as recent events have demonstrated, we are still capable of making a major contribution to NATO operations. In Libya we are the third largest contributor after the United States and France, while maintaining our efforts in Afghanistan and meeting our other standing commitments.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in the Statement yesterday on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence, the Government said that service chiefs would run their individual service and also be accountable for their budgets and delivering strategy. Under the new regime, with greater accountability by service chiefs, are the Government saying that service chiefs will not be allowed to speak out on concerns about the overstretch of the Armed Forces if they believe the resources they have been given do not enable them to implement the strategy commitments they have been told to deliver?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said, the chiefs have the right, whenever they want, to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Prime Minister—that is the proper way to do it.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that with regard to Libya, whatever resources are necessary to see the matter through to a successful conclusion will continue to be made available?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can confirm that. The Treasury has agreed to meet these costs from the reserves and, as the Chief of the Defence Staff has said, we can sustain this operation as long as we choose. On that I am absolutely clear.
Lord Soley
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is a very widely held view in the Armed Forces and elsewhere—and I know him to be a thoughtful Minister on this—that we cannot go on with the assumption that there is no need to review the White Paper on defence? Frankly, both foreign policy and defence issues have changed so much in recent times that not to revisit it would be a disservice to our Armed Forces.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the SDSR was based on a thorough, realistic assessment of the threats we face now and could face in the future. It ensures that we can continue to conduct operations today while preparing our future force. Our rapid and highly effective contribution to the NATO mission to protect the Libyan people is testament to the flexibility and professionalism of our Armed Forces and proof that the UK has the capability to project power and influence at very short notice.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, following the question that has just been asked, would the Minister accept that Britain’s ability to resource recent and additional deployments—deployments that would not have been possible a few months later—draws into question the very plans that have been discussed? Is there not now a very good reason why they ought to be reviewed again in light of the increasingly unstable international position?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Government will continue to provide sufficient resources to achieve operational success in Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We are quite clear that we can manage what we are being asked to do in Afghanistan and Libya at the present time.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, last week we welcomed back 16 Air Assault Brigade after its third tour in Afghanistan. One of its officers told me that our kit in theatre is now the envy of US forces—specifically the lightweight helmet, body armour, small rucksack and even boots. Given that each day the MoD unfortunately seems to be getting a kicking on procurement issues, will my noble friend take back to Main Building a good news story, for once?
Lord Astor of Hever
I am very grateful to my noble friend and I entirely agree with him. I know that he was able to inspect with me the latest equipment and clothing issued to troops, including the advances in personal protection, that were on display in Portcullis House earlier this year. This is a good news story, and there is no doubt that these advances, such as those that my noble friend mentioned, are helping to save many lives in theatre.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this is a substantial group of amendments that includes several government amendments. Perhaps I can put our amendments into some context and address the issues raised by the other amendments in this group.
Our amendments set out the requirement for relevant authorities to approve and publish a pay policy statement which, in addition to the measures already in the Bill, must set out an authority’s policies on remuneration of its lowest-paid employees and the relationship between the remuneration of its chief officers and the rest of its workforce. As Will Hutton set out in his report on fair pay in the public sector, published on 15 March, there is value in ensuring that decisions about senior pay are taken in the context of similar decisions on lower-paid staff. Such an approach broadens the debate beyond discussion about salary amounts of top earners and into whether the pay of those individuals is justified.
These measures, therefore, further increase local democratic accountability and transparency over how decisions on pay are made, and embody the commitment given by Ministers to reflect on the measures in the light of Hutton’s report. The measures seek to minimise the potential burden on authorities and ensure that decisions on pay remain ones for individual employers to take locally.
The opposition amendments would take those measures beyond the scope of pay accountability. Our intention, through the provisions in the Bill and our amendments, is to bring greater accountability and transparency to an authority’s approach to remuneration of its own employees. We do not seek to prescribe what the approach should be by requiring authorities to publish a list of numbers, or by roaming about on other matters such as local decisions around recruitment or engagement with providers—which would be the effect of the opposition amendments. Our Amendment 101, in its requirements relating to the remuneration of the lowest-paid employees, is broader than the Opposition’s proposal and will lead to the publication of policies in a rounder way than by focusing on policies relating to total salary costs and numbers of staff, which is what Amendment 101A would achieve.
Amendment 101 would require authorities to disclose their policies on the relationship between remuneration of their chief officers and the rest of their employees, including the lowest paid. We do not feel it necessary to require authorities to break down their policies in this regard in the way proposed in Amendment 101A. Indeed, Will Hutton, in his report on fair pay in the public sector, highlights that, in seeking to measure pay dispersion using a pay multiple, comparison between top and lowest pay is not the most effective approach. As we have made clear, charities, voluntary organisations and businesses—particularly small businesses—have repeatedly called for the amount of regulation and red tape surrounding local government contracts to be reduced. I am sure that noble Lords opposite agree with that general principle. In this context, it is not appropriate to use this Bill to impose further duties on authorities to have policies relating to the pay of those who work for an organisation with which it contracts.
Nothing in the Bill limits the extent of information that an authority may include in its pay policy statement. Authorities may take the local view to include any other policies as they think fit. This could include policies on contracting staff where they have developed them locally. We will undertake to make this clear in guidance rather than set it out in the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his work in submitting Amendment 105. Perhaps I can reassure him and other noble Lords that local authorities must always abide by relevant employment legislation when carrying out their duties as employers. This obligation extends to the formation of their policies on pay. Pay policy statements are intended to be an articulation of such policies. The measures that we are introducing do not take precedence over employment law. A pay policy statement could not be lawfully used by relevant authorities to sanction matters that are not in line with their existing legal duties and obligations. Similarly, any changes to policies included in a published pay policy statement, which must be approved by a full council, must also adhere to requirements placed on authorities as employers under employment legislation. We can undertake to reinforce this position in guidance, to which authorities must have regard. We believe that this will achieve the aims of the amendment without it being necessary to remind authorities of their duties as employers as set out in the Bill. I hope that I have assisted the Committee in its consideration of this matter. I beg to move Amendment 99.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the government amendments. Indeed, I thank the Government for bringing forward the proposals, which build on the debate in the other place. I see that he has taken the opportunity to get his retaliation in first on our amendments. I will speak to Amendments 101A, 101B, 102A and 108B.
When these matters were addressed on Report in another place, the Minister, Andrew Stunell, said that Will Hutton’s report,
“made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force”—
meaning the median earnings, and I accept that point. He continued:
“We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay”—
so the Minister in the other place focused on low pay as well. He went on to say that he did,
“not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies”,
which is consistent with what the noble Lord just said. However, he then went on to state,
“That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; cols. 210-11.]
Although significant growth in executive pay is largely a private sector phenomenon, we support the thrust of greater transparency. We also support the Government’s approach to tackling this in the manner provided, rather than as in the other two options set out in the impact assessment. As the fair pay report also concludes, evaluating these by benchmarking off the salary of the Prime Minister is a nonsense, particularly if you add in the benefits that the Prime Minister gets, which include a central London flat with access to rather a large garden, not to mention the odd country estate. A more realistic figure of his remuneration might be in excess of £0.5 million a year. However, the report also concludes that putting in limits of fixed multiples of lowest pay would, in a sense, be unfair as well.
Lord True
My Lords, perhaps I can speak briefly to Amendment 105 but before doing so, I pray the indulgence of the Committee if the debate is prolonged, as I have amendments to the Education Bill in Grand Committee. I mean no offence if I have to withdraw at some point. I should also say in preamble that, having seen the news yesterday on the transparency of Transport for London and given the matters we will be considering in Clause 206, I wonder whether “a relevant authority” might include Transport for London within the meaning of these clauses.
I am grateful for my noble friend’s remarks, but my concern is about politically inspired resolutions put to local authorities, particularly in the run-up to elections. I accept that the wording of my amendment may not be correct. I am not someone who has argued for extensive regulation but we have seen, even from such an august person as the Secretary of State, that public comment on the level of senior officers’ pay attracts the attention—often very approving attention—of the press. My fear is that, notwithstanding the niceties of employment law and the effective risk of constructive dismissal, in the approach to an election it would be unbearably tempting for a minority party in a local authority to lay a resolution calling, say, for the reduction of chief officers’ pay by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. Why stop there? “Vote for us and we will cut senior officers’ pay”.
In those circumstances it is politically quite difficult for the governing party in a local authority to resist such a proposal if put as a resolution to a council. Any member of a council can put forward a resolution just as any noble Lord can put forward a proposal here. Clause 23(4) makes it absolutely clear that, including after the beginning of the financial year in which a senior officer’s pay statement has been laid, it is perfectly in order for a local authority to seek to change that pay statement. So while I am not calling more regulation down on the heads of local authorities, I warn my noble friend that there is an extremely high risk in the six months before elections of competitive resolutions being laid to reduce the pay of members in authority, which might have pernicious effects and could, in some cases, be contrary to employment law.
Having asked my noble friend to consider the matter, I am grateful for the consideration he has given so far and I am reassured by some of the things he has said on the point, but I hope that, in considering any guidance, he will take very seriously the points that have been made. It would be a great pity to see a rash of resolutions coming out of local authorities asking the impossible of senior officers, who are in most cases distinguished public servants doing their best for local people.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I have to say that it would be a huge infraction on the responsibilities and rights of elected members of councils to indicate what might go on a council agenda and what might not. That is going much too far. Although I expect members to behave responsibly, if they are irresponsible, it would be the task of those answering such a resolution to make the case. We ought to have the self-confidence to do that, so I do not think, with all respect to the noble Lord, that his amendment should progress.
I seek some assurances from the Minister, to see whether I have understood him correctly, apart from anything else. Later—many, many hours later—we will come to the question of the community infrastructure levy and whether or not it should be a material consideration in determining planning matters. There will, I think, be quite strong views about that. I wonder, having heard the Minister, whether it will be permissible for councils to take into account the factors referred to in my noble friend’s amendment as a material consideration in the awarding of contracts. If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord indicated that that would be permissible, although it should not be prescribed, and I can understand that position. Perhaps he will confirm or disabuse me of that notion.
I also ask the noble Lord whether he has a view on the living wage, which has been espoused—I think before an election but certainly after an election, to revert to the point of the noble Lord, Lord True—by no less a person than the Mayor of London, who has adopted the concept initiated by his predecessor of promoting the living wage. Does he accept that it is right for councils, if they choose, to adopt such a policy in respect of their own authorities and to seek to reflect that in the conditions upon which they let contracts?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a short but very useful debate on a very important aspect of local government policy. I assure noble Lords that the guidance which will be issued will take note of issues raised in this debate. While we may not agree on all aspects, there appears to be a good deal of consensus that the Government’s approach on senior pay is to be welcomed as, indeed, are the requirements of our amendments for a pay policy statement. I am grateful to the noble Lord for lending his support to that concept.
Our amendments build on that approach and will increase accountability for local decisions about the lowest paid in the local government workforce. I say local decisions deliberately. The Government are quite clear that these decisions on pay and reward must remain ones for local determination. I hope that noble Lords opposite will acknowledge that the Government have fulfilled our commitment to reflect on discussions around low pay in the other place and brought forward appropriate amendments, as, indeed, we do today.
The Government did not undertake at that time to consider measures to increase duties on local authorities with regard to their relationship with bodies with whom they can contract. We believe such proposals would be burdensome. Charities, the voluntary sector and business have called for regulation around contracting to be reduced. There is general consensus that in order to achieve greater participation of the voluntary sector and small businesses in local government contracting, we need to make the process of contracting as simple as possible.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before we conclude, I thank the Minister for what he said. We accept that from the Government’s perspective, they have fulfilled the obligation they made in the other place. As I said in speaking to my amendments, I do not think they have fulfilled it as fully as we would have liked, but when can we expect to see the guidance in this area? That would help our deliberations and could potentially preclude a return visit to this matter on Report.
In respect of the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord True, who is no longer in his place—I understand he has to be elsewhere—competitive resolutions are not quite the environment I would have expected. It is certainly not how we conduct politics in Luton, but it raises all sorts of interesting questions, not for debate now, about people addressing those resolutions on a predetermined basis.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I understand exactly what the noble Lord is referring to, but I hope it has expedited this debate to the advantage of the Committee. I cannot give an answer on when the guidance will be available. If I am able to get that information, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(b) the remuneration of its lowest-paid employees, and(c) the relationship between—(i) the remuneration of its chief officers, and(ii) the remuneration of its employees who are not chief officers.(2A) The statement must state—
(a) the definition of “lowest-paid employees” adopted by the authority for the purposes of the statement, and(b) the authority’s reasons for adopting that definition.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(5A) In this Chapter “remuneration”, in relation to a relevant authority and an employee of its who is not a chief officer, means—
(a) the employee’s salary,(b) any bonuses payable by the authority to the employee,(c) any allowances payable by the authority to the employee,(d) any benefits in kind to which the employee is entitled as a result of the employee’s employment,(e) any increase in or enhancement of the employee’s pension entitlement where the increase or enhancement is as a result of a resolution of the authority, and(f) any amounts payable by the authority to the employee on the employee ceasing to be employed by the authority, other than any amounts that may be payable by virtue of any enactment.(5B) References in this Chapter to the remuneration of an employee who is not a chief officer include—
(a) the remuneration that may be provided to that employee in the future, and(b) the remuneration that is to be provided to employees of the same kind that the authority may employ in the future.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I expect your Lordships will be familiar with the provisions of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and specifically all the requirements laid down in Chapter 1. On the off-chance that all its details do not immediately spring to mind, perhaps I might be forgiven for outlining the relevant chapter.
The duties referred to relate to the promotion of democracy, and the Act sets out a number of issues upon which councils have a duty to promote understanding. They include the democratic arrangements of authorities: that is,
“(a) the functions of the authority;
(b) the democratic arrangements of the authority;
(c) how members of the public can take part in those democratic arrangements and what is involved in taking part”.
The duty also includes:
“a duty to promote understanding of the following among local people—
(a) how to become a member of the principal local authority;
(b) what members of the principal local authority do;
(c) what support is available for members of the principal local authority”.
This is obviously designed to encourage greater participation and greater willingness on the part of people to stand for election and to serve as elected councillors.
In addition, the Act requires councils to promote the understanding of and information about a range of other organisations with which local councils are connected: for example, monitoring boards, courts boards and youth offending teams. The Act also requires councils to promote understanding among local people about the magistracy:
“(a) the functions of a lay justice;
(b) how a member of the public can become a lay justice;
(c) what is involved in being a lay justice”.
These are fairly simple tools with which to promote the involvement of people in local governance—using the term broadly—with both local authorities and, as I have indicated and as the Act makes clear, a range of other local institutions that impinge upon the life of the community and are very often dependent on the voluntary participation of members of that community. They are examples of engagement with society which any Government, including the present one, would presumably wish to encourage very strongly. I therefore do not understand why this Bill seeks to remove that duty. This Bill purports to be about localism and local government, about involving people in the decisions affecting their lives and those of their community, about encouraging wider civic responsibility, so why does this clause remove a basic, not particularly elaborate or expensive, duty to promote exactly that? What is this clause doing in this Bill?
Lord Tope
My Lords, the noble Lord began by suggesting that we might not remember the provisions of the local democracy and everything else Bill. Some of us in this House remember it only too vividly. The noble Lord had the good fortune, if I might say so, not to have been a Member of the House then, but I remind your Lordships that we spent many, many hours on this part of that Bill.
The short answer to the noble Lord’s question as to why my noble friends and I rejoice at this clause is prescription. We spend many hours in this House, including on this Bill, complaining about central government prescribing in detail to local government what it should and should not do, what it can and cannot do, and even more particularly how it should do it. That is what Part 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill did in enormous detail. I am sure my noble friend Lord Greaves will remind us exactly how many pages, words and possibly even letters it took to do this. That Bill started in your Lordships’ House and we spent a long time trying to improve that part of it, arguing that it was not the business of central government to prescribe exactly what local government should do and how they should do these things. Of course we should promote democracy. Of course we should encourage all these things. All good local authorities of whatever political control are already doing that. They have been doing it, in most cases very successfully, for many years and will carry on doing so whether there is an Act of Parliament requiring them to do so or not. So I, for one, rejoice at this clause, and this might be one of the few times I say that during this Committee.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I underline what my noble friend has just said. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is not here to take part in the discussion today because she was the Minister who had to take this nonsense through the House. She did it with great composure and good manners, although I am not sure what she secretly thought about it. The other Minister involved was the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, who is here. Perhaps he can tell us whether he is quite as appalled that this duty is going as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested.
I regret to say that I, too, am extremely familiar with the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, particularly this part of it, and it is seriously flawed. As an explanation of local democratic involvement, it completely missed out the voluntary sector, local partnerships and so on, which some of us tried to put in but failed. As my noble friend said, it is extremely prescriptive. If it is localism, it is top-down localism of the kind that we are criticising in this Bill, and it is very pleasant to see that this Bill is getting rid of a bit of that.
The effect that this part of the Act has had since it was passed appears to have been zero in most parts of the country. I am not aware of any authority having done anything significant as a result of this legislation, and in two-tier areas it set up a ridiculous bureaucratic system of exchange of information. Again, I have no idea how many councils have actually been carrying out this duty, but I suspect that a lot of them have just been ignoring the legislation because it was fairly useless. So I, too, rejoice that this duty is going, and I wish that the spirit behind this clause was more prevalent in some other parts of this Bill.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I will not please you all but I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. This clause removes the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to provide information to people about how local government systems work. This might include providing information on the role of councillors, councils, relevant public bodies, civic roles and so forth. As has been indicated, it was part of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. My noble friend Lord Greaves has not heard much about it is because the duty has not yet commenced and therefore its repeal will have no significant impact on authorities. We therefore wish to remove it from the statute book as it would constitute, if it were to be enacted, an unnecessary burden on local authorities.
The Government are committed to enhancing local democracy, but they also want to guard against adding costly burdens to local authorities. Many authorities are already doing lots of good work to provide information to people about local government systems without having a duty placed on them to do so.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely agree with noble Lords who reject the notion of overprescription in this or any other part of the Bill. However, removing a duty to promote democracy altogether sends an unfortunate signal. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seemed to admit that he wanted to add to prescription when the Bill was originally debated because he wanted to include bodies to which reference is not made, which is a slight inconsistency.
Lord Greaves
In my defence, I should say that there are two lines of attack for Governments, although I should not use that phrase at the moment. The first is that the whole thing should not exist. The second is that if it does exist, we should try to improve it, which is our view on a lot of this Bill. If this was such a wonderful thing, why did the previous Government spend two years after the Bill was enacted not commencing this part?
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord will be aware that, no doubt for good reasons, I was not a member of the previous Labour Government and I cannot answer for them. They did not do everything that we would have wished in local government. Perhaps this matter did not achieve the priority that some of us would have liked. In replying, the Minister is right to point out possible costs of the detailed guidance that his civil servants are so ready to produce. Of course, that does not mean that that degree of prescription is unnecessarily desirable and that the costs will necessarily have been incurred.
If we want to encourage participation in local government and voter turnout, the people standing for election or seeking to serve their community as magistrates need encouragement and information. The community as a whole needs to be informed about what its local authority can and cannot do, and how it might be influenced. Much of the Bill is about those processes going on in different ways at different levels. The duty would have reinforced the thrust of the Bill. With respect, I still do not see why it is being removed.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is not in his place. Perhaps his two colleagues have taken him to one side because he subscribed to my amendment.
Lord Beecham
Indeed, but had he been here, I assume he would have supported the amendment to which he has ascribed his name, and with his long experience of local government—including as leader of the council in which we both serve—I would have thought that might carry some weight with his colleagues, but apparently not.
However, I hope it will be recognised that all of us have a responsibility in public and political life to encourage greater participation. If we are not going to do it under the auspices of a duty, let us at least in our various capacities endeavour to do it more broadly, because local democracy needs that kind of support.
The Bill proposes a different method, which I consider to be less satisfactory and which I believe the noble Lords may also consider unsatisfactory, which is the system of local referendums. We will debate it later today, no doubt. This is a much more elaborate system in a different context, because in that case one is seeking the opinion of a community on a simple proposition, subject to a referendum with little authority, given that there will hardly be a significant threshold to call a referendum, let alone in respect of turnout. This is a much more elaborate and expensive way of doing things than dealing with petitions properly and encouraging them to come forward.
Again, I do not understand why the Government feel it necessary to remove these provisions, accepting, again, that the prescriptive element is otiose and could be dispensed with. Petitions are a better way for the public to draw attention to matters with which they are concerned, and for the public to get a response to those concerns in a reasonably structured way. It is true that in some councils there is a process for public petitions—certainly, in my council there is, and no doubt others as well—but it is not universal, and it is not something which is sufficiently developed. In terms of local accountability and transparency, petitioning is a good method, and preferable to the alternative which is enshrined in the Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider this clause. Even if local referendums remain, which will be debated later, and perhaps a view taken on report, it is not mutually exclusive, and the petitioning process could be left as it now stands in the Bill.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I will not do so. Once again, I rejoice at this clause and very much wish it to stand part of the Bill, unlike my noble friend, Lord Shipley, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We spent many hours—I have a recollection that it was probably many days—on this part of the Bill. We discussed pages and pages in extraordinary detail, debating how to collect, submit, and process petitions. When the Bill started in your Lordships’ House, the debate seemed to be based entirely on the premise that a petition to a local council was of the same format and standing as a petition to Parliament. In fact, all of us who have been councillors will have seen petitions to councils, and know that they are not usually the most formal documents you are likely to come across. They are of their nature at their best, because they are collected by and within the local community and do not have any formal standing or, often, any formal wording, as was originally suggested in the Bill.
We asked for evidence during all of this that local authorities were not dealing properly with petitions. I find it hard to believe that there can be a local authority of any size in the country that does not receive petitions. I wanted evidence that they were not dealing with them properly. The one merit of our hours of debate was that we discovered that quite a lot of local authorities, including the local authority of the then Secretary of State, did not adequately describe their procedure for dealing with petitions on their websites. The fault was not so much with the procedures of the council as with the adequacy of their websites. My own authority, and I am sure many others, improved their websites considerably as a result. That was a useful outcome, but it justified neither the hours that we spent on it nor the fact that it was all laid down in such prescriptive detail in a Bill.
The other useful factor of the debate was that it addressed the rather more modern issue of e-petitions, to which some local authorities probably had not then given sufficient attention. As a result of the Bill, and subsequently the Act, some authorities, including my own, probably gave them more consideration and put them on their websites.
We do not need an Act of Parliament to do that; we do not need pages and pages of prescription to do that; it is quite simply good practice, which could, possibly was and certainly should have been disseminated by the Local Government Association, in which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, played such a leading part. I shall not disappoint the noble Lord: I once again rejoice at this clause.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I cannot resist adding just a little bit to what has been said. I went back to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act when I saw Clause 29 stand part on the Marshalled List. There are in it 10 pages of detailed, prescriptive instructions to local authorities about how to receive petitions. Our discussions on that part of the Bill were extremely long, and I hold my hands up and say I was largely responsible for that. I remember my noble friend Lord Tope, having arrived back from one of his European trips, coming into the Moses Room, where we were discussing the Bill in Committee, and saying, “Good heavens! You’re not still on petitions, are you?”. But we were. I again pay tribute to the two then Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who is in his place, for making some effort to improve that part of the Bill. I think that it was 14 or 15 pages when it started off, and we at least got it down to 10.
My view is that very few authorities have taken petitions through this system, and that most petitions to local authorities since the legislation came into operation have continued to be dealt with as they always have been. I do not think that my own council has had a single one. We have had one or two that appeared to qualify. In those cases, we have suggested that the petitioners do what everybody else does and just go along to the area committee, talk to the petition in the normal way, and get it dealt with within days rather than the weeks and weeks of bureaucratic procedure set out in that part of the Bill. So I, too, rejoice that this nonsense has gone. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that we are getting a bigger and more dangerous nonsense, which we will discuss later on today.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I am delighted to respond once more to further rejoicing. I thank the noble Lords for their contributions.
At present, local authorities are required to make, publish and comply with a scheme for the handling of petitions made to the authority. It must include centrally prescribed information, and the scheme and any subsequent changes to it must be approved by a meeting of the full council. Local authorities are also required to provide a facility for making electronic petitions to the authority.
The current legislation means that local authorities must respond to a petition in a certain way and must hold a full council debate if it is signed by the number of people specified in the council’s petition scheme. Senior officers can also be called to account and are required to take part in a public meeting if a petition meets a signature threshold. Petitioners can request that the council’s overview and scrutiny committee reviews the council’s response to the petition if it feels it is not adequate. The prescription and cumbersome bureaucracy this has piled on local authorities is unjustifiable. I am not aware of any evidence that the service received by local people has improved, yet unlike the previous matter it has already resulted in a burden of £4.2 million across the sector, as well as money spent on set-up costs.
Lord Beecham
I thank the Minister for this reply. His council’s example is one that many councils follow and would have followed without the legislation and if the legislation goes will continue to follow it. However, that does not necessarily mean that all councils will do that. This ought to be the general practice. The Minister referred to consideration at a meeting or referral to an overview and scrutiny committee. These are examples of good practice which ought to be universal not optional. Again, taking the point about overprescription in terms of the details of how things are to done, I am sorry that the principle of a universal approach to enhancing local democracy, which the Minister and his noble friends will undoubtedly endorse, will suffer as a result of the removal of this duty. It is of a piece with the inconsistent approach that the Government are adopting in this Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has confirmed, we will be discussing later and in a form which is certainly worse than the worst allegations that could be made about the section which the Government propose to amend and delete from the 2009 Act.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is a different matter. We are now on to a substantive issue which the Government seek to introduce into the law of the land and to bind into the practice of local authorities.
I understand that John Major as Prime Minister was a great devotee of the novels of Trollope, regularly reading them, and I think his predecessor Harold Macmillan was much the same. I am wondering whether the present Secretary of State, Mr Pickles, has become a devotee of Dickens. He seems to be metamorphosing into a fusion of Dickens’ characters—a combination of Wackford Squeers, Mr Bumble and Gradgrind, leavened by a dash of Mr Pickwick. However, he is now developing, and has for some time developed, an obsession with waste and refuse collection. This seems to add Boffin, the golden dustman, to the cast list of Dickens’ characters which he is absorbing into his persona. I have never understood the Secretary of State's obsession with this issue. He has, to put it mildly, irritated local politicians of all parties, including the then chairman of the relevant board of the Local Government Association, Paul Bettison—a leading member of the Conservative Party and a leading figure in Conservative local government circles—by suggesting that charge and waste reduction schemes should not be implemented. He has, of course, opined many times about the number of refuse collections that should take place nationally.
First, this obsession seems inappropriate in any event for a Secretary of State. Secondly, one has to ask: what is a specific provision on a particular service doing in a Bill about localism? The Bill makes considerable play of giving councils a power of general competence and talks about the role of local government generally and of local communities, while Ministers frequently refer to the need to avoid prescription—we have heard that more than once this afternoon already. What could be more prescriptive than banning local authorities from a proposal to deal with waste problems, especially since the prescription that the Secretary of State would apply takes no notice of differences in localities or the implications for environmental issues such as recycling?
It is not as if the proposals about charging schemes were prescribed in their turn or as if councils had to embark on such policies. That would have been equally wrong because, again, different circumstances apply to different places. Even within an individual authority, there are areas where particular schemes would be appropriate and others where they are clearly not. It is obviously a matter for local decision but this Secretary of State, in his obsessive regard to this topic, seems to be intent on ruling out something that not many authorities have actually chosen to do. That is their choice. I do not think that many have gone in for those schemes so, again, the question has to be asked: why is this being inserted into the Bill? If it is to be a matter of political debate, should it not be debated rather than prescribed?
Noble Lords opposite have rejoiced at the abolition of prescription in the two areas which we have debated so far this afternoon. I hope they will join me in rejecting this considerable area of prescription that the Secretary of State wishes to impose on local government with absolutely no warrant at all, on the basis of evidence or of the public good.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the noble Lord is persuasive in his arguments by suggesting that what is happening here is that the Government are removing the freedoms of local authorities, but it is not quite like that. The freedoms that he is talking about are very prescriptive and if he reads the particular part of the Climate Change Act, he will discover that. These waste reduction schemes are all nonsense, really. I keep using that word but I remember that this is another part of a Bill where I made a nuisance of myself in your Lordships’ House by detaining the House for probably too long while it was being debated and discussed.
The Bill refers to schemes relating to the amount of waste, the size and type of the containers and the frequency of collections. There was what was colloquially known at the time as the chip-in-bin scheme, where a chip in a bin would in some magic way measure the amount of waste being provided. There was the big bin and little bin scheme, where if you had a little bin you were okay and got it for free, but if you had a big bin you had to pay more for it, which affected large families. There was the pound-a-sack scheme, where you had to go and buy approved sacks for a pound each and fill them up—a scheme which was reported to have worked extremely well in Maastricht, but probably nowhere else. There was also a frequency of collection scheme, where you had a weekly collection, but if you wanted it more frequently you had to pay—the pay per day scheme. So these four schemes took on an iconic quality as far as the last Government were concerned, but they have never been brought into effect because they are not the way to go about it.
Rather unusually, what the Secretary of State is doing is championing a waste collection service that is a universal free service. That is what he is championing and I thought the Labour Party used to believe in such things. But not now, it wants the chips-in-bins and the pound-per-sacks schemes and all the rest of it. I am delighted to see this go. I wish we had been able to persuade the last Government that we should not have wasted all that time on legislation that was never introduced.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, Clause 30 removes powers that enable local authorities to run pilot waste reduction schemes. We announced our intention to remove these powers in June 2010. We believe that rewards rather than penalties are the best way to encourage people to reduce the amount of waste they produce. We wish to see local authorities helping householders to do the right thing with their waste, rather than punishing them for doing the wrong thing. We also consider that schemes which include fines based on the weight of residual waste left out by householders are likely to result in fly-tipping and other anti-social behaviour.
This Government are clear that rewarding householders for recycling or for reducing waste is to be encouraged; we want to help them to do the right thing. Removing these powers in the Climate Change Act will free up local authorities to use their broader well-being powers or general powers of competence, as appropriate, to provide rewards for waste reduction. Since their introduction there has been little appetite for using the Climate Change Act powers. No local authority has yet applied to take up a charge-and-reward scheme and no schemes will be dismantled as a result of their removal.
This clause simply removes Sections 71 to 75 of Part 5 and Schedule 5 from the Climate Change Act 2008. This will remove the provisions for waste reduction schemes but have no wider effect on the powers of, or burdens upon, local authorities. It is interesting that Royal Assent was on 26 November 2008, two and a half years ago, and no one has sought to bring this in. I therefore beg to move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is another case of local authorities having the power to do anything they like except what the Secretary of State decides they should not do. It is on a simple point of principle that this amendment is moved. I regret very much that the Minister and his noble friends do not seem to grasp the inconsistency inherent in their position, but so be it.
Higher Education White Paper
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr David Willetts.
“With permission, I would like to make a statement on the higher education White Paper. It sets out how our reforms will build on the changes to student support announced last year. We will put higher education back on to a sustainable financial footing. We will put students at the heart of the system, improving the academic experience, with universities and colleges more accountable to their students than ever before. We will also take steps to improve social mobility without compromising academic excellence or institutional autonomy.
We inherited an enormous deficit which required difficult decisions. We could have reduced student numbers, or spending per student, or provided less help with living costs. However, these options would have been unfair to students, to universities and to the country. Instead we are introducing a pay-as-you-earn system that provides more support for students, does not require reductions in student numbers and increases the cash flowing into higher education. We estimate there could be a cash increase in funding for higher education of around 10 per cent by 2014-15. Our reforms ensure that no first-time undergraduate will have to pay fees up front and asks them to contribute to the cost of their education only once they earn more than £21,000.
This increase in the repayment threshold—up from £15,000 under the current system—means that graduates will benefit from smaller monthly repayments than under the current system. For example, someone earning £20,000, the median starting salary for graduates, repays £38 a month under the system we inherited from the previous Government. In future they will pay nothing. At the moment, a graduate earning £36,000, the median salary for all graduates, pays £158 a month. Under our scheme, that falls to £113 a month. Our reforms also recognise that for many people higher education does not mean a full-time, residential degree. Some students want to work or take care of their family while studying. To support them, many part-time students and distance learners will become entitled to loans to cover their full tuition costs for the first time.
I can announce today that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have agreed that, for undergraduate medical and dentistry students starting their course in autumn 2012, the NHS bursary will be increased in years 5 and 6 to cover the full costs of tuition. For graduate entrants starting in autumn 2012, access to student loans will be made available so that there are no additional up-front tuition costs. We will consider arrangements for subsequent years. More information is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
These changes to higher education funding enable us to put financial power in the hands of learners. To make that effective we need to liberalise the system of quotas we inherited from the previous Government so that more students can go to universities that offer a good-quality, good-value student experience. The White Paper therefore proposes unconstrained recruitment of the roughly 65,000 high-achieving students who score the equivalent of AAB grades or above at A-level. Quotas for these students will be abolished and funding will go to whichever university offers them a place they accept. In addition, we will create a flexible margin of about 20,000 places to reward universities and colleges that combine good quality with value for money and with average tuition charge, after waivers, at or below £7,500 per year. This adds up to around 85,000 student places—roughly one in four places for new entrants—contestable between institutions in 2012-13. We aim to expand this further year after year.
We will also extend the scope for employers and charities to offer sponsorship for extra places, provided they do not create a cost liability for government and provided, of course, there is fair access for all applicants, regardless of ability to pay, and no sacrifice of academic standards.
These reforms put students in the driving seat. Putting this power to best effect means not just liberalising the quotas regime; prospective students also need to know far more about the academic experience on offer. We will therefore transform the information available to them about individual courses at individual institutions. Each institution will make available key items of information such as contact hours and job prospects. Information will also be available to outside bodies such as Which? to produce their own comparisons. It will lead universities to match their excellence in research with a high-quality academic experience.
We also want our universities to work with business to improve the job prospects of their graduates by providing the knowledge and skills that employers value. The sandwich course, which gives students practical experience of work, declined under the previous Labour Government. We want to reverse that. We have therefore asked Professor Sir Tim Wilson, who made the University of Hertfordshire one of our most business-friendly universities, to review how we can make England the best place in the world for university-industry collaboration. We want our universities to work with business across their teaching and research activities to promote better teaching, employer sponsorship, innovation and enterprise.
Student choice is more real if, as well as liberalising quotas and transforming information, there is a greater diversity of institutions to choose from. We will therefore remove the barriers to more provision from the Open University, further education colleges and private providers. We will simplify the regime for obtaining degree-awarding powers. We will also review the artificial barriers to smaller higher education institutions taking the title “University”.
We want students from a wide range of backgrounds to benefit from these reforms. We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students. We are introducing a national scholarship programme and we will strengthen the Office for Fair Access to make sure institutions fulfil their outreach and retention obligations for people from disadvantaged groups. This will not be at the expense of institutional autonomy. The Director of Fair Access will continue to have a duty to protect academic freedom, including an institution’s right to decide who to admit and on what basis.
In order for universities and academics to focus on educating their students, we will strip back the burden of excessive regulation and form filling. We will explore whether it is possible to reduce costs associated with corporation tax returns. HMRC has today announced its consultation on the possibility of introducing a relief to remove some of the VAT barriers which currently deter institutions from sharing costs. We will reduce burdens from information collection. We will give power to students to trigger quality reviews where there are grounds for concern, yet cut back the burden of automatic review for high-performing institutions. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will be the lead regulator, taking on a new role as consumer champion for students and promoter of a competitive system.
We are now inviting people to comment on our proposals as part of a broad consultation. Subject to parliamentary time, this will be followed by a higher education Bill next year, to make the necessary legislative changes to deliver these reforms. This White Paper offers universities the prospect of more funding provided that they attract students. At the same time it saves money for the Exchequer by asking graduates to pay back more as their earnings increase.
Our universities already transform people’s life chances, and we expect them to do even more. We will protect their autonomy and reduce the regulatory burdens they face. Above all our proposals benefit students by driving universities to focus on the student experience. They will have real choice, with better information and a wider range of institutions to choose from. I commend this White Paper to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on higher education made earlier today in another place. This White Paper is the third policy initiative in higher education in recent months, but instead of bringing forward policies to enhance and extend a higher education system which is the envy of the world, the White Paper is nothing more than a hastily put-together rescue package for the department, sheltering behind some vacuous notions of competition and quality.
The truth is that, having taken the disastrous decisions to cut teaching budgets, to cut funds for investing in research, to cut science funding by 10 per cent in real terms over the CSR period, to curtail overseas student visas and to open the way to make university three times more expensive for students than it is at present, the Government have created a funding hole in the higher education budget estimated to be at least £600 million and perhaps as much as £1 billion.
We do not believe that the measures outlined today will put higher education back on a sustainable financial footing. It is surely just wishful thinking to assert that privatising higher education and switching to a higher education voucher system—one of only four in the world—will ensure that student demand is satisfied, that teaching and learning quality is maintained or improved and that research activity is preserved.
The simple truth is that this White Paper has one limited aim, which is to drive down the cost to the public purse of running our higher education system. The direct effect will be to reduce the unit of resource for teaching and hence reduce quality and further reduce the flow of good, qualified graduates into the workplace at the very time we need them most.
In the Statement the Minister mentioned that the Government wanted to take steps to improve social mobility, but the only mechanism mentioned is the plan to strengthen the Office for Fair Access. On demand, the White Paper says that the Government adhere to the Robbins principle, but it is “Subject to expenditure constraints”. I really do not think the Government can have it both ways. Either all students with the aptitude who wish to enter higher education may do so, or they may not. Can the Minister confirm that the Robbins principle is now defunct?
On social inclusion, children within the wealthier sections of society are three times more likely to go to university. Very few pupils on free school meals get three As so they are effectively excluded from applying for the selective universities. How exactly will the proposals in the White Paper boost the number of those from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university, when this is a requirement on institutions, not on HEFCE? There are also regional differences. For example, pupils in north-east schools are far less likely to go to university than those living in the south-east. Can the Minister point to measures that will redress this imbalance?
I turn to some of the more detailed comments. As the Minister said, universities will be able to expand the number of students they take who have AAB grades or better. It is well known that 50 per cent of those who get AAB grades or better are actually from private schools or grammar schools. In practice, virtually all students with AAB grades on entry can already get a university place. This proposal therefore ignores the many equally talented would-be students who do not go down the traditional A-level route, and ignores those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am advised that the Institute of Physics has already warned that this measure may deter study of the sciences or maths at A-level. Is this a fair outcome?
The Government are going to cut student places at most universities. The places will be put into a central pot from which universities will have to bid for any extra places they want to offer. On what criteria can these bids be judged, other than by their value or cheapness? Of course, in future years, the Government can put more and more places into the central pot, depending on budgetary pressures at that time. It may be worth pointing out that this approach was tried in the early 1990s and resulted in a near-catastrophic reduction in funding per student. We fear that that might be the case this time around.
The proposal to offer loans to students attending private universities shows that the Government have no real concern for the health of the public universities, which are an integral part of the nation’s infrastructure in a way that private institutions are not. There is surely a lesson to be learnt here from the United States, where private universities got rich at the expense of the Government, despite a shocking record on student achievement and employability.
The Government’s higher education plans are unfair, unnecessary and unsustainable. The proposals in the White Paper are a direct response to the black hole in the Government’s higher education budget that was caused by their earlier policy decisions. To encourage economic growth, most of Britain’s competitors are increasing funding for their higher education and research budgets. The Government’s proposal will mean that English universities will have among the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world, while being among the worst in terms of public funding. At heart, this White Paper is about depressing demand for higher education and about putting unreasonable competitive pressures on many of our most-admired public institutions. It is already clear that a whole generation of students may suffer because of the Government’s miscalculations and their need to find ways to restrict access to the higher education that people want.
Lord Henley
My Lords, that address by the noble Lord on behalf of the Opposition was rather extraordinary. He started off by making allegations that this White Paper was allegedly “hastily put together”—I think that those were his words. I can assure him that it took a considerable amount of time, and haste certainly did not come into it. As the noble Lord will know, we were hoping to get this out somewhat earlier but, in our desire to get these things right, it was delayed until this day. That is often the way with these things.
The noble Lord then made allegations of cuts to higher education. Yes, we have had to cut the amount of money from the public purse going to higher education. We have had to make reductions in a large number of other departments, but again, as my noble friends and my right honourable friends in another place have done on many occasions, I have to remind opposition Members: whose fault is that? We inherited a deficit of quite stupendous proportions and we had to address that before we could even begin to start—we had to tackle the debt. We therefore had to find some sustainable way of funding higher education, which is a public good, and we have come up with a scheme that in effect, as was made clear in the Statement, will by 2015 increase by some 10 per cent the amount of money available to higher education.
That must be a good thing, but we have to ask the serious question as to who should be paying for higher education as a whole. I got the impression—and I should be very interested to hear from the noble Lord or one of his noble friends whether this is the case—that it is now the policy of the party opposite that all the funding should come from the taxpayer and none from those who benefit from it. Under the scheme that we are proposing, a great deal of money will come from the students who benefit from the higher education they receive. However, in addition—because in the end we will get back only a certain amount of the money—a great deal is coming from the public purse. There is a balance between the public benefit we get and the private benefit that the individual students get. I was rather surprised by the tone of the noble Lord’s response, which seemed to suggest that all funding should come from the taxpayer. That was how I understood it and I imagine how it was supposed to be understood by most people listening to it. The noble Lord’s party did not do that when it was in government and I would be interested to know whether that policy has changed.
The noble Lord then asked a number of detailed questions. I will look at those in due course but I will comment on one or two of them. He pointed out regional differences in terms of access to universities. That is unfortunate. We have to look at the schools. Again I am grateful for everything that my right honourable friend Mr Michael Gove is doing in the Department for Education to improve education. It is by improving education before students get to universities that we will improve access to the universities. It is not by magically saying, “You must take in X, Y or Z, however badly educated they have been”. We must get it right at an earlier level, and that is exactly what my right honourable friend is addressing in the various reforms that he is bringing to education.
The noble Lord then talked about plans to allow universities to attract more of the AABs or equivalent. I think he slightly misunderstood what was set out in the Statement. We know that most people who achieve AAB or above, or the equivalent, will go to university, but we want the universities to be able to compete as to how many they can get. There should be no artificial cap on the numbers, and that is what the White Paper sets out.
I was rather saddened by the noble Lord’s attack on the private sector within education, which includes principally the private universities but also other institutions offering degrees. They offer a valuable service and we should not back away from that. We should continue to support them and I am very glad that my right honourable friend has found a means of doing that.
Lastly, the noble Lord alleged that the whole scheme was designed to depress demand for access to higher education. That is not the case. The Government are still committed to encouraging as many people as possible to go to university within the current restraints on the public purse—and we know whose fault that is. The noble Lord will know that things have changed a great deal over the years since he and I were at university, when about one in eight of us went to university. If we go back to our parents’ generation, the proportion was probably about 2 per cent—of course, it depends on the age of your parents. Now the percentage is in the high 40s. We believe that is a good thing, but obviously it does change the way one has to think about how university should be paid for.
There are other, more detailed points that the noble Lord put to me. I will look at precisely what he said later and, if necessary, write to him.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement, which has been extremely useful. It clears up a degree of uncertainty that there has been around universities for a very long time. As the noble Lord said, it has taken a long time for the White Paper to come to us, rather than a short time. I also welcome a number of other aspects of it. The opening up of the university system and the creation of a far greater diversity of routes for higher education are thoroughly good things for this country. As many noble Lords around the House will know, I have for a long time advocated the facilitation of the part-time route so that those who want to earn and learn can do so and have access to support equivalent to that for full-time undergraduates. That is extremely important. The Minister will know that one or two minor issues arise here and I will raise them with him in due course. However, on the whole I think that this is a thoroughly worthwhile development. I also welcome the reintroduction of sandwich courses.
Can the Minister provide clarification about the AAB issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised? At the moment, as I recall, we provide somewhere in the region of 350,000 undergraduate places every year. As I understand it, 65,000 of those places are going to be put into a pot to be bid for by any university, according to what students want to do, and a university will then be allowed to exceed its quota if an AAB student wants to attend. The other 20,000 places are for institutions that charge less than £7,500 per year. This is not creating new places; they are existing places. In effect, as I said, 65,000 places are being taken out of the pot at one end and 20,000 at the other end. I worry about that slightly. The noble Lord is quite right that the problem is that our secondary schools perhaps do not produce enough AAB students. However, there is a real problem here. There was an experiment by King’s College in which medical students worked with local secondary schools in south-east London, bringing forward pupils who were not achieving at that level. However, by the time those pupils had been through the degree course, they achieved just as highly as the others, which shows what potential there is. Universities need to have flexibility in that sense. There is a danger that we shall expand the universities taking the top-achieving students, thus depriving some of the lower-achieving students. I confess that that worries me.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the cost. As the White Paper says, the Government reckon that by 2014-15 the scheme is going to cost more. As the Minister will know, the cost of loans is going to be very considerable, and it looks as though the Government may well end up spending more on the loan scheme than they are putting in at the moment in direct grants.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lady Sharp, particularly regarding the fact that the White Paper has cleared up uncertainty, and for her emphasis that we—or, rather, my honourable friends in another place and in BIS—have taken time over it. I am also grateful for what she said about the need for diversity in higher education. We should always remember that higher education is not just hallowed colleges in Oxford or Cambridge but a whole range of different things. I was grateful that she mentioned part-time students at the Open University and matters of that sort. I think that something like a third of all students are part time, although I shall have to check that figure. I was trying to find it in my briefing pack but could not. I was also grateful for what she said about the fact that we want to put more emphasis on sandwich courses. We will certainly look to see what Sir Tim has to say about that.
On the AAB cohort which we were talking about and which I mentioned in the Statement, the figure that I have is of the order of 300,000 students coming in each year, not 350,000, but we will not quibble about 50,000.
Lord Henley
Well, we will try not to quibble about 50,000 but I can see the odd accountant sitting opposite me. Of those, 65,000 are AAB students. We are not creating new places for them but we are allowing the HE institutions to compete for them. Therefore, the University of X might want to expand certain courses by bringing in more of those students, but that would mean, by definition, that the University of Y might lose out. However, we think that it is necessary to bring in that element of competition. The 20,000 places that I added to that are not for AAB students but for those where universities offer value for money with their courses coming in on average, after waivers and so on, at or below £7,500. Again, it will be open to universities to compete for those places. It is not a question of creating new places at this stage. However, if matters were to become more contestable, we would certainly want to look at that in the future, and, as I made clear in the Statement, we aim to expand the scheme further year after year.
I noted what my noble friend said about the cost of loans. Obviously loans are expensive but they would be considerably more expensive if they were not arranged by the Government. The Government can, after all, borrow at considerably cheaper rates than individuals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. He will be aware of widespread concerns about the damage that these reforms pose to the position of the humanities in higher education. I wonder whether he shares those concerns and if so, what he will do about them. If he does not share those concerns, why not?
Lord Henley
I simply do not accept those concerns, as was made clear in the debate we had some six months ago when we debated the original announcement about student loans. It will be up to the universities to attract the right students. Those students will bring the money with them that will pay for the courses.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Statement. It will obviously take time to absorb the details. I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and say that from the perspective of those of us in the higher education sector the Government’s approach seems slightly schizophrenic. On the one hand we hear about creating a market, liberalising the university sector and deregulating, but on the other hand we hear of increasing constraints imposed on us in reporting, access and the level of fee that we can charge. As I said, there is a slightly schizophrenic approach.
I have a particular question to ask the Minister. If, as he has indicated, the aim is to place the student in the driving seat to create a market where student choice and wishes determine the outcome, that leaves open the question of where the university sector will end up. We know from the report from the Royal Society a couple of years ago that this country suffers from a serious shortage of students educated in engineering, the natural sciences and mathematics. Do the Government have a view on what proportion of students should study STEM subjects? If so, why are they leaving it to the market and student choice? Students may well choose to study subjects that do not require such a rigorous entry as mathematics, physics, chemistry and engineering, and universities may well choose to teach subjects that are cheaper to lay on. Do the Government have any view about the provision for STEM graduates, or is that simply a matter for the market?
Lord Henley
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, and obviously much in this White Paper needs to be discussed. After all, it offers up the idea of consultation on a number of subjects, which is a matter that we will take on board. He then suggested that we had a slightly schizophrenic approach. I remember being castigated on many occasions by my late noble kinsman Lord Russell on the question of academic freedom and attacks that the previous Conservative Government were allegedly making on institutions. We are very anxious, as we make clear in the Statement, to preserve academic freedom and to leave the decision-making to universities. Obviously, when public money is involved—and considerable amounts are involved—it is right that we should make our views known.
The noble Lord then talked about the STEM subjects. He gave an example of the shortage of engineers and asked what our approach should be. We have to be very wary of government setting down specific targets for this or that number of engineers. The noble Lord will remember that the former Soviet Union produced a very large number of engineers, no doubt at the sort of central direction that some noble Lords opposite might like—but look where it got them. I seem to remember the expression, “Upper Volta with rockets”. That is not a route that we would want to go down. What we are setting out is probably a better approach.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his Statement and for the further thinking that the Government are clearly doing following the earlier Statements and papers on higher education. Perhaps I should begin my question analogically. In honour of the millennium, I was offered finance to pay for a stained glass window in the cathedral over which I then presided. Alarmed that I had already commissioned an artist, the donor asked me whether I had gone for three competitive quotes for the window as he had done in the previous year when he was repairing his garage roof—in other words, economics came before creativity. Value for money in higher education is obviously crucial, but can the Minister assure us that the pursuit of enterprise, competition and, indeed, a focus on business will not lead to utility triumphing over a liberal education, removing breadth of curriculum and marginalising not only the arts and humanities but other less obviously utilitarian disciplines?
Lord Henley
My Lords, in the debate before this Statement, the noble Lord opposite castigated my right honourable friend Mr Pickles as a Gradgrind figure. We obviously want to be wary of aiming just for value for money, but we have to be very careful to make sure that public money is spent appropriately. I do not think, bearing in mind what I said about preserving academic freedom and the ability of higher education institutions to decide for themselves how to do things, that the approach we are setting out does that in any way at all. We want to make sure that any public money is spent appropriately.
Lord Lucas
Does my noble friend agree that the practice of cross-subsidisation must now end? It may have been acceptable, when it was just government money, to take £5,000 from the money provided for a humanities course and give it to a student doing an engineering course. Now, when we are asking a humanities graduate to pay £9,000, it is surely totally unacceptable to take half that money and spend it on an engineering student.
Lord Henley
Again, I want to leave this as a matter for the higher education institutions themselves. It is up to them; they do not have to charge the same amount for each student if those students are doing different courses. If students are doing a humanities subject, there is no reason why the institutions should not charge less than for other, more expensive subjects. It must be a matter for them.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I will respond to a couple of points that he made in reply to my noble friend Lord Stevenson. We do not deny the deficit; our counteraccusation to Her Majesty’s Government is that they are dealing with the deficit too far, too fast. Of course, we have not retreated to the position that all funding should come from taxpayers; we recognise the challenge of expanding higher education—indeed, we introduced student fees. This is about the level of them. I share the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to support for part-time students, and I hope that we will see an expansion of sandwich courses—and that response from business.
In the beginning, when the Government responded to the Browne report and put the figure of £9,000, there was a lot of confidence that not all universities would rise to that figure. Yet currently more than 80 per cent of universities have indicated their intention to charge £9,000. I was interested in the response to the previous speaker that there might be a variation, but the current public position is charging £9,000. Will that be a deterrent to potential graduates when they see the potential size of their loan increasing so much—figures of £40,000 are not exaggerated? I know the response will be that there is no upfront payment. Nevertheless, people will see a loan that eventually has to be repaid.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s admission on behalf of his party that it does not deny the deficit. I am also grateful that he has recognised that funding must come from the beneficiaries of education as well as from the taxpayer—from both sides.
The noble Lord turned to the Browne report which, as noble Lords will remember, did not recommend a maximum. However, we felt that it was probably right to fix it at £9,000, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested that he did not see why universities could not provide a good education for a figure of, I think he said, round about £8,000. The noble Lord, Lord Young, says that the reports are that virtually all institutions are going for the maximum of £9,000. We will not know the final figure until it has all been confirmed next month, but I can assure him that although a lot of them are going for £9,000, that does not mean that everything in that university, that institution, will be £9,000. There might be different rates for different courses and, as the noble Lord knows, there are a number of waivers, and they will be offering bursaries and other things that will help to bring the cost down, particularly for some of the less well off.
The noble Lord also asked the very valid question: are we worried that the perceived level of debt might put off a number of individuals because they see themselves ending up with a debt of £27,000-plus? That is a genuine fear and we must address it. That is why only last week my right honourable friends Vince Cable and David Willetts sent a letter setting out what we are doing to get information across. They have set up a new independent task force on student finance information, headed by Martin Lewis and Wes Streeting, a former president of the National Union of Students, to try to get the information over that it should not be looked at as a debt but, in effect, as a sort of graduate tax, except that it is not a graduate tax; you start paying only when you start earning above a certain amount and you pay at quite a low rate over a long period of time. It is not the burden that people have when taking on other forms of debt.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
If I heard the Minister aright, he said that the purpose of strengthening the role of OFFA would be to ensure that the universities fulfilled their obligations about outreach. That will create no difficulties for the universities because I am convinced that all the universities I know want to widen the area of society from which they draw children of talent. However, he also said, if I heard him correctly, that there will be no interference in the academic freedom to make that selection on the basis of merit. Can he therefore assure us that the quotas that have been talked about for students to be drawn from different areas of society or different backgrounds in education will not now be pursued?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very grateful for that intervention from the noble Lord, who speaks with considerable authority as a former master of University College, Oxford. I must add that I have enjoyed his hospitality there on a number of occasions; I declare that as an interest. I am also grateful that he welcomes the fact that there is encouragement to fulfil greater opportunities for outreach, which is what all institutions should be doing. I also stress that there will be no interference in academic freedom. As I said earlier, I bear on my back scars from the late Lord Russell about alleged attacks on academic freedom, and I do not want to reincur them. Quotas are not the right way to set about this. Each institution in discussions with OFFA, after it has proposed a level of fees above £6,000, should look at what it can do to try to improve fair access to all areas of society.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the Statement. I want to ask two specific questions. The first is on simplifying the regime for obtaining degree-awarding powers and making sure that the qualifications and assessment process for FE colleges and private providers will be the same as it is for universities. One of the strengths of the sector at the moment is the qualification assessment basis, and it would be a shame if it were lost in a diversification of the sector. Secondly, I declare an interest as I was bursar of a Cambridge college for a decade. I am delighted to hear that HMRC is consulting on changing the VAT regime. I am slightly concerned that the Statement refers to “some of the VAT barriers”. That has been a considerable issue to higher education institutions over the years. It has cost them a lot in administrative terms, and the accountancy profession has earned an enormous amount of money by advising universities. Can we be assured that there will be real change in the VAT regime for universities?
Lord Henley
I shall be very brief, bearing in mind the time. I think I had better write to the noble Baroness about what we want to do about simplifying degree-awarding powers. As for HMRC’s consultation on VAT, I am always very wary of ever making any commitment that involves the Treasury, so again I think it would be wise if I wrote to my noble friend on that matter.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
“CHAPTER 8Appropriation and disposal of landAppropriation and disposal of land by local authorities
(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 122(2)(b) substitute—
“(b) the council has complied with section 127A, as inserted by subsection (7) below.”.(3) In section 122A for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(4) In section 123(2A) for the words after “disposing of the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(5) In section 126(4)(b) for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A.”
(6) In section 126(4A) for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(7) After section 127 insert—
“127A Conditions attaching to certain appropriations and disposals of land
(1) When a local authority appropriates or disposes of land under this section—
(a) the local authority shall give notice of its intention by advertisement in two consecutive weeks in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, on the authority’s website and by notices on the land, and shall serve a copy of the notice on every other local authority and planning authority whose area includes or is adjacent to that area, (b) the notice shall indicate the location and boundaries of the land and of any land to be given in exchange, and where further information and plans may be inspected or copies obtained,(c) subject to subsection (2), unless the land to be appropriated or disposed of does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres) land must be provided in exchange that is not less in area and is equally advantageous to the public, to be vested in the local authority subject to the like rights, trust and incidents that attach to the land to be appropriated or disposed of,(d) the notice shall provide for a period of not less than 28 days from the date of the first advertisement during which objections can be made to the authority,(e) if the authority decides to amend its proposal these shall be subject to further notices in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (c),(f) a proposal that remains subject to objection and is not withdrawn by the authority shall be referred to the Secretary of State for decision.(2) If the local authority considers that land in exchange for that appropriated or disposed of under this section is unnecessary wholly or in part, the notice must state this and give the reasons for the statement.””
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 109A, which is on its own, is a long and apparently complex amendment, but it need not take us too long. It is about open space and what happens when open space is disposed of by local authorities. The amendment seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1972 to return it to something like its original form before it was amended in 1980.
The substance of this amendment comes from concerns raised by the Open Spaces Society, which argues that protections are insufficient, particularly around publicity, consultations and the requirement to consider objections. It is about urban open space in particular, which is precious and increasingly recognised as vital to life in towns and cities. The coalition agreement and government promises have made proposals for new designations and protections for green spaces in urban areas, although we have not yet seen the details. It would be a good time to strengthen protections for existing open space in these areas.
When we discussed a related amendment, Amendment 24, the Minister suggested that we might have a meeting to discuss the technicalities and see what substance the Government thought there might be in these proposals. Does she agree that perhaps we can discuss this amendment at the same time? On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. We were not quite clear what was behind it but he has been very clear about the thrust of the amendment. We support its general direction, which is about protecting open space, particularly urban open space. I do question the use of the phrase “equally advantageous to the public”. I do not know if that is an existing term used in other legislation, but one of the requirements of the amendment is that it must be “not less in area”—understood; that is quite easy to determine—and is “equally advantageous to the public”. There will not necessarily be a single approach by the public as to the advantage of a particular piece of open space: it might be the tranquillity of the view or the opportunity for some recreation pursuits or indeed somewhere to walk the dog, whereas an alternative piece of open space may not be able to satisfy people in the same proportion or mix. I am sure that that issue could be overcome but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, when responding to the Minister, might expand a little on that test; the Minister may also have some views on that. However, I do see the thrust and the benefit of this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for those short contributions—short, I suspect, because I have indicated that I would be happy to have discussions with the noble Lord about this. This amendment has appeared quite late on in proceedings. I do not quite understand its place in the Bill. I think it has found its way in by a devious route. It would be more helpful for the House to see exactly what lies behind the anxiety of the Open Spaces Society about this.
In acceding to speaking to the noble Lord about it, I have to say that we have particular reservations about paragraph (c). As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just pointed out, that requires a council to provide land in exchange for that appropriated or disposed of unless they can provide reasons under subsection (2) of the proposed new section. This is a difficult area. In order to provide an alternative piece of land, it is possible that the local authority would have to compulsorily purchase another bit of land in order to fulfil this obligation. So we would have considerable doubts and that is one area that I would expect to have a sharp discussion on. Having said that, I am happy to talk about this and come back to it at a later stage if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment for the moment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment on that basis. I am not sure what she meant by “devious route”. This appeared on the agenda. It consisted of me sitting at my computer and typing out the amendment and then taking it to those excellent and helpful people in the Public Bill Office who give advice on exactly how things can be done and whose office is one staircase below mine. So it was not very devious at all. This is a good moment to pay tribute and thank the people in the Public Bill Office who are extremely helpful to all of us in putting amendments down.
“Equally advantageous” and “exchanged land” are not alien concepts. Similar language is fairly frequently used as far as open space is concerned in relation to planning applications, particularly where people wish to develop on a common. I would have to check the Commons Act 2006 and the Planning Act 2008 to see what the exact wording is. I am not suggesting the wording in this amendment is perfect but I am putting it forward to get the problem discussed. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to do that and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“( ) Only a Welsh Minister may require a local or public authority located in Wales to make a payment of an amount determined by the Welsh Minister in respect of any EU financial sanction imposed on the United Kingdom.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 110, in my name, introduces a significant group of amendments on the fundamental issue of passing on European fines to local authorities generally. I must admit that I have some grave reservations about the generality of Clause 31 and Part 2 in totality. Amendment 110 is a probing amendment by which I hope to receive adequate clarification of and assurance from the Minister on the Government’s intentions with regard to Wales. However, other amendments in this group may well need to be pressed or at least the option kept open to return to these issues on Report if an adequate response is not forthcoming from the Government.
The basic question behind my amendment is whether these fines can be imposed on Welsh authorities. Clause 36 is quite explicit that Part 2 powers concerning European fines apply only to local government in England. I flagged up at Second Reading the fact that I understood from the Welsh Local Government Association that a letter was sent to a Midlands MP by the Local Government Minister Greg Clark confirming that, under the Bill, the fines apply only to England. Is that the case? If the intention is to apply fines to Welsh local government, by what mechanism is this going to be achieved? There is the possible scenario that Westminster Ministers might impose fines on Welsh local authorities in Wales over the heads of Assembly Ministers.
There are valid reasons to be fearful of the dangers that might arise if central government can pass European fines willy-nilly on to local government when a local authority might not have caused the problem generating the fines or where it might genuinely believe that it was acting in line with UK or devolved government policy in pursuing the action that might have led to the fines. Other amendments deal with these more general issues. Amendment 114A proposes a framework of arbitration that is certainly worth consideration. If no satisfactory response is forthcoming, there will be an opportunity to vote on the clause stand part to delete these European aspects from the Bill.
I do not resile from the concept that if any local authority has behaved in a totally cavalier manner and has through its actions brought fines and penalties on the UK, it is right that those who act in that way might be open to suffer the consequences. However, fines are usually imposed through the system of courts with a proper system of checks and balances to ensure fair play. The Government of Wales have recognised that in rare circumstances the question of such fines might arise, but they understandably feel that the responsibility for passing on any fines to local governments in Wales should be with Welsh Ministers and that they themselves should need to be persuaded that such an action is appropriate.
There are constitutional and practical reasons for the Government of Wales’ approach. In constitutional terms, the National Assembly has full responsibility for local government in Wales and should take any umbrella responsibility on matters such as these. In practical terms, the Assembly has responsibility for ensuring the financial settlements for local government in Wales and so should be involved in any discussion. Furthermore, issues that could generate fines, such as non-compliance on issues such as air quality or waste, are within the responsibility of the Assembly. There is also a need for any passing on of fines to be seen as reasonable and proportionate. Local government in Wales may feel that its circumstances will be better understood by those in Cardiff Bay compared with those in the Treasury in London.
Finally, there is the general question that it is inappropriate to punish local authorities when they are not party to direct discussion with the EU on such matters. They do not have a direct voice in negotiations with the EU in a way that influences EU law. If the National Assembly has the responsibility to implement any such fines in Wales, can we have an assurance that the UK Government would not block Welsh government Ministers from having a direct interface with the EU on such matters? At the end of the day, it would probably be fairer if all these matters were not in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as well as speaking to Amendments 110A and 186B, I shall speak particularly to Amendments 114A and 115A. Before doing that I should declare some interests that I have not previously needed to declare. I am a member of the Local Government Association’s European and International Programme Board. I have been a member of that and its predecessor bodies for more years than I care to remember. I am also a member of the Committee of the Regions, the EU body established in 1994 under the Maastricht treaty to be the voice of regional and local government in the European Union. Since the Greater London Authority has some interest in these matters as well, I should mention that I was a member of that authority for its first eight years of life and chaired the European sub-committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Amendments 110A and 186B would make sure that any fine could be passed on to a council only in respect of an EU instrument that has been specifically designated by both Houses of Parliament through affirmative resolution so that Ministers would not have carte blanche to pass down any fine. The amendment, which happens to come first on the list, is fairly limited and restrictive.
The substantive amendments before us are Amendments 114A and 115A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Eaton. First, I need to pass on her apologies. She was keen to introduce these amendments but she cannot be here. Today is the first day of the Local Government Association’s annual conference in Birmingham, at which my noble friend has to make what she describes as her farewell speech as the outgoing chair of the LGA. She has therefore asked me to speak on her behalf, which I thought was a very brave decision. I said that I will gladly do so but that I will remain responsible for the words that I use. Therefore, any concern expressed should come only to me.
In the measured terms that we customarily use in your Lordships’ House, it is rather hard for me to express the surprise—the shock, even—anger and concern that were felt in the local government world over all this. The surprise was because the first the LGA knew—this must have been the first any local authority knew—of this being an issue of concern, or indeed an issue at all let alone a proposal, was when the Bill was published. I understand that there had been no prior warning, no prior discussions, no attempts to see whether the problem, if indeed there was a prospective problem, could be resolved in a more satisfactory way than by the inevitably rather blunt instrument of legislation tucked away in Part 2 of a very substantial Bill. I regret that, because it is not generally the way in which any Government in this country have worked on these matters. I do not know how or why it came about, but that was apparently the first that the LGA, and indeed local government generally, knew of such matters.
For that reason, local government and many other organisations would much rather remove Part 2 of the Bill altogether. That was why my noble friends and I put down clause stand part debates for all of Part 2. It remains my view that it would be better if this part was not in the Bill at all. If the Government foresee difficulties and problems of this nature, they should discuss them with the LGA and other interested bodies and find a more satisfactory way of resolving them. I suspect that we are not going to lose Part 2, but I still urge the Government to do that.
My noble friend Lady Hanham was, like me, a member of the Committee of the Regions for many years, and she will be familiar with the practice adopted a few years ago by the European Commission which it chooses to call, in true Eurospeak, “systematic dialogue”. “Systematic dialogue” is more or less what it says; they meet and discuss with representatives of local government and regional government throughout the European Union any issues of concern, issues that are coming up and so on. That ought to be the good practice adopted in this country, and I hope, regardless of the outcome of our discussions on this Bill, that government will undertake to do as we used to do some years ago—I remember going to some of the meetings myself—and discuss issues such as this with local government representatives so that this part of the Bill never needs to be used. I think we would all accept that if we ever get to the stage when government is imposing or passing on EU fines, something somewhere along the line has failed to work. We should not get to that stage, and I therefore hope that the Government will agree to work with the LGA in a spirit of systematic dialogue, of willing co-operation, to try to ensure that that does not happen.
My first contention is therefore to remove Part 2 altogether. If that is not to happen, and the Government insist that this issue needs to be dealt with in this way, through legislation, we need to look at how that is done. The concerns of the LGA and other bodies are that these proposals are unfair, unworkable, dangerous to council budgets and unconstitutional.
I want to deal today with what is described as unconstitutional. The issue is that the Minister, under this legislation, is set to act as judge and jury in this matter, and to be not only the final arbiter but the only arbiter in determining what fines are passed on, in what proportions, how, in what way, and so on. That cannot be right, and more importantly perhaps, it cannot be sensible. It is hard to imagine anything being more open to judicial proceedings because it is so arbitrary and unfair. If we are to proceed with Part 2, we have to look for a system of arbitration that is, first, seen to be entirely independent of the Minister—in other words, the arbiters should not be appointed by him or act as an advisory body—and is, secondly, fair and accepted by both sides.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 111 to 114. Part 2 makes it possible for a Minister to require a local authority to make a payment in relation to an EU financial sanction imposed on the UK by the Court of Justice of the European Union if the Minister is satisfied that the authority caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law. The amendments in my name, Amendments 111 to 114, would amend Clause 31, which among other things sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a statement of policy setting out the general principles on how the power to pass on all or part of the EU financial sanction will be exercised and the amounts determined. Many of the points that I am going to cover were covered also by the previous speaker. For that reason, there is quite a bit that we have in common.
Amendment 111 would amend Clause 31(4) to require the policy statement also to contain details of the arrangements for the appointment, constitution and operation of an independent review panel. Amendment 112 would require the Minister to take into account relevant determinations of the independent review panel when exercising his functions under this part of the Bill. Amendment 113 would make an EU financial sanction notice subject to the new clause as introduced by Amendment 117. Amendment 114 would determine the relevance of any determination issued by the independent review panel.
Amendment 117 would insert a new clause into the Bill to allow local and public authorities which have received an EU financial sanction notice to refer the notice to an independent review panel, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The new clause sets out the grounds on which such a referral can be made and provides that the independent review panel may review any finding of fact on which the financial sanction notice was based. These grounds include if a Minister,
“failed to exercise a power conferred by an enactment, and that failure contributed to the infraction of EU law (whether directly or indirectly or by impeding any local or public authority in its attempts to comply with EU law)”,
or,
“did not follow the procedures set out in this Part or in the warning notice before giving the financial sanction notice”,
or,
“ought to have exercised any discretion under this Part or the warning notice differently”.
The new clause requires the independent review panel to determine the validity of the grounds of the referral and to provide a copy of its determination to the Minister who issued the EU financial sanction notice and the local or public body which received it. These amendments stem from the significant amount of concern, already mentioned, that has arisen from the provisions in this part of the Bill since it was first published last December. Throughout the Bill’s passage these concerns have been voiced by Parliamentarians of all parties and are shared by the Mayor of London, the London Assembly, London Councils and the Local Government Association.
Understandably, the main area of concern has focused on the ability of a Minister to pass on a fine without any form of judicial or independent oversight. The need for independent oversight is particularly vital when one considers the complexity of the factors leading up to any infraction, not least in the area of air quality—I must here declare an interest in that where my home is in London is the most polluted air in the whole of the UK—and the fact that it is more than likely that one of the parties responsible for any breach will be the Government themselves. This concern was voiced eloquently by Jeremy Smith, barrister and former Secretary-General of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, in the Municipal Journal in February. He said:
“There is, however, a wider point of concern about Part 2 of the Bill. There is no independent decision-maker. The minister takes the decision to make the local authority pay—even though central government may be partly or largely responsible for the infraction in the first place, for example, through delayed action, poor drafting, or for myriad other reasons. This means the minister may be simultaneously prosecutor, judge, jury—and co-defendant. This is surely not a healthy legal precedent … Therefore, Part 2 of the Localism Bill needs fundamental rethinking. If there is to be a claw-back provision at all, it should not be ministers who decide, since central government is almost certainly an interested party. The process should be for the minister to refer the matter to the High Court, or independent arbitrator, to determine any fair apportionment of the Article 260 fine imposed by the ECJ. The independent decision-maker can then take into account every party’s share of responsibility”.
The complexity of any infraction process and the need for independent oversight has been reinforced by my noble friend Lord Attlee in this House only recently. In response to an Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on air quality during the 2012 Games and who is responsible for this matter, my noble friend Lord Attlee responded:
“Everyone is responsible: the Government, the mayor, TfL, LOCOG, the ODA and, most importantly, individuals who make their own transport decisions”.—[Official Report, 23/5/11; col. 1583.]
While I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his frank assessment of a complex situation, his words highlight not only the difficulty any Minister would have in apportioning responsibility, and a subsequent fine, for any infraction but also the fact that the Government will, in almost all instances, be an interested party, as I mentioned previously.
It is for this reason that I believe these amendments provide us with a way of building in the safeguards that are so vital to making this part of the Bill acceptable both to your Lordships’ House and the broader community of local government beyond; a community that we must remember has no role in negotiating the very European legislation which could, if these clauses remain unchecked, be presenting them with a very substantial bill. Such a bill would be unpalatable at the best of times, let alone in the current financial landscape.
These amendments do not undermine the principle of this part of the Bill—a principle which was first outlined by the Government in Defra’s consultation documents on the natural environment White Paper last summer—but they begin to build in the safeguards that will be necessary for the relevant stakeholders to have confidence in the process outlined in the policy statement. It is vital, therefore, that local or public authorities have the ability to refer any EU financial sanction notice to an independent review panel; a panel to whose written determination the Minister must have regard. I understand that the Government have already been in discussions with the GLA, the LGA and London Councils on the formulation of a draft policy statement and I hope that these amendments will facilitate further discussions on getting that statement right. It is vital that any arrangements for,
“the appointment, constitution and operation of the independent review panel”,
as provided for by Amendment 111, are sufficiently transparent and robust to garner the support of those who will be subject to this regime. I hope that the Minister will view these amendments as a helpful way of building consensus, something which your Lordships’ House likes to achieve. They are essential if all parties are to have confidence in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I decided to table Amendments 115 and 116 in this group because there is such widespread fear, some of which we have heard about today, in many local authorities and in other areas that this clause relating to the imposition of EU fines could be used as a mechanism for the Government to unload their own responsibilities onto those same authorities. That fear is absolutely understandable.
In her amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, suggests an ingenious mechanism for operating the system. Yet I am sure she would agree that, like other suggestions that have been made—for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—it is a mechanism and no more. That leaves open the basic principles upon which the mechanism would operate. It is a bit like establishing a court of law without establishing the laws upon which it will base its judgment.
To my mind, those principles are very clear. Some people, in addressing this problem, have been arguing that EU fines should never be payable by local authorities. I find that a rather strange argument. In so far as it is prompted by the fear that a future Government might seek to use the legislation to pass their own responsibilities onto local authorities, it is, as I said, understandable but the solution is not the mere deletion of the clause. For local authorities the upside of the Bill is that, at long last, they get the powers that they should have. I totally agree with that but if they have the rights and the powers, they must surely accept the responsibilities that go with them. It must be right that if a local authority does something which, in part or in whole, results in the imposition of an EU fine it should, to that same extent, bear the responsibility. That is all this amendment calls for.
The amendment is merely a clear statement of the principle upon which the mechanisms for deciding the issue will operate. If I might be clear again: it merely says that if it can be proved,
“beyond reasonable doubt that the infraction of EU law has arisen, wholly or in part, as a direct result of the actions of the local … authority … that … authority should be responsible to that extent”.
Lord Beecham
In terms of proving “beyond reasonable doubt”, would the noble Baroness accept that the arbitration procedure would be a legitimate forum within which that burden of proof would need to be discharged or is she suggesting some other mechanism, including the courts, by which that test would be applied?
Baroness Greengross
I am not suggesting the detailed mechanism now. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to get this clear but I am just trying to clarify the issue. I agree that the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” actually does no more than bring with it a number of legal arguments and problems. Because this is a difficult thing to prove, if the Minister were to indicate, for example, that she would support such an amendment subject to those words being deleted, I would be happy to omit them.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, like many other noble Lords I share the concerns expressed about these provisions. I want to start by asking the Government to give us an absolute assurance that they are confident that legally an EU fine levied on a member state can then be passed on to a local authority. I am not entirely sure that that is the case and would appreciate being given some comfort that it is true. My personal preference would be to see these clauses deleted, because I am not sure that the Government entirely realise what a can of worms they are opening. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, talked about where it is clear who is to blame, but EU fines would be levied only for a huge infraction—for example, in connection with air quality. It is almost inconceivable that it would be easy to point a finger and say that a particular person or organisation was responsible.
In fact, a large number of organisations would be responsible. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Berkley, reminds me of the situation within the rail industry, where there are hundreds of people employed to do nothing but allocate blame. Every time a train is late, they go into a little huddle and work out whether it was the fault of Network Rail or the operator. When I am stuck on a train, I do not much care. This Bill is supposed to connect people with local politicians. We could have a situation where legal arguments drag on for years and cost millions of pounds while arbitrators try to sort out exactly who is responsible for the air quality of London. In that case, who will pay the fine? The public will look with bemusement while this goes on and they will rightly ask, “Why on earth did you not spend that money trying to deal with air quality rather than have this huge legal battle?”. I hope that the Government will think carefully about exactly what they are trying to do here.
Finally, it is a great pity that the whole dialogue and ethos of fining goes against everything we should be trying to do in terms of relationships between central and local government. It should be about looking at the best ways of resolving problems, not about allocating blame in this way and certainly not about allocating fines.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, a number of us mentioned this matter at Second Reading. One of the longest lists of noble Lords spoke in that debate and addressed the problem of these EU fines. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but the most important factor we are dealing with is that the Secretary of State is an interested party, whether he or she likes it or not. Therefore, it cannot rest with the Secretary of State to decide how to deal with this EU fine if it emerges. It has never happened yet, but it may one day. It was my noble friend Lord Teverson, I think, who said the Secretary of State was not just judge and jury, but prosecutor and executioner. That puts it extremely well.
I have put my name to the amendments moved and spoken to most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and to the longer amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner. Both recognise, first, that there can be no allocation until there is responsibility, and, secondly, that it cannot be the Minister who does that; there has to be a process of arbitration. We are in the middle of a negotiation outside this House between local authorities, led to some extent by the Greater London Authority and the London boroughs and the department. What we hope to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench is exactly what is happening there; what stage have these negotiations reached? Are we in the process of getting some sort of reasonable settlement? Clearly in Committee like this we do not take a final decision when we are, as the Romans said, “in medias res”. We are in the middle of the affair, so we need to know what the Government have in mind and what negotiations have been going on, where they have got to and when they expect to reach a reasonable conclusion.
I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that the solution is not to delete the whole part of the Bill. I heard what my noble friend Lord Tope said on this, but the fact is, bluntly, if there is a serious infraction of a European directive, whether on air quality, water quality or whatever else, is it to fall solely upon taxpayers in general, even if it is perfectly possible to point the finger at the individual authority? At Second Reading, I quoted the example of a directive on waste and the position if a particular local authority was consistently failing to comply. Is it really being seriously suggested that the general body of taxpayers should contribute to the fine?
Of course, the purpose of all these things, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, is to encourage authorities and everybody else to comply with the regulations. That is what is intended but, as I asked in my Second Reading speech, as regards the problem of Heathrow, who is responsible for the air pollution? Noble Lords will have seen reports in the press today of the increase in stacking over Heathrow in the four stacking areas, which is materially adding to air pollution in London. They said it is because Heathrow has been forbidden to expand. I and I think most noble Lords actually support that. Successive Governments and parties have taken that decision, but who is going to pay if it leads to an EU fine? It seems unfair that the whole body of taxpayers should pay.
There has to be some reasonable, fair, proportionate solution and it is my understanding that that is what the discussions are trying to find. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench is going to be able to help us. I am sure I am not the only one who received a paper from the Greater London Authority with a document saying “possible policy statement text” with a summary and a number of key principles. It says:
“The use of these provisions must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. There will be an Independent Review Panel. There will be no surprises, and authorities will have opportunities to make representations. Decisions must be evidence-based and transparent”.
It goes on:
“Authorities will not be held responsible for breaches that were not within their power to avert and will only be fined if they have demonstrably caused or contributed to the fine and can afford to pay”.
I find it rather a difficult document to absorb but it sets out a substantial flow chart, which I am sure other noble Lords have seen, that shows the number of stages—opportunities for appeal, occasions when notice must be given and so on—whereby an authority might become liable. We need to know more about this. However, I am inclined to agree with those who say that it is not sufficient simply to send it all away. We must recognise that if there is a fine, there must be some mechanism for dealing with the matter.
I refer briefly to Amendment 117A in my name, which was suggested to me by one of the big water authorities. These are now private undertakings and have expressed concerns as to whether Clause 36 applies to them. It is a question of whether a water authority that was found, for instance, to have breached the urban waste water treatment directive—possibly as a result of the discharge of sewage into the Thames—would be liable to having a fine imposed on it. I understand that the Government are quite sympathetic to this and that it is not the intention that private undertakings should bear any part of this. Part of the reason for this, which was explained to me by the water companies, is that they are already subject to stringent regulatory controls by the Government. If they comply with those controls, they should be within the law. If they fail to comply, it is open to the regulators to take proceedings against them to make them comply.
Thames Water, for example, has long been concerned about the amount of sewage that can periodically overflow and run into the Thames, with discharges the whole way along. As a result, Thames Water is now planning—work is well under way—to establish a long sewage pipeline under the Thames, for most of its length, which will eventually discharge into the sewage treatment plant at Beckton. This is a huge project, which involves lengthy tunnelling and must avoid all the other tunnels that pass under the Thames. Thames Water is doing what it feels is justified. Therefore, it feels it would be a monstrous infraction to have to pay an EU fine because of a breach of the water directive. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me some comfort on that.
Lord Best
My Lords, I support the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. She has to be at the LGA conference today, which will miss its usual presidential address because I am here. I was much convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who said that we should avoid this whole issue. It will get us into an awful lot of trouble and legal hot water. However, I suspect that that will not prove an acceptable course of action and there will have to be an apportionment of blame to decide who the polluter is when the polluter must pay. That leads us to worry that that apportionment of blame cannot be undertaken by the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government or Defra. They would be parties to the case and it would offend natural justice if they were the ones to decide how blame should be apportioned.
Baroness Valentine
I declare an interest as chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit business membership organisation that includes developers, infrastructure providers and others who may have an interest in the practical implications of the Bill.
As a general point of principle, it is unreasonable to transfer the financial sanctions that emanate from European law to a subsidiary body unless that body has been given adequate powers and resources to meet the law and, furthermore, the UK Government have fully discharged their own obligations. Fairly attributing responsibility for who has infringed the law and the extent to which they have done so is not simple, as other noble Lords have already pointed out. Therefore, I support Amendment 117, which would introduce an independent panel to determine such matters. However, the amendment still leaves the final decision about who will pay the fine with the UK Government. I should like to see the powers of the panel taken a step further, with it being given the power to make this decision. The legitimacy to do so would be derived from its independence, which is not something that the UK Government can claim to have.
In London, this has been raised as a matter of particular concern in the context of the air quality and waste water directives by the GLA, local authorities and private organisations that exercise public functions. Who, for example, is to blame for poor air quality at Marble Arch? Is it the GLA, Westminster City Council, taxi firms or the bus companies? These are complex issues that require independent consideration and a panel with the power to determine who should pay the fine.
While on the subject, I am also concerned about the provisions in this part of the Bill that relate to EU fines, which would allow the UK Government to transfer liability to local and public authorities that exercise a public function. This is an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in Amendment 117A, which I support. The problem is that, for the purpose of the Bill, public authorities include private organisations that are already subject to existing government legislation and the power of independent regulators. Private organisations may also be subject to contractual obligations, including financial penalties, for providing services outsourced by the public sector.
In relation to EU fines, private organisations should not be held accountable for something that it is not wholly, or even largely, in their power to achieve. It is the UK Government who negotiate with the EU. It is their role to ensure that EU directives are transposed effectively into UK law, and that the right policy and regulatory framework is in place to achieve that. I would welcome any reassurances that Ministers can provide on that matter.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support all those who have spoken so far to express concern about this group of amendments. I thought it would be interesting to examine just how many of these directives, infraction proceedings, reasoned opinions, pilots and so on are likely to be in place at any one time. I start with those relating to transport. In a Written Answer on 7 June the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that 21 transport proceedings under Article 258 are currently unresolved. We do not yet know how many of those will result in a fine. One hopes that very few or none will, but that is the kind of number that we are talking about in transport. Therefore, one could suggest that there would be several hundred across the whole Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many are at stake across government.
The next thing I am concerned about is who this should apply to. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned private water companies and he is quite right. It would be useful to look at some examples. I have two examples. The first is the Channel Tunnel, which I spent 15 years helping to build years ago. The Commission has a pilot, which is the first stage of these proceedings, against the British and French Governments alleging failure to implement European legislation. The two Governments subcontract, if that is the right word, the regulation of the Channel Tunnel to something called the intergovernmental commission, which is actually part of government, which is meant to regulate the infrastructure manager in order to comply with the legislation. In the first stage of that situation, the Government would have to fine themselves. They would then have to fine the intergovernmental commission. Perhaps the intergovernmental commission would then pass it on to the private sector infrastructure manager. It sounds a little complicated to me and I do not think that it would work legally. The same could be applied to Network Rail, which is in the private sector, if the Government decided to follow the line suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
The figures are big. Many speakers have talked about the air pollution problem in London. The figure I have heard from the Commission is that the likely size of fine could be £300 million. Whether it was the present mayor—it could not be the previous mayor even though he came from a different party—the present TfL, the Government or whoever else, £300 million is a very big figure. We should bear this in mind when we talk about how this should be resolved.
The other example I have is an interesting one because it applies to most local authorities in this country. It is the first stage in the complaint from the Commission that local authorities are not complying with the green vehicle procurement rules. The directive—2009/33—came into force on 4 December 2010 and it,
“requires the public sector to use its purchasing power to promote clean and energy-efficient vehicles. Every time they purchase a vehicle for public transport services, they must take into account energy consumption”,
and so on. The obligation extends to all purchases of road transport vehicles by public authorities or transport operators. There are many experts in your Lordships’ House who know how many local authorities there are in this country—in England anyway, and Wales if Wales is included in it. However, working out a £300 million or £200 million fine between all those local authorities and then allowing each one to take this arbitration route, which I hope will be implemented unless the clause is lost completely, is just unthinkable.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will deal with that kind of failure to comply with the green vehicle procurement rules which apply to every local authority. How do they propose to apportion the fine even before it gets to arbitration? How much would this arbitration cost each time it was used? We all know who is going to pay for it. It will be the taxpayer in the end or the local authority ratepayer, depending on whose side you are on or who gets legal aid. With this kind of enormous scope for potential failure, before one starts apportioning blame, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I should declare that I am a landlord, a landowner, I have been a councillor in Norfolk for a number of years, and I am chairman of my parish.
When I first saw these provisions, I did wonder who on earth had dreamt them up. It is all too easy and tempting to blame Brussels, but in this instance, I do not think we can. I do not know of any other EU country that is bringing in similar provisions. Here I am confused. If it came from the British Government, which I think it did, why does it apply only to English councils? Why the urgency? What have English councils done, or rather, not done, that merits these provisions?
We all know that Britain gold-plates all EU directives so that Britain complies, or rather, overcomplies, with all directives, unlike some member states. Why are these provisions necessary? After all, Britain has never been fined by the EU. Are the Government worried that we are about to be fined? If so, given that we gold-plate all EU directives, it must be that we face a possible fine for something we have signed up to that has been impossible to deliver. In that case, why penalise local authorities? After all, they were not party to the negotiations with the EC. This makes me wonder whether a fine will apply to things that have happened, or rather, have not happened, in the past. Will these fines be retrospective or will they apply only to future events and future non-compliance? The EU treaty quite clearly states that only Governments are liable for any fines. Here we have provisions that allow the Secretary of State to lay off the blame and the fine onto local authorities.
If the Government persist with Part 2 of the Bill—I hope that they do not—and they are successful in pinning the blame on local authorities, the big question is how local authorities are going to find the money. We know that local government finance is already under tremendous strain. To have to pay an EU fine might mean cutting front-line services. That cannot be the right answer and I do not believe that would be acceptable. After all, local authorities already have big enough trouble cutting their budgets. To do so again to pay an EU fine would be untenable.
How are local authorities going to find this extra money to pay the fine? They could increase council tax, but again that would be unacceptable. Why should households be penalised for something that is totally out of their control? Anyway, any increase in council tax can now be challenged. The only other source of income that local authorities have is from the central government grants. That would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are provisions in the Bill that require the Minister to take account of the effect of any fine on a local authority’s finances. So presumably, if a local authority is strapped for cash—and they all are—then no doubt central government will end up picking up the tab. Here we have a situation where the Government pass on their fine from the EU to local authorities which they, the Government, may well end up having to fund themselves.
Why bother with all these procedures: the Secretary of State publishing a statement of policy and then determining how the amounts are to be paid; apportioning the blame across various local authorities; giving warning notices; issuing a final EU financial sanction notice; the appeal process; the protracted legal battles between local authorities and the Government; and perhaps an independent arbitration system to ensure the Minister is not, as other noble Lords have said, judge, jury, executioner and co-defendant? There is all this protracted bureaucracy and legal wrangling when, at the end of the day, the final bill will probably be picked up by central government anyway. All because in the past the Government have signed up to something with the EU that they cannot deliver, because if they could deliver, we would already have gold-plated regulations.
Therefore, rather than squabbling among ourselves, would it not be better if the Government concentrated their efforts and firepower on challenging any fine, if and when one is imposed? They should renegotiate with Brussels, if necessary, and, in future, ensure that Britain does not sign up to anything that is not in our interests or that we cannot deliver. As things stand, I cannot see the point of all this. It is a clear case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I wanted to speak briefly to Amendment 110 and to make a few other comments, but it would be a brave Ulsterman who would take on the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on a Welsh amendment. However, I assure him that I want merely to talk about the principle here. Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has asked me to raise some matters of principle, because if the principle is established in the Bill that local authorities will or could be liable for EU fines, sooner or later it will have national significance. While some EU directives may often have specific geographical implications, others have wider national implications.
I do not have a problem with the principle that the polluter pays, but it has to be understood that local government throughout the United Kingdom is not a universal picture. Local authorities in Northern Ireland have far fewer powers than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They also raise most of their own money—more than 80 per cent—by rates. Consequently, they do not have a large central government grant, as is the case in England. Therefore, it is not possible for the Government simply to reduce the grant that local authorities in Northern Ireland receive in order to take the money off them, because they do not get it in the first place. If you impose a fine on a Northern Ireland local authority, you impose it directly on the ratepayer. That has to be understood.
The other matter is that the powers of local councils vary considerably. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is largely responsible for local government, but other groups and public bodies will perhaps share policy implementation with local councils. Air and water pollution have been talked about. Local councils obviously have or could have an environmental health role in this, but other public bodies might be responsible for other aspects, including water pollution, sewage and so on.
The Northern Ireland Local Government Association, in consultation with other local government bodies, including the LGA, has expressed concern—not only because they have not been consulted about the measures, but because, although the Bill does not directly affect them at present, they believe that sooner or later it will. That is because EU fines have a national implication, as well as a local one. It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that he was not aware that EU fines had started to be imposed. I can assure him that they have, because I know, at home, our Department of Agriculture is being fined very heavily over issues concerning mapping. Grants were being distributed on the basis of maps, and now we have armies of planners who, as a result of not having much to do during the recession, are poring over aerial maps, because in the designation of fields, the boundaries of areas of rough ground may have become unclear. Brussels is now saying that people have been double claiming and doing all sorts of things. I can assure the noble Lord that fines are being imposed, exemplary damages are being applied, and the fines are vastly in excess of the amount of money that may have been inappropriately spent or given to a particular claimant. The Government are being fined millions of pounds above that. We are talking about substantial issues.
Lord Berkeley
I should like to say that it was not me who suggested that the British Government had not been fined.
Lord Empey
I beg your pardon; I may have picked up a comment from someone else.
When the Government are finalising what they are going to do on this issue, they need to take into account the significant regional disparities. One understands that the Government are trying to establish the point that the polluter pays. However, the big issue with all this is that we send representatives to Brussels—and I do not know whether the late-night hospitality and the all-night sessions are to blame—decisions can be forced through at 4 am and our representatives keep putting their hands up to approve them. Then, five or six years later, they blame Brussels for enforcing those decisions when it is they who have agreed to them. I have to say: beware the late-night hospitality. We should pick representatives who are good at doing this at night. In a negotiation, I fear that the officials will know full well that a certain Minister has to get away to an event somewhere else, perhaps at 1 pm the following day, and know that if they push for a decision at 3 am or 4 am, the Minister will put their hands up and agree to anything. I seriously suggest that we be careful what we agree to, because it comes back to haunt us many years later.
I accept that the provision in the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and it is not entirely clear as to whether it applies even to Wales. The Minister may answer that this is an England-only Bill, but while local government is a reserved or devolved matter in certain areas, EU fines are, of course, a national issue or a reserved matter. The interface where these issues collide is not entirely clear to me, and I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take this into account when she replies.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, it is probably rash of me to intervene in a debate that has so far been dominated largely by great gurus of local government, another of whom is yet to speak. However, it must have become obvious, at least to my Front Bench, that I am one of those who become more rash, rather than more cautious, as the years advance. I have endlessly declared my wife as an interest, in respect of Braintree District Council. I hasten to add that she has not told me to say anything about this issue. The council is well conducted—and I say that not just because she told me that. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and say that the concern is confined not just to his Benches. That has admirably been made clear, but having geared myself up to speak, I decided that I would do so—albeit very briefly.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was right to say that this issue should have been discussed with local authorities, not just bounced out with the publication of the Bill. Secondly, I have every sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said—whether or not something like this survives, the Secretary of State should not be judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner. That leads to my interest in some of the amendments in the group, including that of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Best, who knows as much about all this as anyone, said—although he did not use this phrase—that the Government were opening a can of worms. The whole of the rest of the debate has demonstrated that it is indeed a can of worms, not least in the speeches of my noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It may be too late to put the lid back on it, but my noble friends ought to contemplate whether they can squeeze it down a bit or at least make it a more palatable lot of worms.
I do not have much more to say, but I have two questions that link with the points made in recent speeches. I want to put them very directly. First, as was initially raised in uncertain terms by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, just where does this stand in relation to the devolved Administrations? Since the noble Lord spoke, I have checked Clause 213 on the extent of the Bill. If I read that correctly, this lot does extend to Wales; but it does not extend to Scotland and, as we have just heard, it does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore a fine from the European Union would be imposed on the United Kingdom Government. We are the members of the European Union, not Scotland, even if it would like to be, or Wales, even if it would like to be, or Northern Ireland—I do not know whether it would or not. That means that in certain circumstances the United Kingdom Government could be fined, but if the fine related to a local authority in Scotland, the European Union could do nothing about it. Only an English council could have a knock-on fine under these proposals. If I got that wrong, I would be glad to be told; but that appears to me to be the meaning of the Bill and I do not think it is satisfactory.
Secondly, as was touched on by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, is this or is this not retrospective? I could just about understand it if councils knew what they were getting into when they made a decision that might lead to this risk. However, unless I have read the Bill wrongly, this is a backward-looking proposal. A fine could be imposed that related to something that had already happened, in circumstances in which a local authority had no reason to suppose that there would be a penalty. Most of us would regard that situation as deeply unsatisfactory, and I do not regard it as satisfactory on anything that I have heard today.
From what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said the other day, we know that this clause was one of the top three targets of the Local Government Association, which is why he is here today, no doubt. He was very kind, and rightly so, to my noble friend Lady Hanham on the Front Bench for having been so conciliatory on its other two main targets—one was the issue of mayors, the other I cannot remember. I urge my noble friend to be conciliatory on this one as well.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am afraid that I am a local government novice rather than a local government guru. However, I want to add a few words because in some of the last speeches there was a dangerous drift, I thought, towards implying that this was all the fault of Brussels and I think that has to be countered quickly. As a Londoner, I am very grateful that there is an EU air quality directive. The Mayor of London and his draft air quality strategy assess that PM10 particulates play a part in the premature deaths of more than 4,000 people per year here in London. In fact, if you look at the impact on heart disease, it is probably closer to 8,000 people. If we had that number of premature deaths from food poisoning, I would guess that there would be a very big response. The fact that it comes from air poisoning seems to have drifted past an awful lot of British Governments. As a Londoner, I suspect that many of us are reasonably concerned about that.
I agree with all the arguments that the Government cannot possibly turn around and pass these fines off to other authorities to act as judge and jury. That is against natural justice and it is important that we say so. However, this whole conversation that we have had today has made it clear that arbitration is complex, expensive and protracted; the wisdom of Solomon would rarely be adequate to make sure that proper allocation followed. In those circumstances, this strikes me as a classic piece of the gold-plating that we mention when we talk about how our country handles directives from Brussels. Going back to the original proposition, to simply eliminate this clause would be the far cleaner way in which to act. The Government have often said that they do not expect us to ever get any EU fines, in which case the argument is even stronger for simply eliminating all of this rather than following the gold-plating strategy that seems to be under consideration.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 117ZA and 117ZB, to Amendments 110A and 114A, to which we have added our name, and to the other amendments in this group. This has been a fascinating debate but there seems to be one very clear strand that I think that pretty much everyone who has spoken has signed up to, which is that, if these provisions proceed, the Secretary of State cannot be the final decision-maker in respect of these fines. I am on the side of those who hope that these provisions go in their entirety. I will just touch upon the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Empey and Lord Newton. According to the Notes to the Bill, my understanding is that these provisions relate to England only, so it seems to me entirely reasonable to ask the Minister whether there is going to be any proposition that will extend them somehow to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. If the answer is no, then I say good luck to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Nevertheless, how do you address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made, that you could have an EU penalty that, you might argue, is the responsibility of a number of local authorities, some in England, some not, so that under these provisions an English authority would be forced to cough up and authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland would not have to? If that is the proposition, that is simply a nonsense and cannot be right.
If I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I think this issue around gold-plating of EU directives is, frankly, a myth. Every time an exercise is done to try to identify where that happens, the answer pretty much always comes back that it is very difficult to identify. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that this is not about laying blame at the feet of Brussels. As I said a moment ago, I am on the side of those who believe that we should remove these provisions from the Bill in their entirety, along with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and others, for the reasons that the LGA touched upon; namely, that they are,
“unfair, unworkable, dangerous for local economies, and unconstitutional”.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke to that, and other noble Lords made the point that it is the UK Government who have EU obligations, not local authorities. If there is an issue about recalcitrant local authorities, surely it has to be addressed by more effective regulation by powers of intervention that central government could take, not by this nonsense of trying to apportion fines on some basis with all the complexities and problems that noble Lords have identified today.
My understanding is—and the LGA briefing touches upon this—that the concerns are particularly around air quality, public procurement, services and waste. As a start, can the Minister confirm that those are the particular areas that the Government are concerned with? Can he also tell us at what stage potential infraction proceedings have reached over these various areas or others that might be under way? My noble friend Lord Berkeley gives instances of several hundred in relation to transport. If we cannot get these clauses out of the Bill, and if we are to try to work out the best process to deal with this, it is worth reflecting on what I understand to be the process leading to infraction proceedings and the raising of a penalty.
Looking at the more formal arrangements in Articles 258 and 260, it has to start with an informal letter of inquiry from the Commission, then a formal letter presenting an opportunity to respond to an alleged breach of Community law, followed by reasoned opinion, which is the 41 notice from the Commission advising a member state that it is in breach of its obligations, followed, if there is no satisfactory response, by an application of the Commission to the ECJ for a formal ruling.
Following that, if there is a determination that there is a breach, there will be a letter requesting information on the steps taken to put an end to the infringement. If there is failure to comply, there will be formal notice that the member state has failed to comply, following by a reasoned opinion, which is the formal determination by the Commission that the member state has failed to comply with the ECJ judgment, followed by a financial penalty.
Therefore, the process is extensive, and there are a number of occasions when member states can challenge the existence of a breach or attempt to rectify it. Indeed, is it not the case that, even before these processes occur, there will in practice be opportunities to discuss with officials any suggested breaches of the treaty, with an iterative process to try to reconcile matters? This can extend over many months, if not years. Is it not the case that they are not clear-cut issues and that compromises may have to be reached along the way? That is why it seems fundamentally unacceptable that under the Government’s proposals an authority will be formally engaged with an EU financial sanction only when it has become a reality.
I shall run through some of the amendments in a moment. I do not think that any of them separately encompasses what we now consider to be a robust fallback position in removing these provisions, but I believe that in aggregate they present a cocktail of suggestions which I hope the Minister will digest, as he has time to do between now and Report.
In our view, any retention of these provisions—our preference is for them to be removed and we will not give up on that yet—must include safeguards which make it clear that the consequences of a failure of transposition of directives into UK law can never be visited on local authorities. There must be a requirement for the Government to use all the powers at their disposal to ensure compliance with ECJ rulings, whether they are powers relating to regulation or powers of intervention. Perhaps on that latter point the Minister would write to me setting out what powers the Government have over the various areas of concern and the extent to which they have been deployed to date or are planned to be deployed to avoid or mitigate any EU breach.
There must be a statutory opportunity for authorities whose actions or inactions are considered by Ministers to have potentially contributed to a breach to be notified at an early point, and certainly before the start of the processes set out in Article 258, with a right for such authorities to be kept up to date with developments and negotiations, and to be able to make representations to government about the conduct of such negotiations and to be given an opportunity to rectify any contributory breaches. There must be protections for authorities which do not wilfully and deliberately set aside a power or responsibility and where they have taken all reasonable steps to bring about compliance. There must also be a right for authorities affected to have access to some form of independent review, judicial or otherwise—and there seems to be strong support for that—which assesses not only whether the proposed levying of the fine received by the UK is fair but whether the processes and engagement leading up to the end result have been appropriate and consistent with the principles that I have set out.
The collection of amendments before us covers much of that ground and, as I said, provides some of the key ingredients for a fallback position. While we will continue to argue for the removal of these clauses, we will consider supporting a fallback position if it is sufficiently robust. The onus is now on the Minister and his colleagues to take note of the mind of the Committee, although I suggest that it is pretty clear. I believe that he has a decent time to do that before Report and I urge him to do so.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely endorse the observations made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I was happy to ascribe my name to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and indeed I congratulate her on tabling them. I think the Committee would wish to join me in congratulating her on her tenure of office, which ends this week, as chairman of the Local Government Association. She has been a very distinguished representative of local government. She has been quite unafraid to express the views of the local government family to Governments of all three political colours over the past few years, and we look forward to her playing an even greater role in your Lordships House than she has felt able to pursue so far because of a slight feeling of a conflicted position.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie referred to the position of Wales and Northern Ireland, and he seems to be absolutely right. I obviously have every sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Empey. One would not wish to see these fines imposed on either Wales or Northern Ireland, or indeed on Scotland. However, it would be ridiculous if they were excluded from and England were included in certain situations. For example, if the Tweed or the Severn were polluted from the north or the west of the relevant borders, the Welsh or Scottish authority involved might be exempt and an English authority held liable. That would seem quite absurd.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, asked about the number of potential breaches. Noble Lords may recall—although probably not—that at Second Reading I referred to a Written Question and Answer in relation to this matter. The Question was what estimate the Government have made,
“of the potential liability of the United Kingdom to pay fines to the European Union; and what proportion they anticipate would fall to be paid by local authorities under the provisions of the Localism Bill”.
The Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, was:
“The United Kingdom has never incurred a financial penalty under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”—
or under the former articles—
“and no such fines are anticipated”.
I suggested at Second Reading that it was a little curious that in that case there should be provision in the Bill at all. However, the Answer went on:
“In the event of such a financial penalty, it is not possible to anticipate what proportion would fall to local authorities under powers proposed in the Localism Bill”.—[Official Report, 24/5/11; col. WA 419.]
Therefore, it could be a very large or a very small sum. In that context, I ask the Minister to indicate whether it is correct, as the Local Government Association believes, that the Government are considering fines relating to four specific EU laws so that councils could be forced to pay up to £1.2 billion in fines. It is alleged that the UK is facing a potential £300 million EU fine for breaches of air-quality targets. Is that correct?
Furthermore, a slightly worrying feature of the fines proposal is the reference to the breach being “caused or contributed to” by a local authority. A contribution can go from a small proportion to a very large one. What is the Government’s thinking about the situation that would arise if it were not wholly the responsibility of an individual local authority or a number of local authorities? In those circumstances, how would the fine be apportioned and who would determine it? Presumably, on the basis of the Bill as it stands, it would be the Secretary of State.
I recall money being lost to the United Kingdom, and particularly to the region from which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I come, not through the fault of local authorities but through the negligence of civil servants who failed, for example—this was in the days of the previous Government—to transmit bids for EU funding in sufficient time for the money to be allocated and received. The money went missing but unfortunately there was no question of the local authorities fining the Government for that negligence. It seems that this is a one-way street. When it comes to money being lost to the UK, only local authorities seem to be scheduled to be in the firing line.
There are real problems here with the processes. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, talked about Ministers signing up successive Governments to regulations, and he was right to say that. In particular, Governments have signed up to these regulations without consulting local government, upon which under the Bill and indeed perhaps more generally responsibilities would lie. The position now seems to be that if the Bill goes through unamended local authorities will be faced with decisions made on the basis of targets, deadlines and laws dating back more than 10 years—again without any consultation along the way.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank the Committee for the time, effort and thought that has been put into the amendments on these clauses. I particularly welcome some of the sensible comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, after he gave me his fairly firm strictures. We welcome such constructive contributions. I have taken on board the strictures of the Committee and I accept that there is much more that we need to do on these clauses. I also believe that the House is well placed to find a solution. Given the significance of these provisions, I intend to give a full reply. However, I will avoid getting involved in a debate about the EU or the desirability of any particular directive. On any relevant points that I do not answer, I will write in due course.
The basic principle is, I think, sound. The aim is to encourage authorities not to incur fines for the UK in the first place and, in the unprecedented circumstances that the UK is fined for an infraction, to achieve compliance quickly. We do not want to pay escalating fines to Europe. As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have never incurred fines for an infraction and do not see these provisions as a prelude to being more relaxed about infraction proceedings or fines. My noble friend Lord Tope, in his speech, accepts that it is very unlikely that EU fines will be incurred. The whole point of the policy is to avoid the fines in the first place.
My noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Scott of Needham Market, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and others raised the issue of the air quality directive and the difficulty of apportioning liability to certain types of directive. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tope deals with this problem in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner, although I have to caution that it may have unintended consequences in this respect, so further consideration is required. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these clauses are aimed at just a few specific EU directives. I go back to my point that that is not the case; they are about avoiding problems in the first place.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that point. My specific question was whether those four areas that I identified are of particular concern at the moment, and in respect of those areas, how far, if at all, the early stages of infraction proceedings have got.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think I will be able to give the noble Lord some comfort later in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rather exaggerated the spectre and size of related fines. He will recognise that most EU states are experiencing difficulties with the air quality directive, particularly in respect of NOx, but I will not weary the Committee with the technical reasons for that.
We should focus much more on preventing fines. I am therefore very interested in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Tope and by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on the Benches opposite. Taken together, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested, these would target and give a very clear warning only to authorities that are putting us at risk of a fine from Europe and just for the specific breach in question. That also deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the potentially very large numbers. Actually, the numbers directed would be very small. This would involve a parliamentary process. The issues or any culpability could be clearly debated here and in the other place. In considering the merits of these amendments, we need to ask whether naming specific authorities could result in a greater desire on their part to comply and avoid any fine. This, as the Committee is aware, is the Government’s overriding aim.
Listening to the debate it seems to me that noble Lords believe that a particular advantage of the amendments is that prior to a directive being designated, all concerned can concentrate on solving the problem rather than taking legal advice and protecting their position. That deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. In other words, the meter is not running until the designation order has been approved. As such, noble Lords may consider that these amendments deal with the issue of retrospectivity raised by my noble friends Lord Cathcart and Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. However, I make it clear that the Bill’s clauses would have to apply to existing directives, not just new ones.
We must also ensure that the mechanism used as a last resort to recoup any fines works, otherwise there will be no incentive to avoid a fine.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My noble friend has been very reassuring on general retrospection and I think I understand the point about existing directives, but in respect of an existing directive, would the potential fine apply only from the date of the designation under an amendment along the lines that he appears to be discussing, because if it applies backwards it remains retrospective?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I believe that that is the intention of my noble friend’s amendment; the meter would run only from when the directive was designated.
The process must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I therefore warmly welcome the draft policy statement from the Greater London Authority, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, arising from discussions with the Government. A copy has been placed in the Library and I would welcome any comments on it. I was also very interested to see the amendments of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am sorry; my noble friend is clearly doing his best, but the draft statement was obviously drawn up after the discussions had got so far with the department. Are those discussions still going on?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will be delighted to deal with the noble Lord’s point later in my speech.
I was very interested to see the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. In considering the merits of these, we would need to be certain that any panel would provide additional value on top of the existing availability of judicial review. Amendment 114A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, would take this a step further. I do not feel, however, that arbitration is appropriate. This is not just about deciding between disputing parties on a breach of contract; it is a complex matter that involves myriad decisions, including on the apportionment of resources and most importantly on the ability to pay. It is not appropriate for a single unelected individual to make such decisions, any more than it would be for them to decide the local government finance settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a point about the revenue support grant. I go back to my point that it is not about raising money; it is about avoiding the fines in the first place.
Lord Berkeley
The Minister mentioned ability to pay. If a council has no money, does that mean that the Government will not have to pay?
Earl Attlee
Not quite, my Lords, but the decision-making process will have to ensure that what the council pays is affordable. It may hurt them, but there is no intention to bankrupt a local authority, which I think would concern noble Lords. There has to be an affordable fine. However, if an amendment similar to the one tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes were put in place, it would be hard for Ministers to ignore its advice without making themselves vulnerable to judicial review. I am very grateful for the clear way in which my noble friend explained her amendments.
I welcome the tone of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I can confirm that we will make clear in the policy statement our commitments to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, proportionality and no surprises. This is why I find the draft document from the Greater London Authority so helpful. Unfortunately, the amendment, which seeks to put tougher tests on culpability by using the criminal standard of law, causes some real practical difficulties. Unfortunately, the European Court of Justice proceedings are based on civil standards of proof. Rather than rerunning the European procedures here in the UK to the higher test, it is better to use a court’s finding to focus on quickly achieving compliance.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding seeks to ensure that the Government cannot designate any private company. I agree that we should not penalise companies for their private services and functions. I believe that this amendment needs further consideration. We need to ensure clarity as to who is to be covered by these provisions.
Finally, to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whose amendment we are debating, I suggest that there is no need for his amendment. Clause 36 sets out that the powers apply only to English authorities exercising public functions in England.
Lord Wigley
As I flagged up at Second Reading on 7 June, the Minister in another place said that this is likely to come into force in other parts of the United Kingdom. If that is the Government’s intention—and as the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Empey, and others have said, it would have implications if it did not and it has implications if it does—at what stage would we know conclusively that this part of the Bill was not going to be changed to include us? If it is to be changed, can it be changed in time for us to table amendments as necessary on Report to deal with the consequences of this being applicable to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?
Earl Attlee
I am coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked whether the Government will give an assurance that the UK Government would not stop the Welsh Assembly Government from negotiating with the EU. The UK Government recognise that the devolved Administrations will have an interest in European policy-making in relation to devolved matters, notably when action by them may be required for implementation. The UK Government will involve the devolved Administrations as fully as possible in discussions about the formulation of the UK’s policy position on all EU and international matters that touch on devolved matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, asked whether we are confident of our legal position. Parliament is sovereign and can give powers to Ministers to pass on EU fines in accordance with the law as passed by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the number of transport directives in difficulty. I cannot confirm his numbers. However, he will be aware that many problems are relatively minor and easily dealt with and some of these matters are progressing faster than others.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart talked about gold-plating, but we cannot be infracted for doing additional things. He also made the important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on, about the effect of any fines. As I said previously, the Secretary of State has to take into consideration the effect on a local authority of fines, and any arrangements that were put in place as a result of the solution that we devise would obviously have to have that effect.
My noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Wigley, asked about the extent of these clauses. England and Wales are one legal jurisdiction, which is why the extent is England and Wales. However, the application of the clauses is to English authorities, but we are in discussions with devolved Administrations about how the clauses may be relevant to their areas for reserved matters, and we will be prepared to look at their requests very carefully indeed.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I had actually decided not to intervene, because it seemed almost unfair. There is nothing more certain, I would judge, than that if the UK Government approach the Scottish Government—I do not know about the Welsh—and say, “We have this policy and if we get a fine that applies either north of the border or across the border, will you pay your share?”, they will tell us to get stuffed.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked where we are in negotiations with outside bodies. He is of course, correct in what he surmises. However, your Lordships and another place will have to decide what is to be done in the end. In conclusion, I would like the opportunity to consider, in consultation with ministerial colleagues, those suggested amendments which could provide a way forward and a solution.
While I am clear that putting the decision-making in the hands of a single unelected individual is not helpful, I am very willing to take away the other suggestions from noble Lords. I believe that together we can develop good solutions in time for Report. While I cannot accept a veto, I am very happy to continue discussions with outside bodies and noble Lords in order to develop this good solution before Report. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister explain his last reference to the different types of organisations that might be covered, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I raised, be they water companies or railway companies? Is the Minister going to write to noble Lords who have spoken with more detailed responses to all these things, or is he going to recommend that we put down amendments on Report about which should be covered and which should not?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very happy to enter into detailed discussions with any noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Noble Lords will be grateful for the response that the Minister has made because he has indicated that this is very much open and there is scope for a lot of further detailed discussion. Can I be clear that included in that discussion will be issues around the point at which local authorities will be notified of possible infraction proceedings and the opportunity to engage in the iterative, informal discussions and negotiations that go on before we get to an Article 258 situation? Any review and assessment of the outcome would cover that early engagement and its legitimacy as well as just looking at the divvying up of the fine that may result at the end of the day. Can we have the opportunity to engage with the Minister along the way so that we will have no surprises when we come to Report?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that infraction proceedings are a very long process, even after the Lisbon process, which, I understand, makes it a little shorter. The designation procedure suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would provide a very clear signal. One of the questions that my noble friend would have to answer—and we can do this offline—is: at what point would you designate a local authority? I would suggest that it would be after you get to a difficult stage in negotiations with the EU. I would be very happy to discuss that point with the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I know the Minister has gone through a lot this evening on this. It is not just a question of designating so that you know that you are potentially in the frame; it is an opportunity for a local authority to engage with the Government, who are obviously responsible for the negotiations. Since it is a negotiation, and a deal is often struck at the end of the day, where that deal is struck could affect a particular local authority or group of local authorities in ways that are different from the way others are affected. Therefore, that chance to impact on that process early seems vital if people are going to be assured that there is a reasonable process going forward. It is not just being designated; it is being designated at a point where you can engage with the ongoing pre-formal process of the infraction proceedings.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point, but the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, deals with it because until the directive has been designated, the Government can deal and negotiate freely with the Commission and with the affected local authorities to try to find a solution to the problem. Most of the time, we will be able to achieve compliance relatively easily. I hope we will never get to a situation where we cannot achieve compliance.
Lord Tope
Before the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, tells us what he is going to do with his amendment, which, as we were reminded just now, is the one we are supposed to be debating, I thank the Minister for his conciliatory response to us tonight and for recognising—indeed, after nearly two hours, he could hardly fail to recognise—that the clauses as drafted are not quite perfection and that more needs to be done. We are, of course, very willing to engage in constructive discussions to try to find a solution and a way through this. I think he will have heard many times during this debate that to have the Secretary of State as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is simply not acceptable to your Lordships, and he has made the point that a single unelected arbiter is not acceptable to the Government. Therefore we need to find some solution: an arbitration that is seen to be fair on all sides. That is perhaps where we should concentrate.
As my final word on this subject, I ask the Government to consider seriously the can of worms that others have referred to and which has been spoken of many times in this debate. I suspect that the Government did not fully recognise it when drafting this Bill. Given all the potential difficulties that are implied in all this, should the situation ever arise, is it really worth pursuing Part 2? I think it has been said on all sides of the Committee that our preference would be not to have Part 2.
Lord Tope
I think that came from all sides of the Chamber. The Government have perhaps recognised that shadow mayors are not to be pursued. It may be time that they should also have the courage to consider whether Part 2 is worth all the trouble that it may potentially cause and whether the best solution to the dilemma we have spent the past two hours debating might be just not to pursue it at all.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, inspiration has arrived regarding one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. He asked at what point local authorities would be notified that there is an infraction proceeding. They are made aware via relevant departments from the outset of formal proceedings—so, from an Article 258 letter of formal notice.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee very long in winding up this fairly substantial debate. I thank the Minister for the movement that he has indicated in response to representations on the generality of the problems arising with local government. The concerns of the Welsh Local Government Association are very similar to those of the LGA and the extent that Part 2 can be amended between now and Report to meet those concerns will be equally as welcome in Wales as elsewhere, if the Act, as it will be, is to be applicable in Wales.
I concur entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said a moment ago about doing away with Part 2 in its entirety. That would avoid all the problems, but judging from the comments made by the Minister in responding to the debate, it seems that there is still an intention to have a Part 2, albeit amended. If that is the case, I hope that the message will be taken loud and clear from this Chamber that the Minister made it clear that by virtue of Section 36, the Act will apply in England only as things stand now. That will be heard particularly by my good friend Mr Alex Salmond and by others as well, as will the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, about the response if there were attempts to take money from local authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to this Bill. I entirely understand that noble Lords from England will feel that there would be inequity if that was the case, and that is why I suspect that at some point in time we will find a formula that brings in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
If that is the case, it needs to be in the Bill. It needs to have an opportunity to be discussed and debated and to have all the opinions from those three areas brought on board before a final conclusion is reached in relation to the legislation. I very much hope that between now and Report, if there is to be movement away from what the noble Lord said—that it does not apply, as it presently stands, to the two nations of Wales and Scotland and to the Province of Northern Ireland—that can be made known to us in good time so that there can be discussion, if necessary, and discussion with the authorities in the devolved Administrations so that on Report we can address this in a way that will be acceptable, at least in terms of debate, discussion and parliamentary process, by those who have to live with the consequences. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Tax increment financing
(1) The Business Rate Supplement Act 2009 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 (power to impose a BRS) insert—
“(1A) A BRS may be in the form of tax increment financing.”
(3) In section 14 (chargeable amount: supplementary) in subsection (2) after ““A” is” insert “for any form of BRS other than tax increment financing”.
(4) In section 14, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) For tax increment financing “A” is—
(a) the increase in the rateable value on the chargeable day attributable to the project to which the tax increment financing relates, or(b) if section 12(2) applies, the rateable value of the occupied part of the hereditament on that day.”.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, we have just been through a very important debate that has taken a good two hours. I sense that the House is absolutely exhausted, so I will try to be very brief in moving Amendment 118. I will speak also to Amendment 118ZA. Since the latter is the smaller, I will address it very quickly now.
This arose because my colleague and expert lawyer, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looked at the Bill and realised that there was a serious question in the wording of Clause 38(7), which refers to business rate supplements and makes various amendments. It says:
“The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a BRS imposed before the date this section comes into force”.
That is an important date because on one side of the date of raising a business rate supplement there is in many cases no requirement for a ballot, and various other conditions are different, and on the other side of that benchmark the conditions are entirely different. It is absolutely necessary that any authority affected by business rate supplement rules knows when that date occurs. I apologise if we have made a mistake, but neither the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, nor I can find any definition to determine when “this section comes into force”. This is an attempt to do that by replacing those words with the word “enacted”. It seems that if this clause should pass and become part of the Bill in its final form there has to be some clarity from the Government. This is a technical issue but it could lead to an awful lot of confusion and litigation if it is not clarified.
Amendment 118 covers the issue of tax increment financing. I will take a moment or two to explain what tax increment financing is. I am sure many Members of this House are very aware of it but there might be one or two who are not. I will then explain why I have raised this in this Bill and at this point. Tax increment financing was first used in the 1950s by California and is now part of the framework statutes of every state of the United States bar Arkansas, as well as of various continental countries, in various forms. Essentially it is a mechanism that recognises that where regeneration takes place or where there is new infrastructure, land values consequently rise. Therefore, business rates associated with that increase in land values are attributable to the existence of the project. In effect, it allows the relevant local authority or other body to borrow against that predicted increase in the business rates that results from the construction and existence of the project.
In this country we have a great problem in building infrastructure. People often use the example of the London Tube system and the Jubilee line. We get the cost upfront—in the case of the Jubilee line, about £3.5 billion—but there is a huge benefit at the far end when the project is complete. The increase in benefit to landowners around the various stations on the Jubilee line is estimated at about £13 billion. In other words, huge value is created, but we rarely find any mechanism to let us capture that value in order to get the financing to build the project in the first place. This happens on a small scale as well as a large scale. Knowing the cash that is coming out at the end, are we going to take the steps to allow us to find a mechanism to tap that in order to get the project built?
In the United States, this is not often used on large-scale projects. It is used typically on small, local regeneration projects in blighted areas, but it need not be limited to that application. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced in September 2010 that the coalition would at some point allow local authorities to use tax increment financing to finance infrastructure projects. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to find out where on earth we are in this process. I speak partly as a Londoner because I know that so many infrastructure projects are necessary in this city, but it has to apply to the whole of the country.
This issue is relevant because of the various new clauses in the Bill that apply to the business rate supplement. I am conscious that a review is under way of local government revenue-raising powers and that tax increment financing is likely to be discussed as part of that. However, a problem arises from Clause 38 because of the new constraints that are applied to local authorities in raising business rate supplements— notably that a ballot is now necessary for every business rate supplement. Under the existing rules, no ballot is necessary if the business rate supplement provides less than one-third of the total cost of the project.
Crossrail was passed through a special hybrid Bill but the business rate supplement plays a significant part in the financing for it. Had all the businesses in London that are covered by this rate been balloted, they would not have passed the business rate supplement because many of them do not benefit from the existence of Crossrail. I am sure that this will be true on a small scale as well. It will become very difficult to achieve a business rate supplement when many businesses will look at the project that is very beneficial to the community but say that it does not benefit them directly. The joy about tax increment financing, if that were to be the basis on which businesses were balloted, is that you pay it only if you have benefited. You will pay a tax increment levy only if you have seen the increase in property values that comes because the project has been created. That, presumably, is something that businesses capture through rent or through the sale of property or in various other ways, but it is in their interest to make sure that the project happens.
That is why I have raised the matter in this context, although there is a more general Bill to come. It seemed to me that if we were going to see in this Bill new difficulties for using business rate supplements, we at least ought to have some discussion of mechanisms that would be put in place to give confidence to local authorities that they could proceed with infrastructure projects, regeneration and other necessary developments. They would then have some assurance that mechanisms would be coming their way that would allow them to achieve that. At a time when we talk about the importance of economic growth, infrastructure is perhaps more important than ever, so there is an urgency in clarifying this issue. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we understand why the smaller of the amendments has been introduced tonight. Doubtless the Minister will be able to give satisfaction on the date that these provisions enter into force for the reasons the noble Baroness has outlined. We also understand better now why she has attached tax increment financing to these provisions. As she said, a ballot is now required in all circumstances, whatever the level of funding, and there may be difficulties in securing that in the future.
Tax increment financing is about raising more money upfront by committing revenues which would not have arisen but for the project going ahead. We accept and support the importance of focusing at this time on tax increment financing when capital resources for local authorities are especially tight and the private-sector nervousness about the state of the economy means fund raising is extremely difficult. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government set up a working party to examine this and an enlarged group has been working with the coalition Government. What I am not sure about is the grafting of these provisions on to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009, which is about levying a supplement on the NNDR. It involves consultation arrangements and a ballot of those existing ratepayers affected. In concept, TIF is about ring-fencing additional business rates and almost hypothecating those to fund a borrowing arrangement. The current position is set out in the local growth document which the Government issued recently. That talks about introducing new borrowing powers to allow tax increment financing. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what the mechanism is for those borrowing powers to be introduced to facilitate tax increment financing. I do not think grafting it on to the Business Rate Supplements Act provisions will be the right way to achieve it. It looks as though the Government already are focused on changes to borrowing arrangements which will facilitate it and obviously, subject to the detail of that, it is a principle and a project which we would support because it is important to get this source of funding under way at the current time.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I want to add a word from the perspective of English core cities. The proposals around tax increment financing put by the eight largest English cities to Government three to four years ago have gradually been working their way through a number of committees, particularly in the Treasury. In the past 12 months added impetus has been given to tax increment financing. I hope that what my noble friend Lady Kramer is proposing here does not cause any delay to the move forward with the Government’s proposals because tax increment financing is urgently needed to enable cities, in particular, and all councils to be able to borrow against future business rate income growth. At present local councils have the power to borrow prudentially, but prudential borrowing requires there to be an income stream guaranteed to enable that borrowing to proceed. Tax increment financing enables borrowing to be made against future growth and projections of that business rate income, as my noble friend Lady Kramer rightly pointed out.
These are not separate issues and they can sit happily together but we are looking for some clarity from Government that tax increment financing as a principle will go ahead as speedily as the Deputy Prime Minister announced that it would last year. Local authorities are waiting for the powers to be implemented and it could well be a further 18 months to two years before those powers come forward. They are urgently needed. Otherwise infrastructure funding that requires a capital investment based on borrowing on the markets needs to be progressed. Without it that investment will not take place. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister clarifying the speed with which tax increment financing can be introduced and how then that proposal lies with this proposal in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is quite right to refer to the support for the principle from the core cities and also, in general, from the Local Government Association. I endorse that. To help me understand the implications of this measure, can the Minister refer back to the point that she raised about this being more acceptable to business ratepayers because they will benefit from the projects that are being financed through this mechanism as opposed to something like Crossrail where they may not have done? This does not necessarily constitute an objection to the proposal, but I wonder whether that is right. The rates are borne by the occupier of business premises. The value effectively goes to the owner and they are not necessarily the same. We have had over many years in local government finance the position where property owners contribute little to the regeneration of cities and the like. The financial burden falls on the tenants through the rents and they also pay the rates. I wonder whether she is not being a little optimistic in assuming that the occupiers of premises that may benefit from these developments will be as enthusiastic as she might suppose, although, as I say, that does not vitiate the validity of the proposal as a means of financing investment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I hope I can be helpful on this but, while thanking all noble Lords who have spoken, I revert to the point that my noble friend Lady Kramer made in her initial remarks about this being a probing amendment.
The Government have committed to introduce tax increment financing but we should not pre-empt the outcome of the local government resource review that will conclude in July. The review is looking at both local retention of rates and tax increment financing as we need to make sure that tax increment financing proposals are consistent with our wider proposals on business rates retention. The amendment appears to increase the rates liability of businesses, whereas tax increment financing, as generally understood, does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates to repay the borrowing that helped to deliver a piece of infrastructure. The business rate supplement and proposals for tax increment financing are two separate models that are structured differently. Rather than integrate them, there is no reason why they could not be used alongside each other to facilitate the funding of infrastructure to support economic growth.
The amendment seems to create two types of business rate supplement. The first type is a traditional business rate supplement of up to a 2p levy on business rates payers within an authority area that occupy property rated above £50,000 for an economic development project. The second type is a business rate supplement for where tax increment financing has delivered some infrastructure project of up to a 2p levy within an authority area but is restricted to the increases in rateable value of properties rated above £50,000 as a result of some infrastructure that has been implemented by tax increment financing.
The amendment appears to be defective in a number of ways. There is no definition of tax increment financing. The amendment would also create some practical concerns. The tuppence maximum will apply to the area, so in London the proposal could not apply as the tuppence limit reached by the Crossrail business rate supplement has been dealt with. Applying the increase to the rateable value to adjust the impact of the tax increment financing project would require a second ratings list to be set up for all properties with rateable values both prior to and after the tax increment financing project delivery. A consequent increase in administrative costs is highly subject to challenges over the extent of any rateable value increase as a result of the tax increment financing project or other factors—refurbishment of a property, for example.
The tax increment financing scheme does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates generated by the infrastructure to repay borrowing. Under existing arrangements, 100 per cent of business rate revenues collected by local authorities are pooled for redistribution to local authorities in England. By considering options to enable councils to retain their locally raised business rates, the current local government resource review provides an opportunity for significant changes in the way in which councils are funded. Such an approach could help to set free many local councils from dependency on central government funding and provide incentives for them to promote economic growth. The review is considering how we could manage the distributional impacts of any new arrangements. More deprived councils will continue to receive support.
Last September, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government were committed to take legislation to allow for tax increment financing. Then, the local growth White Paper, issued in November, set out the Government’s intention to carry out a resource review. The terms of reference for the resource review were published in a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on 17 March 2011. The resource review will look at local retention and tax increment financing in the round and will conclude in July. The aim is then to move as quickly as possible towards implementation, taking into account the need for primary legislation.
I appreciate the spirit of Amendment 118ZA, which aims to ensure that any business rate supplement where the levy raises less than one-third of the overall project cannot be imposed between Royal Assent and the commencement order without a ballot. However, we do not think that bringing forward commencement of that part is necessary as we are not aware of any proposals for any new business rate supplement planned to be imposed—that would fund less than one-third of the overall project—as we have not seen an initial prospectus or consultation. The business rate supplement for Crossrail has already been imposed and would not be affected by the amendment. I should like to offer reassurance that the Government will bring into force the proposed change that will ensure a ballot for all future business rate supplements regardless of whether it funds more or less than one-third of overall costs.
Clause 38 will come into force following a commencement order to be made by the Secretary of State. We will look to make that commencement order for a date no earlier than two months after Royal Assent in line with convention that legislation is brought into force earlier only where necessary and in exceptional circumstances. I trust that that is a fair response to the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer
I thank the Minister. I am not sure that we are a whole lot clearer on the commencement date but perhaps the Government at the earliest possible opportunity will make that date clear to allow local authorities to handle their affairs in the most effective manner. I accept that I am not likely to get a clearer answer than that.
There are no absolute rules on tax increment financing. There is no absolute requirement that TIF applies only to the standard business rate. There is no rationale that says that it should not apply to a special business rate, which is what we might call the business rate supplement. If this begins to be a widely used measure, many communities and many business communities might rather see a special rate for a project that they consider to be particularly beneficial rather than forgo the project. I would be sad if the Government were ruling out flexibility around TIF from the beginning and going only with the very plain vanilla simplest form of TIF as they look at the various options in front of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the point that very often the person or the business paying the business rate is not necessarily the one that benefits from the increase in value. I take his point. However, as the Minister pointed out, with the standard vanilla TIF, this would not be an issue because one is looking just at the standard business rate and it would be only where there was a special levy in order to create the project. It will depend on whether that increase in value results in increased benefits to the occupier. For example, a shop that suddenly finds there is much more traffic coming through the door may be very pleased to support the higher rate payment because, in effect, their business has benefited. I would say that that is not an absolute.
I would hope that local authorities are given the maximum amount of flexibility to be able to design projects around the needs of their community—and the benefits that will come to their community—to negotiate much of this with local business. I hope very much that as the Government deal with this issue, they will not try to be prescriptive but will allow that kind of financial flexibility which local authorities, I suspect, are best positioned to understand in detail.
I very much confirm that this was a probing amendment. I was rather flattered by the Minister’s attempt to deal with some of it on a line-by-line basis. It was not written with that in mind. I very gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Carbon Budget Order 2011
Lord Marland
That the draft order laid before the House on 24 May be approved.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Merits Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Carbon Budget Order 2011, for the fourth carbon budget level, laid before the House on 24 May, and the Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2011, for the second budget period credit limit, laid before the House on 7 June, be approved.
I suggest that the two statutory instruments on the Order Paper in my name be considered together. Both instruments have been laid in accordance with the Climate Change Act which puts the UK at the forefront of the challenge to reduce emissions and the move to a low-carbon economy. The first order relates to the requirement to set the level of the fourth carbon budget. The five-yearly carbon budgets provide an effective framework for monitoring and delivering emissions reductions required to achieve our 2020 and 2050 targets. The second order sets the limit on the net amount of international carbon offset units that may be credited to the net UK carbon account for the second budget covering the period 2013 to 2017. I thank both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Merits Committee for carefully considering the two orders before us. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments cleared these instruments without comment. The Merits Committee drew the special attention of the House to the draft order setting the fourth carbon budget on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.
I begin by introducing the first order, relating to the fourth carbon budget. This is the total permissible level of the net UK carbon account for the period 2023-27. The Act requires that this is set by 30 June 2011. The level in the Carbon Budget Order 2011 is expressed in units of million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, the standard for measuring greenhouse gas quantities. It amounts to a 50 per cent reduction on 1990 emissions in the 2023-27 period. The proposed level of the fourth carbon budget, of 1,950 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the period, ensures that the UK is on an optimum pathway to comply with the 2050 target of at least an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In proposing the level, the Government have taken into account, and agreed with, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, published in December 2010. The Government aim to meet the proposed fourth carbon budget figure of 1,950 million through reducing emissions domestically as far as practical and affordable. But given the high number of factors that can affect emissions we also intend to keep open the option of carbon trading to retain flexibility. This is a pragmatic approach when considering the uncertainty involved in looking so far ahead.
I draw your attention to the Government’s policy statement that I announced on the Floor of this House on 17 May, where I referred to a review of this carbon budget in 2014. Let me explain our reasoning behind this. The level of emissions reductions we achieve in the power and heavy industry sectors is dependent on the level of ambition in the EU ETS, which sets a cap on emissions for these sectors. Meeting the proposed fourth carbon budget would require a tightening of the EU ETS cap from its current trajectory. It is therefore right that we come back to this issue in a few years’ time to assess progress at the EU level in moving to more ambitious targets. If at that point our domestic commitments place us on a different emissions trajectory than that of the Emissions Trading System agreed by the EU, we will, as appropriate, revise our budget to align it with the actual EU trajectory, pending advice from the Committee on Climate Change and taking into account the views of the devolved Administrations. In the mean time we will continue to push as strongly as possible for greater ambition at the EU level. This brings me on to the second instrument we are debating today, the Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2011.
The Act requires there to be a limit set on the net amount of carbon credits that can be used for each budget period. This order sets the limit for the second budget period, covering the period 2013 to 2017, at 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in total. This must be set by 30 June 2011. Use of these credits would only apply to the non-traded sector; in other words, those sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System. This proposed limit is consistent with the flexibility mechanism under the EU legislation covering the non-traded sector from 2013, which allows for limited use of international credits to help meet annual reduction targets set under the EU Effort Sharing Decision. There are already limits on the use of credits by participants in the EU Emissions Trading System through the EU ETS, which guarantees that at least 50 per cent of the emissions reductions between 2008 and 2020 will take place in Europe. Let me make it clear that we already have a robust policy framework in place to meet the first three legislated carbon budgets, and emissions projections show that we expect to meet these domestically without recourse to the purchasing of credits. In proposing the 55 million tonnes limit, the Government are just choosing not to rule it out at this stage; this is simply a contingency. I commend these orders to the House.
Lord Reay
My Lords, these orders are required under what I view as the Climate Change Act 2008. The Carbon Budget Order sets the limit for our permissible CO2 emissions for the fourth carbon budget as much as 12 to 16 years away, and the credit limit order states the proportion of our second carbon budget, from two to seven years away, that may be met by the use of so-called carbon credits, whereby we pay people in developing countries to do the emission reduction while we carry on doing the emitting.
The Explanatory Memorandum for the fourth carbon budget order has its usual quota of manifestly untrue assertions, including that on page 1:
“there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that it”—
that is, climate change—
“is being caused by human activity”.
There is certainly no consensus. On page 19 there is the statement:
“The scientific evidence for recent global warming continues to strengthen year on year”.
In fact there has been no global warming for the last 10 years, so even with an elastic definition of the word “recent”, that sentence makes no sense.
The order prescribes what the United Kingdom’s CO2 emissions for the five years from 2013 to 2018 are to be on the way to achieving an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, over 1990 levels. The report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee draws attention to the fact that the chances of the United Kingdom staying within that budget will depend on the degree of take-up of the Green Deal, and on early investment in carbon capture and storage. In fact it is quite likely that the public will find the Green Deal unattractively expensive, and where take-up does occur, it may well result not in CO2 emissions savings, but in people choosing to live in warmer homes. CCS is a rash punt by the Government on a scientific breakthrough that will enable it to be rolled out to scale economically. Meanwhile, of course, China rolls out a new coal-fired power station every week, quite uninhibited by any need to wait for carbon capture and storage to be oven-ready. The Merits Committee adds that,
“a key development will be the package of measures to help the energy-intensive industries adjust to the low carbon industrial transformation while remaining competitive”.
This refers to the further contortions that the Government have to make in response to protests from the industry concerned in order to try to offset the effects on them of the carbon tax which the Government propose to introduce. So complicated is that process that the Government want to have until the end of the year to try to work out what to do.
The greatest chance of the Government being able to meet their distant carbon emission targets, including the 80 per cent target in 2050, ironically depends on the failure of the economy to revive. The Climate Change Act, and the policies adopted as a consequence, are doing their very best to bring that about. The Government must sometimes wonder, when by themselves, whether this outcome will please the general public when it becomes apparent and whether this pleasure might ever express itself in the ballot box.
The credit limit order relates to the second carbon budget starting in two years’ time. The Government state in the Explanatory Memorandum that they expect the budget to be met comfortably by territorial emission reduction; that is to say, by emissions calculated to have been reduced on United Kingdom soil and that, therefore, there is likely to be no need to purchase ICUs—international carbon units. The provision in the order is therefore, as my noble friend the Minister said, purely a contingency.
The Government seem almost wistful about this, regretting this missed opportunity to give support to another foreign aid scheme. On page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, they state: “This option”—referring to one of the policy options, policy option 1, which is not the one in effect adopted—
“could signal an increased commitment by the UK government to purchase emissions reductions from developing countries, which would form part of the overall demand signal to the private sector to help drive investment in new projects overseas”.
In fact, the system just introduces new scams and corruption opportunities to developing countries, as if enough were not provided already by our aid budget.
It is not that the opportunities seem confined to developing countries. It was reported in the press that the legislature in Australia was giving consideration to awarding carbon credits for the funding of the extermination of Australia's 1 million-odd feral camels on the grounds that they were substantial emitters of methane gas and no doubt were a noxious pest in many a constituency in the Outback.
Our Government state, sadly, that they are strongly supportive of the international carbon credit system, notwithstanding the similarity that it seems to bear to the pre-Reformation church, when indulgencies could be bought from Rome to permit sinning at home with a clear conscience. Kyoto is the new Vatican.
The Climate Change Act should be repealed, its panoply of carbon budgets abandoned, all the agencies such as the climate change committee which drips its advice into the Government's ear sent packing, and a chance given to our economy to resurrect itself. Otherwise we have a grim and, very likely, a dim future.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I should declare my interest in this topic. While I worked at Friends of the Earth, I instigated the campaign that secured cross-party support for a new legal framework to tackle climate change in the UK. That campaign was based on a policy document where I argued in favour of a series of legally binding carbon budgets to deliver a steady trajectory of emissions reductions over time.
While on secondment to the Office of Climate Change, I was made part of the team tasked with drafting the Bill. There, the concept of carbon budgets was further developed and other elements were added, most importantly the creation of the independent Committee on Climate Change, an expert body set up to advise government on crucial aspects of the implementation of the Bill including, most importantly, the levels at which future budgets should be set.
It will come as no surprise, therefore, that I am a passionate defender of this world-leading legislation. I should also state that I am a director of a not-for-profit organisation that is a watchdog on the carbon market.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I sometimes wish that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Reay on a number of issues because he speaks so eloquently and so certainly, although what he says is usually the direct opposite of what I think. However, there is one area on which we agree on this debate, which I will come on to later.
One of the great things about the Committee on Climate Change report on which the Government’s decision was based—and I absolutely welcome the Government’s decision to adopt the fourth carbon budget—was that the report did not just say what the committee thought should happen but actually went through from the basics: it looked at the 80 per cent target for 2050 and said that was still right; it looked at areas such as the 34 per cent reduction by 2020; and it then looked to see whether the evidence was still there that global warming is happening. Where I deviate very strongly from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is that I accept that the report showed very clearly: that ocean levels are rising and have been rising consistently over the past decade; that temperatures at sea level and in the atmosphere are rising; and that the number of square kilometres of ice cover in September—I do not know whether it is a particular conspiracy that September of each year has been chosen—has gone down. There are various other indicators but those are the key ones, which show that this is really happening. That is the reality on our planet.
I sometimes think that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, sees the whole climate change strategy as a car accident in slow motion or waiting to happen, whereas I look at him as aiming for it and putting his foot on the accelerator, and I am sad that is the case. It seems to me that the science is there. I agree that there is perhaps less scientific evidence on whether global warming is created by the human race and all the industrialisation that has taken place, but there too I believe the evidence is very strong indeed. Whether we do something about climate change now or wait another couple of decades to see whether it really has happened is not an option we should consider. I agree that there is a difficult global consequence even though, as the noble Baroness has said, we sometimes underestimate the amount of work that other countries—whether developing or having intermediate income levels—have done and are doing in this area.
There will be a number of challenges in meeting these targets. I still treat with some scepticism the argument made by the Committee on Climate Change that the effects on GDP of implementing these measures will be less than 1 per cent. I always think that is a fantastic bit of statistical evidence. Over that time period, the margin of error is probably something like 5 per cent either way. However, it is good to read that and there is evidence on that.
There are big challenges. The climate change report notes that we need something like £10 billion a year of energy investment—something that I recognise from Ofgem reports. I know the Government are very aware of this as well, even though over the past decade and more investment in the power sector has been under £2 billion per annum. That is a fivefold increase that we are looking for in our energy investment. Therefore, anything that we can do through smart grids, demand management and especially schemes such as the Green Deal to bring down energy usage will improve that figure quite considerably.
For this fourth carbon budget, which is 12 years ahead when it starts and 17 years ahead when it finishes, it has to be a good decision by the Government that we are nailing our flag to the mast and that, as with the first three budgets, we are at one with the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. That will be difficult, given the need for electric cars. By 2050, more or less all transport will have to be non-fossil-fuel based. That will require a major change, both technically and culturally—which in many ways may be far more difficult.
I disagree with my noble friend the Minister, very unusually, on carbon credits. I argued very strongly during the passage of the Climate Change Bill that we should not be able to borrow from and lend to other periods and budgets; we should not be able to trade credits if we do not meet domestic demand. I am sad in a way to see that proposal. Another issue on which there is perhaps some change from what the Committee on Climate Change would have liked is reassessing the budget in the future, when we look to see what Europe is doing. I think that that is completely sensible, as we cannot ignore the rest of the world and I am sure that, by the time we get to the budget period circumstances will change—they are entirely unpredictable now and we will need to look at the viability of the budget then. However, at the moment the policy is in that way.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Reay that carbon credits are wrong—but probably for completely different reasons—because they allow an out that we should not be able to have. I think that it is wrong that, with the agreement of the Committee on Climate Change, we should allow credits forwards and backwards under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in terms of our accounting—even though that clearly happens in terms of a commercial reality, which I welcome. What that means is that, for about 40 to 50 per cent of our emissions, which are under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, even if our greenhouse-gas intensive industries perform better than budgeted the UK does not get any benefit because we count that as exported credits and we still end up with the same amount, which means that all the pressure comes back on the rest of the sector. That is the only area where there is a real problem with carbon budgets as currently proposed.
My final point is that, although it is not mentioned in the Committee on Climate Change report, the committee has some sympathy with measuring our carbon footprint in terms of consumption as well as carbon production and the standard way that the Kyoto protocol looks at the carbon footprint for each nation. I would like to think that we would start to have carbon budgets, or at least carbon measurement, in terms of carbon consumption, where embedded carbon is taken into consideration, as well as the traditional way.
I congratulate the Government on their courage and good sense in agreeing to the fourth carbon budget. There is a very big task to be undertaken, on which we are providing leadership. We can have pride in that, but we desperately need to bring the rest of the world along with us and that, I agree, is not an easy proposition.
Lord Turnbull
My Lords, there is a strong danger of shooting the messenger here. One cannot criticise the Minister for bringing forward these orders at this time. They are mandated by the Climate Change Act 2008. Equally, one cannot expect the Government to do other than accept the bulk of the advice from the Committee on Climate Change since, otherwise, what would be the point of having it? However, we should not simply wade through these orders—I certainly do not want to—without registering the increasing concern in this House and outside about people becoming profoundly disillusioned by the whole framework created by the Climate Change Act.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I am very interested to follow the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. He talked about agnosticism and it seems that we are in the area of faith. The Americans believe “In God we trust”, as they say on their dollar, while here we are saying, “In certain elements of science, we either trust or we do not trust”.
I am grateful for the explanations offered in the notes and I was interested to see the estimate given of the cost that might be incurred by this fourth budget. It is stated as a least-cost path of £1.9 billion with a top figure of £7 billion, if we attempt to reach it purely through cutting emissions within the UK. I do not know whether this is of any comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but the 55 million tonnes that are mentioned in the Explanatory Note on the credit limit order—in a sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation, as far as I can see—are about 5 per cent of the total non-EU carbon credits that will be required. That is a pretty marginal effort.
However, that raises a question about the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that we are,
“currently working with EU partners to try to secure an EU 2020 reduction target of 30%”.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, brought that up. I would be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister could tell the House what stage that has reached. I hope he might accept that the marginal abatement cost goes up with each increase in the reduction target. Are there any figures of what they estimate this beefed-up target might incur? There is a question as to whether this credit limit on non-EU certified emission reductions includes any allowance to accommodate the revision in the EU target. As we said before, it is such a small element of the thing overall but it might have to be part of the review that has been mentioned.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, I shall make a brief intervention in view of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, was in fact my Permanent Secretary at one stage and was the Cabinet Secretary when we established the lead on Kyoto and a legal framework. Clearly, he has done some rethinking on this matter since he joined this House and I look forward to further debates. Let us be clear, however: the previous Government established a lead, and we were proud of it. To be honest, this Government are continuing it. My main worry is: what if you do not achieve the legal framework that you are after? There is not a chance in hell of getting a legal framework. I am one of those who have advocated it, but China will not have it and the Americans cannot deliver it. Quite honestly, you might think that the Europeans are going to go to 30 per cent from 20, but I predict that is highly unlikely.
What worries me about that is that it will feed all the pessimism of people who feel that this will be a failure and run costly to our industry, but we must maintain the momentum of the Kyoto principles. That is important, but we should recall that 2012 is the end of the Kyoto period. Is it going to continue with a legal framework? No, it cannot do that by 2012, or you will find that the Kyoto framework will fall—as the Americans would want—and there would be renegotiation. I hope that the Minister has a plan B here. If we are having plan As and plan Bs, one of them should be to recognise that we will not get a legal framework by 2012, yet the Kyoto principles should not fall.
There will be great division between the developed and the developing countries. It is already on the cards that way so if that is not going to be achieved, what will happen then in Europe? Many of those in the central European belt and coal areas will say that they are not going to go to 30 per cent. There is a great possibility that we will not now be able to deliver on the Europe promise, which with courage the Government have said they will do. They are now going for an 80 per cent project, which has little chance, frankly, of being achieved, but then most of us will not be around by then to say whether we were right or wrong. There is a certain amount of posturing going on around this, which can undermine the momentum we have with the Kyoto principles.
I think I said this when there were Questions in the House: I fear we will then step back and say that we were the ones who led the way, but if we cannot get the others to follow, then blame them not us. There should be a plan B. We should already be thinking about how we carry on beyond that period. It is not unusual for Europe to stop the clock: it did it all through negotiations and continues to do it. It sets a timetable. Let me suggest that in plan B we go beyond 2012, perhaps to 2015. The voluntary framework agreed in Cancun and now being discussed in Durban is difficult enough to implement in all its many manifestations and we have to make sure that we have another plan in mind or it will collapse.
My fear is that we will get up and say that we were the ones who were leading, but we have got no army and nobody is following us. Then everybody will say that Kyoto 2 has failed; that you cannot get an agreement and that will damage the momentum to deal with the problem of climate change. In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether we have got a plan B. The Minister has already said that if we do not get Europe with us on 30 per cent we will reconsider the position. Is that right? We could still continue the legislative framework, if that is what we choose, while most of the world stays on a voluntary one. Have we alternatives so that we do not damage the possibility of a Kyoto 2?
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his introduction today to these two orders. It builds on the fourth carbon budget statement on 17 May. It is important that the objective to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 has been enshrined in legislation. It underlines the commitment shared across the political divide—excepting the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and others I admit—over the long-term approach required to combat the effects of climate change. It sends a clear signal to the international community that the UK is committed to the low-carbon economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has put forward a strong case that climate change is happening and I know many are frustrated at the low level of action by other governments. It is important that we also recognise the work of the Committee on Climate Change, that it is a crucial part of the assessment of the latest climate science, the evolving international framework and the critical pathways required. I pay tribute to it for its expert advice to Government.
That is not to say that these orders are not controversial. Indeed, the Minister may recognise that the importance of the imperative to make early progress across Government required the intervention of the Prime Minister. It has also not gone unnoticed that for the first time the CCC’s recommendations have not been accepted in full. While it is recognised that the first three carbon budgets were set after the EU had already agreed the 2020 target, the fourth carbon budget is being set in advance of any EU decisions and without any overarching EU framework being in place. In the light of this, will the Minister outline the reasons behind the justification to reject the tightening of emission targets in the second and third carbon budgets covering the years 2013 to 2022?
I enjoyed and look forward to the contributions in your Lordships’ House from my noble friend Lady Worthington. She brings great knowledge on these issues. She has asked the Minister about the size of the carbon offsets under the second order that were are debating today and the signal it may give. While it is understood that the Minister would like to have these credits as a fallback position, is he able to say why he fears these may be necessary, bearing in mind that the CCC recommended that they should not be relied upon and the budget should be met through reduced emissions?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I offer my appreciation for the contributions of those who have spoken on these orders, even though I do not necessarily agree with all of them. At one point my noble friend Lord Reay was a soothsayer but at another point a prophet of doom. He was very emphatic that there is no global warming, that the Green Deal is unattractive to the consumer and that the CCS is a rash punt. We shall see what happens. I do not agree with him and I am very happy that in the cities I have visited recently there is serious intent to take up the Green Deal. It will be of great value. I do not agree that it is unattractive to the consumer.
I pick up on a very good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He always makes good points on these matters, although I was disappointed that he did not agree with everything I said, which does not go down too well. He said that it is all about demand management. The Green Deal will produce more effective demand management and will, we hope, be a way of reducing the amount of energy we use.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on her first contribution on this subject. I am extremely wary of engaging with someone of such great knowledge but I welcome her to the debate. She made the point that we are the world leaders in this legislation due to her efforts and those of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I was about to call him my noble friend, given some of the nice things that he said. The noble Baroness made the point that at times we have ignored the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. Believe it or not, the Government do not always do what everyone tells them. We get advice and then determine whether it is applicable to the world that we live in. We must be seen as a pragmatic Government, and pragmatic is what we fully intend to be. That does not mean that we will not show leadership on this subject. Putting down the marker of a 30 per cent reduction in carbon to Europe shows genuine leadership and that we are moving forward while other countries in Europe are moving backwards. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said, we cannot walk out of tune with Europe. We have to exist within Europe and we are bound by European legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, knows because he was very much part of it at the time.
We are on target for our credits. Having those credits is only a contingency. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was close; it is a 3 per cent, rather than a 5 per cent, contingency. There are great brains behind me, calculating every word I say. It is only a 3 per cent contingency, so it is not very large. We are committed to reviewing it in 2014. It is right that we should review these things. It is not right for us to commit this country to long-term things when we live in a fast-changing world.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, was, I suggest, slightly sceptical about what we are embarking on. He looks at these things wearing a Treasury hat. My goodness, in government we quake at the thought of the Treasury hat. It is based on pragmatic and often cynical views on some of our inspirational plans. However, we recognise that the noble Lord comes from a pragmatic position and welcome his views. However, he would not deny that in government one has to show leadership. That is the way the previous Government and the current Government have determined the course and we intend to show leadership. I would take issue with him on the subject of green jobs or investment. We have to invest, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson said, £10 billion in the infrastructure of this economy—not just low-carbon economy, but the economy. With investment—and even the Treasury and great officials from the Treasury would admit this—generally comes jobs.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who has more experience in this field than I have in my little finger, asked about consideration. As he well knows, the Climate Change Act allows us to reconsider our position. It was actually set in stone by the previous Government. We are saying only what was laid down in the Act—that we do intend to reconsider our position.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, quite rightly invited us to comment on whether the EU ETS trading platform is fit for purpose. We know that in certain parts of Europe the platforms were not right. We have shown leadership in this area because we have a robust platform—that does not mean we are being complacent—which must be tightened up but can show leadership to Europe of how this platform should operate. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions about ROCs and other things which, with all due respect, I will not debate now because I do not think them relevant to these orders. I also know that noble Lords are looking forward to a drink and something to eat so we will get on. However, the fundamental point he makes and wants me to answer is on the energy-intensive industries. We cannot just ignore them. As he rightly says, we have to work in co-operation with them and show them the pathway to improving their business. However, in the mean time, we must not destroy them because we are looking at very substantial employers who, for many years, have been the backbone of the country. We need to work with them. We must also recognise the role of the consumer and that everything we do is for the consumer’s benefit. With that, my Lords, I commend these orders to the House.
Lord Moynihan
Before the Minister sits down, I wish to pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, in recognition of the Climate Change Act. In the Explanatory Memorandum, it states that Government must, in making decisions on carbon budgets, take into account the estimated reportable emissions from international aviation and shipping emissions. It further states that international aviation and shipping are not currently included in the scope of carbon budgets but they may be included in the future. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could give the House his wisdom and say when the Government intend that to happen, if at all.
Lord Marland
I have just been told by my noble friend that if I pan this answer out for another two minutes, we will not have to adjourn during pleasure for another two minutes. I will try my best but the noble Lord has asked such a very straightforward question. The straight answer is 2012. I am sorry but I cannot carry this answer forward.
Lord Turnbull
Perhaps I may help out the noble Lord by responding to a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, my Secretary of State for a year in 1998. It was a wonderful experience working for him. He asked “What has changed?”. I think it was Keynes who said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” The temperature in 1998 was probably the peak. Since then, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, there has been no rise in the temperature. If you go into the HadCRUT 3 series and go into that little bit called global, you will get the deviation from the baseline month by month, and the yearly average. In fact, 2011 was probably, in the 13 years since 1998, the second or third coldest and the first four months have been just as cold. That is the principal evidence that has caused me to change my mind.
Lord Marland
It is wonderful to hear such harmony and I am very grateful for this scientific question. I think we are now down to half a minute. What was the question that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked?
Lord Moynihan
My noble friend the Minister gave an extraordinarily perceptive and astute answer to my question. In the context of that answer, it is important that it enables the Minister to state clearly whether that decision will enable us to be consistent with a pathway to the 2050 target set out in the Act.
Lord Marland
The short answer is that we will be reviewing this in 2012. I want to thank noble Lords for this very entertaining and engaging debate. It has been a real pleasure and privilege being present tonight. Shall we go to the other place?
Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2011
Lord Marland
That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall also speak to the other two amendments in the group. These are probing amendments, at this stage. We are on record as supporting the thrust of these provisions. They would allow local authorities complete discretion to offer business rate discounts to other hereditaments of their choosing, in particular to support businesses. However, the cost of these discounts will be met, one way or another, by the local authority. Under existing arrangements, the local authority can provide discretionary rate relief in a number of restricted circumstances—for example, by topping up the 80 per cent mandatory relief given to charities and providing 100 per cent relief to other non-profit-making bodies. The cost of existing discretionary rate relief is shared between the local authority and central government.
My first question to the Minister is: whether or not a local authority uses the opportunity to offer discretionary relief, will the cost of ongoing relief to existing types of hereditaments be shared on the same basis as now—partly by central government and partly by the local authority? Is there any change to that regime? Clearly, there will be little appetite for any new discretion, given that the costs will in effect have to fall on council tax payers, with referendums constraining council tax increases.
This leads to our first amendment. The relief can be granted when the billing authority is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, having regard to the interests of persons liable to pay council tax set by the authority. However, we know that the Government are considering localisation of the business rate, which was discussed in the amendment we considered before the dinner break, and that a resource review is under way. If another potential source of income were to come about, with another group of peoples’ interests to consider, would that be one of the factors to be taken into account, or are the Government saying that those people can be ignored for these purposes?
The second amendment seeks only clarification—although I accept that it relates to a pre-existing form of words—of what is included in the definition of “fine arts”. This is relevant for the purposes of identifying who is eligible for discretionary relief. In the Bill, non-profit-making bodies include:
“each of whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise philanthropic or religious or concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts”.
Having read that, I was genuinely unclear as to the dividing line between fine arts and other arts. The House of Lords Library helped a little and referred me to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases. It refers to a judge, who said at one stage:
“I am prepared to accept the wider meaning assigned to the ‘fine arts’ in the definitions and to treat them as including, for example, poetry, eloquence and music, as well as such ‘arts of design’ as painting, sculpture and architecture. We are indeed bound for the present purposes to include music amongst them. It is possible that dramatic art should also be included”.
However, can the Minister help with perhaps a more contemporary definition? I am aware that his noble friend Lord Taylor has a very keen and current interest in carnival arts, for example. Would that be included? This might seem a somewhat frivolous point, but there is a real issue about why the word “fine” is attached to the arts here. Perhaps the Minister can help me on that.
Our third amendment just deletes the Secretary of State’s powers to issue guidance. Surely this is about local discretion, and local authorities can make up their own minds about how they go about it. However, if the noble Lord seeks to defend the inclusion of that provision, perhaps he might elaborate on the type of issues that would be encompassed by the guidance.
These amendments do not seek to undermine the thrust of the clause. There are issues about how valuable discretionary rate relief might be. There is some evidence that landlords eventually factor the reduced rates into increased rents. There are some issues about authorities undercutting each other; indeed, the result of that can reinforce the inequality of resources that exists at the moment, making those worse, although lower business rates can lower the entry barrier for certain businesses. This is important at the current time because reports, for example in Sunday newspapers and earlier this week, about the challenges that high streets face are very real.
Action on rents may be needed as well as action on business rates. I note the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who is going to speak on this issue in a moment. I presume that those concerns are focused on the fact that the wider discretion is allowed and whether that will undermine the support given to existing recipients of the benefit. However, I do think that we have to allow discretion to local authorities in the hope that they will do the right thing but also balance the issue of benefits in the medium and longer term, perhaps forgoing some revenues in the short term. Having explained the thrust of these probing amendments, I look forward with interest to the noble Lord’s reply, particularly to his definition of “fine arts”.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, it might help to progress the debate if I admit that I am speaking on behalf of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Exeter and that I fly under the flag of Birmingham, although I share a Scottish name with the noble Lord opposite.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of Exeter gave notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 39 stand part in order to seek an assurance from the Minister on the future of discretionary relief for charities from non-domestic rates. I probe, from these Benches, the Government’s intention in this area.
Currently, under the terms of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, buildings used by charities qualify for a mandatory 80 per cent discount on their non-domestic rates. In addition, as already mentioned, local authorities have discretion to waive some or all of the remaining 20 per cent. Clause 39 deals with the exercise of that discretion. The clause appears to be largely a simplification measure. It removes a series of detailed conditions that must currently be applied when deciding whether to grant discretionary relief. In effect, it appears to replace those detailed conditions with a simple “yes” or “no” exercise of discretion by the billing authority. However, under the terms of new subsection (5A),
“the billing authority may make the decision only if it is satisfied that it would be reasonable for it to do so, having regard to the interests of persons liable to pay council tax set by it”.
We all know that local authorities are currently under severe financial constraints and I am aware of fear among some in the charity sector—here, I declare an interest in several charities with which I am associated as a trustee, president or patron, but hope that noble Lords will excuse me from listing them all now—that the discretionary relief is under threat because cash-strapped councils are looking to make any possible savings that they can. The change proposed in Clause 39 might of course be totally innocuous, but what worries charities is that it might be the green light to cease granting discretionary relief. What does the phrase,
“only if it is satisfied that it would be reasonable for it to do so”,
mean in this situation? Is this what might be called the traditional Wednesbury “reasonable” from 1947 or is it a milder test? My question is very simple: do Ministers expect councils to continue giving discretionary relief or are the Government trying to make it easier for councils to refuse such requests? If the DCLG is trying to make it easier for councils not to give the 20 per cent discretionary relief, how does that square with the big society agenda? Looking to the future, how secure is the 80 per cent mandatory relief?
I very much hope that the Minister can reassure us on both the general intention of this clause and the precise meaning of the words to which I have referred.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate in his intention to oppose the clause standing part. In so doing, as this is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this Committee stage, I declare all my interests as a landowner and farmer and, in this instance, as chairman of the Charities’ Property Association, whose membership includes many charities that either have property as part of their core business as a charity or own property as part of a wider portfolio. I have been asked by my members to probe the Government’s intentions here and, without repeating what the right reverend Prelate has said, I hope that we get some encouraging words from the Minister.
Lord True
My Lords, I intervene briefly from the perspective of a local authority. I think that most local authorities would have enormous sympathy with what the right reverend Prelate has just said. I am generally very suspicious of definitional creep. I do not think that the charity world has necessarily been helped by the major attempt to redefine a charity after doing away with the great simplicity and proven law of the Elizabethan statute. Therefore, I hope that we are not going to move down another definitional road.
I would not want to see local authorities not being able to have constructive dialogue with charitable organisations, because I think that discretionary relief is extremely important. On the other hand, sometimes premises are certainly not used as efficiently as they might be. It might be for the general good if two or three charities shared offices that might be improved, and I would not want to see that kind of exploration forbidden. Therefore, I, too, should like to hear from my noble friend, but I certainly feel that this is a provision that local authorities would like to stay long in law.
I could speak for a long time on the subject of the fine arts but I do not think that I will. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to eloquence and I wondered whether his much admired contributions to these debates meant that debating was a fine art as well. If so, he should be part of it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It might be easier if I start with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on the whole business of relief. The message is that there is to be no change in relief for charities. Whether it is mandatory or discretionary, the answer is, “No change”. There is no element of change in this provision. To me, the words that the right reverend Prelate is concerned about are a bit convoluted, but that convolution is because of the business rate element. For charities, however, I repeat that there is no change.
I return to the three amendments. Amendment 118A would require an authority to have regard to the interests of business rate payers as well as council tax payers. When the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke to the amendment, he was looking at contingent events rather than where we stand now. The words,
“only if it is satisfied that it would be reasonable”,
are included because the local authority that wanted to assist a business rate payer would have to realise that the council tax payer would in effect be funding it. The Bill is saying that a local authority has to be certain that it is reasonable, bearing in mind who will carry the burden.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Just so that we can tick off this item as we go along, my amendment to include the business rate would still be qualified by “set by it”. It would not cover NNDR, which are set nationally by the national multiplier, and would come into effect only if circumstances arose in which there was local discretion on the business rate. Just as council tax is set by it the business rate would be set by it. My amendment sought to include those circumstances and the interests that had to be considered when applying discretionary relief. It was not meant to include NNDR as currently constituted.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I understand that this is in order that the national business rate can be relieved by local government saying, “This is a bill that you don’t have to pay or that can be reduced”.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry. I promise not to interrupt the noble Lord again, well maybe no more than once. I accept that what are being relieved by this provision are NNDR—the business rates—but the clause requires that when making judgments about discretionary relief there must be,
“regard to the interests of persons liable to pay council tax”.
Currently, they are the people who bear the cost of the discretionary relief. Should not the Government localise the business rate so that it is set locally in the future, it is another source of income set by the billing authority, and the interests of the persons involved in that are reasonably taken into account?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, that may well be the case, but that is for another day. This clause makes it clear that the council tax payer in effect foots the bill, and it is for the local authority to say, “Look, be careful, the council tax payer is going to have to suffer this. Are you certain you are doing the right thing?”.
On Amendment 118B, I, too, have been having trouble with the definition of “fine arts”. All I know is that the “fine” is not the same “fine” that my noble friend Lord Attlee was having difficulty with. It is a different use of the word. The best thing to do is to go back to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I have it here because I dug it out. The first thing I thought about 1988 was that it was the year after 1987. Actually I am thinking of 1997 and the previous Government, but it was a long time ago. That Act refers to premises,
“whose main objects are charitable”—
which in itself covers many arts organisations—
“or are otherwise philanthropic”—
which may also well cover arts organisations—
“or religious”—
which may also cover arts organisations. It then says,
“or concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts”.
We are exactly where we were before. The Bill does nothing to disturb, in a positive or a negative way, what can be done so that charitable, et cetera, bodies do not have to pay the full rates. I think that is a fair position. Others may well still have to consider the precise recognition of a fine art that does not happen to be charitable or philanthropic, or indeed whether it is an art that does not happen to be charitable or philanthropic, but many people will find a way of discovering that they are charitable or philanthropic. There is no reason why a local authority could not give grant relief to any arts organisation, provided that it considers the interests of council tax payers and fund the relief itself.
Under Amendment 118C, there would be no statutory duty on authorities to have regard to any guidance. If the Secretary of State chooses to issue guidance, it is likely to be largely administrative in nature, covering such matters as state aid issues and the relationship between billing authorities and precepting authorities. Such guidance may well be welcomed. Of course, authorities would only have to have regard to the guidance; they would still be able to grant relief in accordance with the law as they see fit.
I hope that I have responded to those three amendments and, indeed, the major matter of the integrity of the position on rate relief that remains for all sorts of charitable and other bodies. Therefore, I trust that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendments and, indeed, that we will be able to stick to this clause.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am very grateful to the Minister for his full explanation and for dealing with these points. In particular, he reassured me and, I am sure, other noble Lords—I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for referring to him as the Bishop of Exeter—that there is no change to the existing system of mandatory relief and sharing costs for the current categories of relief that are shared between government and the local authority. That is a very important thing to have on the record. I do not think, with respect, that the noble Lord has fully dealt with the point—although I do not propose to pursue it further—about having to include the prospect in the future, because if we had a local business rate, then, in a sense, they are excluded from these provisions and I am not sure that that is very wise.
I accept that the term “fine arts” is not new—it has been used before—but I would hate that definition to exclude circumstances that, in the modern era, with the development of arts over the years, was not necessarily thought of when these definitions were established. However, I do not think that this is the most important matter that we are going to debate in the Bill. I very much take his point about guidance. He reminded us, of course, about the issues of state aid: that discretionary relief could amount to state aid. It is for individual local authorities to work their way through that treacle, that minefield. That could, in itself, be quite a significant deterrent, but I can see that local authorities would welcome some guidance and help from central government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s categorical, firm and straightforward support for charities in this connection and do not wish to test the mind of the House at this moment, although, considering the possible changes in the sources of funding, discretionary funding or mandatory funding relief in the future, we may want to come back to this on Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) A billing authority in England must promote the opportunities provided by small business rate relief.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The thrust of Clause 40 is to automate the small business multiplier to improve uptake of the small business rate relief. We support this, but there are two components of the relief. Fundamentally, it is obtained by a small business multiplier—essentially the rate of tax—which is applied to the rateable value of a property, but, additionally, properties with rateable values of less than £6,000 are entitled to a further 50 per cent relief, with properties between £6,000 and £12,000 getting tapered relief. Currently, before the change proposed in the clause, the benefit of the multiplier and the further relief depend generally on a business occupying only one property as well as falling within the rateable value thresholds. In addition, a business has to make an application to that effect.
To make eligibility more automatic, the provisions of Clause 40 do away with the requirement for a business to make an application, and for the purpose of the small business multiplier, it is no longer necessary for a business to occupy just one property. However, for the further discounts to apply, it is necessary for the business to occupy just one property. Clearly, this latter component cannot be delivered automatically, and our amendment seeks to address this quite narrow and particular point. There is no formal requirement to make an application and, according to the impact assessment, it is left to each authority to determine how it goes about identifying those who are eligible. In essence, we consider that there should be an ongoing obligation for billing authorities to promote the small business rate relief. Noble Lords will be aware that the amendment has the backing of the FSB. Authorities will be helped in this by having on record prior applications concerning eligibility based upon single property occupancy. Noble Lords will be aware that the benefit of the relief is met by increasing the multiplier on other properties, so it is not met by government, but by other occupiers of hereditaments. I trust the Minister will be able to support this modest amendment. It is not a cost to government.
I shall close with two questions. Removing the requirement for single occupancy for the small business rate multiplier will lead to large as well as small businesses being able to benefit. Before, single property occupancy was equated with a small business, but now you can occupy lots of low rateable value property and still benefit from the relief. Have the Government made any estimate of the additional cost associated with large businesses now being able to access the benefit of this relief? Is single occupancy judged on an individual company basis, or are there rules which require matters to be dealt with on a group basis? I shall be grateful if the Minister is able to deal with those points. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. Authorities are already under a statutory duty to provide information about small business rate relief with bills every year, and last year, we also requested authorities to write to all ratepayers with rateable values below £12,000 to remind them that they may be eligible for the relief. Take-up of the relief is already high, and the changes we are making will be able to push it even higher.
This amendment would therefore just place another unnecessary duty on authorities, which is something to which this Government are strongly opposed, and it would be one which central government would have to fund, so I cannot agree the amendment as such.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It would be helpful if he could write with some of the numbers so we have some clarity on the record. If some regulations are coming through shortly perhaps we will have another time to dip into this. I do not know whether they are affirmative or negative but one way or another we will try to get a debate around them.
I simply do not follow the point about imposing an extra burden on local authorities. If they are promoting the small business rate relief at the moment, having a provision in the Bill that requires them to do it does not seem to be an extra burden, but that is a matter for another debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The chargeable day must not fall outside the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2010.”
Lord Tope
My Lords, Amendment 118E is fairly clear and straightforward. In view of the time and in order to make progress and get on to the next part of the Bill, I will move this amendment formally so that the Minister can reply and we can have the reply on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, from day one, the Government have been committed to providing meaningful help to businesses hit by certain backdated rates bills, such as some businesses in ports. Despite the financial situation that we inherited, we have honoured our commitment to find a permanent solution to the problem and safeguard jobs and businesses. We are taking the necessary powers through Clause 41 of the Localism Bill to cancel these bills.
I welcome the spirit behind the amendment, which aims to clarify that only backdated rates liabilities between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2010 can be cancelled. However, the current draft achieves this by limiting the cancellation to the 2005 rating list which applies only to chargeable days between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2010, as the new 2010 list would apply from 1 April 2010. The draft regulations are clear that only an alteration to the rating list that occurred on or before 31 March 2010 can qualify for the cancellation. The amendment is not needed. New Section 49A(2)(a), as inserted by Clause 41, limits the cancellation policy to properties entered in the 2005 rating list, so the current draft already achieves the aim of the proposed amendment. I trust that this will be sufficient for the noble Lord to be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Does the noble Lord have a figure for the extent to which those who are getting the benefit of the removal of the imposition of backdating under the eight-year agreement have already discharged in whole or in part their obligations?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I have several papers here but that figure is not within them. I imagine this was raised when we discussed this a year or two back. However, I will write to the noble Lord and see that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library.
Lord True
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119, 120 and technical Amendment 121 in my name. I also support Amendments 123, 124,125,126 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. This is an exploratory group to whose question other noble Lords have come forward with other potential solutions, but it goes to the heart of a critical question relating to the purpose and the workability of this Bill. Accepting that there may be a right of referendum by the people to a local council, and I made clear at Second Reading that I see a case for that, I am asking what the appropriate triggers for a referendum are and how we restrain potential mischievous use of the power and the risk of escalating costs? I freely admit that the solutions that we are offering may not be the right ones. In terms of the numbers concerned, other noble Lords have tabled amendments, and the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hanham in the following group raise interesting questions and may well offer some answers from the Front Bench.
I do not think that the Bill, as currently drafted, has set the threshold high enough to trigger a referendum in any local authority in this country. Authors of the Bill perhaps underrated also the political difficulty of refusing a request for a referendum. Although the power is given to do so, it is not necessarily that easy a power to exercise, particularly as an election approaches, even in the case of those types of proposals described in Clause 47(6) as “vexatious”, which in itself is a dangerously justiciable word. The reality is that, in practice, if a referendum is requested, the local authority lies under a legal duty to hold it under the original Bill unless it can find cause for exception. As I have just said, it would be quite difficult for some referendums to be refused. My Amendment 119 builds the presumption of discretion in if we are to retain in the Bill thresholds as low as they are now set, and I note that the Government appear to be moving in that direction in relation to special petitions. I should say that 5 per cent might be 300 or so voters in an urban ward, or perhaps a few dozen in a rural community, but these figures are not very hard to make with a minimum of political organisation. Some of these proposals benefit political organisations more than they may members of the public. I suggest that as a potential compromise a local authority should have discretion on whether to hold a referendum on a petition at that low level. I feel that the Government may be moving in our direction.
There are many other ways to respond to a petition from the public, which need not be put in legislation or regulation but often could be dealt with, and indeed are dealt with, under a local authority’s standing orders. A local authority might simply do what the petitioners ask, at least in some modified form. That was how this Parliament came into being: the Commons came to Westminster, or to wherever the Parliament was meeting, to petition the Crown and noble Lords to hear their complaints on particular subjects. Very often, the Crown readily responded without a referendum. In the end, it saddled itself with the other place, but that perhaps is a subject we should not go into.
It might have a debate in council, which would be a perfectly reasonable way to respond. It might hold public meetings to explore the purpose of a petition. It might set up a process of consultation. All these might get to the desired end quicker than a referendum and sometimes in a far less divisive way than in circumstances, say, which one can readily envisage, where in an urban area 300 people wanted a controlled parking zone introduced or perhaps removed and a couple of hundred others were implacably opposed. One can see the whole formal process of the referendum ending in dividing rather than uniting a community.
However, I recognise the Government’s wish, which I support, to make some petitions inescapable. We therefore suggested in these amendments that the referendum should be mandatory, subject to Clauses 46 and 47, if 20 per cent of the electors in an area ask for it. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has suggested a figure of 10 per cent. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with that plebiscitary fervour of the Liberal Democrats, has suggested that 25 per cent might be the threshold. I certainly would not want to come between the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Greaves. Certainly, 20 per cent might not be the right figure but it is a figure that we offer.
The reality is that well above that level of electors participated in a recent contested referendum in my authority, so I do not think that 20 per cent is an impossible figure to reach. But I equally accept that it may well be too high and we in this Chamber would want to hear arguments for other figures set down in other amendments and other proposals, including interesting ones from my noble friend which we will consider later.
The purpose of laying these amendments originally was to enable your Lordships to consider in Committee another way of approaching the difficult question of the trigger. I will get out of the way to allow your Lordships to do that shortly. I certainly do not want to anticipate the speech of my noble friend Lord Cathcart but I would, from a local authority standpoint, like to draw your Lordships’ attention to the potential difficulties of Clause 42(3), taken with Clause 45. As I read it, this means that in a typical three-member ward in a politically split urban area, two members from a minority party might be able to provoke a referendum without any significant local support and with no particular effort to collect signatures. I might have found that power rather tempting in the past in opposition but I am sure that I would have resisted the temptation.
This provision is very open to political exploitation with members seeking referendums that they do not really want, perhaps just to make a political point or even one that has salience outside their own ward by challenging the local authority to refuse a referendum. I do not think that that is a wise, helpful or even very localist provision. My noble friend Lord Cathcart suggests that such a proposal would have to be supported by at least 5 per cent of the electors in an area. Without going over the issue of the appropriate level again—I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for anticipating that important amendment, which I support —that additional trigger would avoid short-term political exploitation. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, my noble friend Lord True has ably spoken in those amendments where he is the lead name, and he has also talked to some of mine. I will not go over the ground of his amendments again. I would like to discuss those amendments where my name appears as the lead name.
At Second Reading, I, too, questioned whether 5 per cent was too low a threshold. I believe that 5 per cent is far too low, and would give rise to a plethora of referenda. Five per cent for a referendum for a whole district, or a whole London borough, might seem reasonable. With an electorate of somewhere over 100,000 people, 5,000 or 6,000 signatures might seem like quite a lot to get. But look at electoral areas that are smaller than those. The electorate for a market town might be between 15,000 and 20,000, so between 750 and 1,000 signatures would be required. Far more likely, a petition would come from a single ward, within the town, or London borough, requiring signatures from only about 350 electors.
It will not be difficult to get signatures. “Let’s put it to the vote—sign here—it’s democracy at work, and anyway, it’s not going to cost you anything, because the council will pay”. If you go further down the chain to parishes—they are, after all, a single electoral area—many villages in Norfolk have only a few hundred electors, so that a village of 300 electors would require just 15 signatures to request a referendum. Even more ridiculous would be my parish, which has just over 50 electors, so that just three people could request a referendum.
Amendment 123 raises the percentage to 20 per cent. I see that there are amendments in this group that increase the threshold to 10 per cent and 25 per cent, and I will be interested to hear those noble Lords’ arguments. The Government should consider raising the bar; otherwise, there will be a plethora of referenda, at huge cost to local authorities.
Amendment 124 increases the threshold to 20 per cent, but only to 15 per cent where the number of electors is above 10,000. The idea is that we want the Government to consider different thresholds for different numbers of electorate, so that the larger the electorate the lower the threshold needs to be. At Second Reading I gave the example of the recent referendum in West Norfolk, over a proposed incinerator near King’s Lynn. That cost the council £80,000. I believe that referenda will certainly be called on all the contentious issues, and where the size of the electorate is relatively small, on nearly all the other issues—and why not? Let democracy prevail. This will cost councils an arm and a leg, at a time when they can least afford it.
That brings me on to Amendment 129, which allows the local authority to recover the cost of the referenda from the electorate in which they are held. Note that we use the word “may”, which leaves it optional for local authorities. It would be relatively easy for a local authority to recover costs by putting the cost on each parish or ward precept for the following year.
The last two amendments—Amendments 125 and 126—relate to the idea in the Bill that every councillor can request a referendum. This may be unwise without some brake. If you are a councillor in a minority group, this is manna from heaven. Imagine what fun you could have. After all, although you can be heard at council meetings, no one listens to you, you are always outvoted and the local press never report what you say. What better way to raise your profile, ensure that you are reported in the press and irritate the ruling party than to call a referendum? To prevent any abuses and mischief, the amendments say that a councillor can call a referendum provided that the petition is supported by a small percentage of his or her electorate —we have put in 5 per cent.
I do not expect the Government to accept the amendments, but I would like them to consider the arguments. I would like them also to consider my belief that 90 per cent of referenda will be held on planning issues. I note that, later on, amendments to Clause 47 propose that we exclude planning issues. If the Government, having listened to the arguments, agree that we should exclude planning, then 5 per cent may be the right answer. But if they say that they will not exclude it, we must increase the threshold from 5 per cent.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a recent vice-president of the Local Government Association. Perhaps I should also say that I am a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution. Therefore, I wish to consider this evening some issues of principle about when referendums are appropriate.
On 12 October last year, we debated the Select Committee’s report on the principle of referendums. I said that,
“the Select Committee was right to see significant drawbacks to the widespread use of referendums”.—[Official Report, 12/10/10; col. 428.]
The House expressed many reservations about holding referendums in a representative democracy.
Many noble Lords who spoke in that debate quoted powerful evidence given to the Select Committee about the problems of referendums. They included: people potentially voting on issues different from those on the ballot paper, or voting for or against a Government rather than on a specific issue; problems with getting sufficient turnout for any result to be legitimate; problems with ensuring that both sides of an argument had sufficient resources to make their case; and problems with undue influence being exerted by dominant media groups or party machines.
The case against widespread use of referendums was made very strongly. My noble friend Lord McNally said that he had not found a committee report that had been so much respected by officials and Ministers. He said:
“This is not a report that has been put on the shelf and forgotten”.
My noble friend drew attention to the fact that in his official response to the report, Mr Mark Harper, on behalf of the Government, agreed that,
“referendums should be exceptional events”.—[Official Report, 12/10/10; col. 471.]
These were seen as being required only for major constitutional changes such as to abolish the monarchy, to leave the European Union, or for any of the nations of the UK to secede and so on.
The question must now be asked whether we should have similar concerns about local referendums. Should they become common or should they be rare? On what sort of issues should they be held, and how easily could they be triggered given all these potential problems? There seems at the very least to be a possibility of an allegation of double standards being made if national government are saying that their policy programme should be subject to a referendum only on major constitutional issues, but that all issues decided by locally elected representatives should potentially be subject to referendums, with all the problems that we know about of conducting referendums fairly.
No national Government have ever suggested, for example, that their powers of taxation be subject to a referendum. Many national controversies have been debated in this House, the other place and across the country without the suggestion that national government should resolve the issue by putting it to a referendum.
Since that debate last October we have also had experience of a national referendum. Many of those on the no side in that referendum campaign argued that a reason for voting no was simply the cost of holding the referendum, even though these costs were minimised by holding it at the same time as many other elections. Those who argued this case on the no side must now argue why local referendums should be conducted at the expense of council tax payers in addition to the cost of electing local councillors.
If such local referendums are to be held, then we should be much clearer about when they are appropriate than is outlined so far in this Bill. There must be substantial proven public demand for them locally. They should not simply be a device that either a local council or the Secretary of State can use to avoid the sort of considered judgment that should be taken by elected representatives and be subject to examination at election times.
There may be problems with some council administrations being unrepresentative of the areas that they serve. Some councils are effectively one-party states. The answer is to make those councils more representative—not to make each of their decisions potentially subject to a referendum.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for turning up in time so I did not have to deliver his speech, which he did far better than I would have done. I just want to add one or two things and speak to the specific amendments which my noble friend and I have put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, spoke about how opposition parties and opposition councillors might well use referendums to promote their own interests. In my own local political career I can think of major issues where I would have had, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, a great deal of fun. We would have made useful political points but it would have cost people a lot of money and it would not have been the right way to do it.
What concerns me more than what opposition parties and opposition councillors might do is the way in which parties in control, or mayors or anyone else with the ability, might use referendums to manipulate the political and electoral process by launching referendums on populist issues to entrench their own local power. I am not suggesting that all such local leaders would ever do that but, without naming names, I can think of one or two around the country who might regard this as manna from heaven. You organise a referendum on a good populist issue or a bad populist issue to coincide with the year of your re-election and have it on the same day as your re-election to turn the referendum campaign into your election campaign and—Bob’s your uncle—you are probably back. As I understand the Bill, there will be no limits on referendum expenses so it would blow a huge hole in the rules for local election expenses.
People organising referendums—whether they are organising a petition for it or whether they are persons in power trying to use it for populist purposes—may be goodies. They may be doing it for benign purposes but they might not: they might be malign extremists movements or commercially motivated and commercially biased or politicians seeking re-election, as I just said. Whatever it is, there is a severe risk that they undermine the processes of representative democracy, which rely a great deal on proper procedures, democratic deliberation, debate and compromise and the role of the council as a mediator in the community—which I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was talking about last week.
You cannot compromise in a referendum. Everything is black and white; everything is yes or no. It polarises the community and, while it might be a lot of fun for people taking part in it, it simplifies what are often quite complex issues and runs the risk of undermining the whole process of liberal democracy in the local community. We are generally sceptical about the value of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill and if it is to remain, we believe it needs a much stricter tying-up so that the number of referendums which can take place are relatively few and are on appropriate subjects.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 122 and briefly make the case for a 10 per cent trigger. There seems to be general agreement in your Lordships’ House that 5 per cent is too low. That is for two reasons. First, when you have an actual referendum—as opposed to simply a petition on an issue—you ought to have a clear demonstration that there is significant public support for the question. Secondly, referendums cost money and if there is going to be a substantial cost to holding the referendum, it is legitimate to expect that a higher threshold than 5 per cent is generated to merit the cost of holding the referendum.
Seeing this now from the perspective of those who are gathering the petition, is it reasonable, given that there could be a referendum, to ask people to collect more than 10 per cent of the relevant area? That would be quite hard to do. First, I believe that 10 per cent is a reasonable figure in all the circumstances. If it was 20 per cent and all the people signing it were in favour of the referendum question, a turnout of 40 per cent would mean that in effect the 20 per cent was almost a majority. Presumably some people would sign for a referendum even if they were unsure which way they might vote, but I think 10 per cent is a reasonable trigger.
Perhaps more importantly, it strikes me that if people can gather 10 per cent it is actually not that difficult for them to gather 20 per cent. You might just as well accept the fact that at 10 per cent the trigger has been achieved. That is my view and that of some other noble Lords.
The other method of triggering a referendum is through members, then a petition and potentially a percentage threshold. I do not understand why members are treated differently from the general public. We should have a single system and as a rule of thumb the best and most reasonable figure that I could think of is that 10 per cent would be publicly understood as a reasonable number in all the circumstances, whether or not members are involved.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, not for the first time Newcastle is united in connection with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. A working figure of 10 per cent is probably about right. The figures suggested in some other amendments are on the high side; 25 per cent is more than half the average turnout in a council election. It is asking a lot to postulate a requirement for a petition to have as high a signature rate as that.
I tabled amendment in this group in relation to the areas from which a referendum might be called. The Bill provides for the whole authority or one or more electoral areas, provided they are contiguous within it. That sounds plausible, but if you take, for example, Birmingham, you have wards with an electorate of about 20,000. That argues a population of something like 30,000. It is in effect a small town. That is big enough to contain more than one discrete and substantial community. My amendment simply suggests that in addition to the two criteria laid down in terms of area in the Bill, there could be a further provision, namely,
“such area as may be determined by the authority”.
An authority could say: go and petition the area, we acknowledge it is not the whole of the ward, but we are prepared to accept a smaller area than an electoral division. It gives a degree of flexibility which I think might be reasonable. That is the effect of Amendment 120J.
I was interested to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord True, who was emphatically endorsing the principles of petitioning as an alternative to referendums. I wish he had been here to support me and the absent noble Lord, Lord Shipley, when I proposed this afternoon that the provision that would strike out the petition procedure should not be supported and that the provisions of the 2009 Act should continue to apply. Be that as it may, he is right to prefer petitions to referendums; they are undoubtedly better. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his analysis of the defects of referendums, taken at large, and his reference to the report of the Constitution Committee last year.
He and other noble Lords are right to point to some of the dangers that can arise and the mischief that can be made. In the next group of amendments, we shall come to the point about members of councils calling referendums. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about that and support his amendment. However, one can clearly see a variety of difficulties. For example, in my own ward there is currently a proposal for a historic building, which has been acquired by the Muslim community, to be made into a school and community centre. The BNP is already stirring up hostility to that proposal. It is not just a planning proposal; it is a proposal for a school and so on. The amendments on planning would cover the planning side but it goes beyond that. One can clearly see the difficulties that could arise from the referendum process, a public vote and so on.
I put another case: tomorrow we shall debate elected police commissioners. If you wanted to stand to be an elected police commissioner and were building up your campaign, it would not be difficult to orchestrate a series of referendums across the area—which might be a single county or an area bigger than that—in the run-up to the election. A local election does not have to be a straightforward party political contest. There are all sorts of ways in which the system could be used and manipulated, which underlines the need to be very careful about substituting plebiscitary democracy for representative local democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said at some length and with some eloquence in our first debate on the Bill, the core principle in a series that he enunciated is that of support for local representative local democracy. There is danger even in non-binding referendums. There may then be pressure for binding referendums, although not from the Government, except in one particular. You can see that outside the major political parties, there could a build-up of pressure for binding referendums to be held on the Swiss or Californian models, nether of which are very persuasive as instruments of good government.
With the characteristic generosity that marks the political approach of the Opposition, we support most of the amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats in this group. However, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Lord, Lord True, their proposed figure is too high and difficult to justify.
We shall probably just have time to move on to the next group of amendments. I note with some alarm one amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which would reduce the percentage to 1 per cent and fix it at that, which strikes me as going much too far. We shall come to that this evening or on Thursday. We are not voting tonight but I invite the noble Lords to continue to convey to the Government their concerns about the way in which these proposals have been made. I hope the Government will take another look, particularly at the threshold figures if they are not prepared to depart from the principle of promoting referendums. I look forward to our debate on Report and to a response that reflects the views that have been expressed tonight.
Lord Greaves
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he comment on the view that in many cases, whether or not a referendum is mandatory, if it has been high-profile and hard-fought, it will be very difficult—certainly for a district council—to go against the decision? In practice, and in political reality, they will have to abide by it.
Lord Beecham
It will be a real test of political leadership to withstand populist pressure of that kind. One of the concerns expressed by many of us during discussions on the Bill is that it gestures too much in the direction of populism and will make life more difficult, particularly, as the noble Lord says, for smaller local authorities that are likely to come under greater pressure than those in bigger urban areas or counties.
Earl of Lytton
My Lords, as this is my first contribution at this stage of the Bill, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils, which noble Lords may know as the national body for parish and town councils. I am also president of the Sussex Associations of Local Councils. I will limit my declaration of interest to those two because they are most relevant.
I appreciate the way the noble Lord, Lord True, introduced this particularly important set of issues. He started off with the question of triggers. That led the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, to comment on triggers for parish and town councils. It may save time if I deal with an aspect of that by way of illustration. We will later get on to a question in relation to paragraph 18 to Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972. Subsection (4), which relates to parish councils, states:
“A poll may be demanded before the conclusion of a parish meeting on any question arising at the meeting; but no poll shall be taken unless either the person presiding at the meeting consents or the poll is demanded by not less than ten, or one-third, of the local government electors present at the meeting, whichever is the less”.
As one can readily see, that is a very low trigger. I am aware of a situation where a coastal parish council considering an extension to its village hall found the process hijacked by a small group of people who raised the 10 minimum. As the matter then proceeded to a parish poll, they were faced with the cost of something approaching £4000 for conducting that, because it had to be dealt with by the principal authority under the normal rules.
One gets a sense that this is devoid of proportionality. We have talked about the gravity of the subject, but there has to be some sense of proportion. I know that there is an amendment in the Minister’s name about this. There are other issues concerning overlaps. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to this, sort of, in code. By overlaps, I mean the possibility of a referendum being used to countermand the other duties of a principal authority. We cannot be having that many bites at this particular cherry. Mayhem lies down that route.
Regarding the cost-benefit and cost-burden, if there is no proportionality, it is a free bet in economic terms and we will have free riders, people who have an agenda and who want to take charge. This could be the moneyed who have moved into an area or whatever it happens to be, or some particular cause célèbre. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—referred to the fact that the run up to an election might be a good time to trigger something that would get in the local paper, or whatever it happens to be. Democratic coherence is at stake here. We are talking about localism and about having the elective democracy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred. We cannot bypass that by a process of sectoral interests.
Why do I mention this? It is because I strongly believe that when it gets down to the parish pump level, it is important to have something that is proportionate, cannot unduly fetter the operation of parish or town councils’ affairs, and respects the principle that when you elect a body of people to represent your interests they must to some extent be given a free hand. The test is at re-election. That is not to say that there are no matters that lie outside the normal voting pattern, but there must be a clear way of making sure that they do not cut across one another.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord True and, indeed, all other noble Lords who have spoken on this important subject and on the innovative development of this aspect of community empowerment. We are rather constrained by the rules of debate in the sense that these amendments are primarily about the threshold, but of course the threshold needs to be taken in connection with a series of government amendments and measures in the Bill that protect the whole process of referendums. While I shall try to focus principally on the threshold, I hope that noble Lords will be mindful that when we meet again to discuss these matters we will have further opportunities to debate a complex subject that runs across several aspects. I hope that what I have to say at least places the Government’s position in some context.
One of the most important aspects is the risk of populism. That was the theme of a number of speeches. To those who fear populism, I should say that leadership in institutional local government has nothing to fear from populism. If it strengthens leadership in local government, this innovation will, in itself, be important. We are quite clear that people should be able to trigger a local referendum by submitting a petition to their council containing the signatures of 5 per cent of the electorate. My noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the problems of this low threshold in connection with parish councils. I should emphasise that the Bill’s provisions in this area do not provide for referendums relating to parish councils, which are not part of the Bill. We will have an opportunity later to discuss parish councils.
A large number of amendments have been tabled that seek to amend the figure from 5 per cent. Figures of 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent and, indeed, 25 per cent have been suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, I am thinking of turnouts and of my experience as a canvasser. I think how many households one can actually canvass and how many voters one actually speaks to. Collecting signatures is no mean task. I say that as a political activist. All noble Lords will have had experience of that and we should put the 5 per cent figure in that context.
There is a question as to whether there should be a higher threshold for small electoral areas. Clause 209(2) of the Bill provides for different arrangements in different areas to be made by regulations, if there is a need. I am not persuaded that there is a need, but the Bill does provide for that if becomes evident that a higher threshold is necessary. We believe that 5 per cent is a fair threshold, building on the established precedent. It appears to us to strike the balance between setting a fair and achievable threshold for issues in which local people are seriously interested but at the same time a high enough hurdle to deter potentially frivolous campaigns. I think the whole Committee would wish to see that. I would say to my noble friend Lord Greaves that, for example, a 25 per cent threshold in Pendle would require the signatures of some 17,000 people. That is an enormous threshold for any campaign to secure. Indeed, one could argue that if one secured 17,000 votes in a referendum, the result was a foregone conclusion.
I can give other examples and I hope to persuade the Committee that 5 per cent is no mean figure. Noble Lords will be aware that the figure of 5 per cent in the Bill is based on the petition threshold for binding referendums on council governance, introduced 10 years ago. In using this figure, we recognise that these referendums are far wider in scope, so we will want to monitor the threshold to see if it is the right one in practice. That is why we have included a power for the Secretary of State to amend the threshold by order if experience shows that the 5 per cent threshold is not quite right. Amendment 124C seeks to remove this power, so it leaves the Bill without that flexibility.
The debate that we have had today and the various thresholds put forward in the amendments show just how difficult it is to agree an appropriate petition threshold. In this area of referendums the Government are listening to these debates and want to get it right. We want a workable system that will reinvigorate community politics without at the same time making representative government difficult and threatened in the way that some noble Lords have implied. Therefore, getting the balance right is very important. We have taken the established threshold of 5 per cent, as I have said, to provide consistency. While we do not rule out a change to the threshold in the future—that is why we have included the power to vary it in the Bill—it would appear sensible to wait and see whether a variation is necessary.
Amendment 120J would allow local authorities to change the area in which a referendum is being held from the one stated in the petition. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. If a council wants to hold a referendum throughout the area of the authority, it can resolve to do so irrespective of whether a petition has been received with the requisite number of signatures to trigger a referendum in just part of the area. Indeed, the council can resolve to hold a referendum of its own accord, separate from the issue of the petition threshold. We take the view that if a referendum is to be held in just part of an authority's area, it is right that the people in that part should have a say in whether there should be a referendum. They can do this either by joining in the petition or getting the councillors for that area to request that a referendum in their area be held.
Amendment 121, in the names of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Cathcart, seeks to retain the duty on authorities to provide facilities for the hosting of petitions in electronic form. In fact, the provision that the amendment seeks to omit is essentially a technical one. It attempts to deal with the situation that might arise if the referendums provisions that we are currently debating are brought into force before the petitions provisions in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 are repealed.
In practice, we intend to abolish those petition obligations as soon as possible. I think it is fair enough for us to debate the principle of whether it would be right to impose a new obligation on councils to host electronic petitions calling for referendums. However, I cannot say that from anything I have heard today I am persuaded that that is a necessary imposition. The Government’s view is that it should be up to local authorities to decide whether they provide for this, and our provision in Clause 43(4) makes that clear.
There has been a lot of concern about councillor requests for referendums and how they might impact on local campaigning and perhaps be extremely disruptive. Amendments 125 and 126 would provide safeguards against inappropriate calls for referendums by councillors, and I can certainly support the intention behind those amendments. In fact, we have already provided what I believe to be an important safeguard in Clause 49. I believe that the safeguard we have in place—that, following a request from a member, a referendum may not be held unless the full council has resolved that it be held—is a better check. These amendments would make a councillor call for a referendum redundant, as, if a petition is supported by 5 per cent of local voters, there will be a referendum in any event.
Finally, my noble friends propose in Amendment 129 that local authorities may recover the cost of a referendum from electors in the area in which the referendum is held. The amendment is, however, silent on how the cost would be recovered. My noble friend has voiced his concerns about the frequency of referendums—indeed, many noble Lords have thought that the numbers might be excessive—as well as the resulting cost burdens.. He is concerned that some areas within a council will, through the legislation, have all the opportunities to vote in a referendum, while the cost of the referendum will come out of the council’s overall budget, meaning that those who are not part of the referendum will bear some of the cost. Their amendment seeks to ensure that the costs of holding a referendum are spread across the area over which it is held. However, our approach already enables that to happen. It puts in place a scheme that enables referendums to be held in the relevant council area for the issue at hand. Therefore, if it is a district council matter or a matter over which the district council has influence, the referendum can be held at the district council level, whether it be across one or more wards of the district or the entire district council area.
I should now like to refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who was concerned that the rules should be rigorous. The rules on referendum petitions relate to when a council must hold a referendum. A council has discretion to hold a referendum whenever it wishes on any subject it feels to be appropriate. Thus, if a council believes that it is right to have a referendum on any subject, it can do so, irrespective of how many people sign a petition, and indeed irrespective of whether there is a petition. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, worried about the 1 per cent threshold, the concern having somehow been lodged that the Government had tabled amendments to change the threshold to 1 per cent. We are not reducing the threshold to 1 per cent but in the case of London, in addition to the 5 per cent requirement, each London petition should contain the signatures of 1 per cent of the electorate in each London borough to demonstrate London-wide support for the petition. This is a safeguard; it is not meant to be a lightening of the burden regarding petitions.
There has been some concern that, by doing away with petitions and introducing the concept of referendums, we are destroying something positive and useful. We think that local referendums are more effective for two basic reasons. First, they have greater visibility than a petition. It is difficult to create the same impact with a petition than with a local referendum where every elector gets a chance to give their view. Petitions are essentially about one voice; referendums are about two voices, so that those who do not agree have the opportunity of voicing that. We must not assume that every referendum that is presented automatically results in a positive vote. Secondly, the effect of a referendum is almost certainly that more people will be engaged. If more people are engaged in holding a referendum the local authority will benefit as a consequence.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend said earlier that the Bill gives the Government power to alter the minimum numbers for a referendum by order, and helpfully he referred to Clause 209. It may be that I am totally misunderstanding it, but Clause 209(1) says:
“Any power of the Secretary of State … to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument”.
The next subsection is the one to which I think he was referring, which states:
“Any power of the Secretary of State … to make an order or regulations includes … power to make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas”.
I sense that my noble friend was rather relying on that for his proposition that the Secretary of State would be able to change the figures in the Bill by order. Nowhere in the Bill on the question of the minimum levels is there any power to make an order. It just does not apply. There are regulation powers towards the end of the part dealing with voting in and conduct of local referendums. Clearly, that would invoke Clause 209. Unless I have completely misunderstood, Clause 209 applies only where the Bill contains a power to make orders, unless in relation to these minimum figures it does not. It may be that my noble friend already has an answer. I went on long enough to ensure that perhaps he would. If I have misunderstood, I am happy to be corrected. I am not clear that my noble friend stated the provisions of the Bill properly. Perhaps he can reply before he finishes the point he was making.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend. One can rely on one’s noble friends to provide the testing question. Clause 44(2) on page 39 of the Bill states:
“The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) to specify a higher or lower percentage than the percentage for the time being specified in that subsection”.
Perhaps I ought to have relied on that provision rather than the more complex structural arrangement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He was quite right when he said originally that Clause 209 would allow the Secretary of State, as he has an order-making power, to make different orders for different figures, different areas and different sizes of electorate. I am greatly relieved to know that he was able to get an answer as quickly as he did, and I am very happy to be assured.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend is not the only one to be pleased to have got the answer as quickly as that. Throughout the Bill noble Lords will discover that the residual powers vested in the Secretary of State are frequently to be able to modify the provisions of the Bill in the light of experience because, as noble Lords will know, it is intended that the provisions of the whole of the Localism Bill will indeed be subject to review under the terms of the Bill.
What I was going on to say was really by way of peroration. We will be debating amendments to Clause 47 when we meet again and they limit to some extent the number of referendums that may be held. Councils will be able to refuse to hold referendums on issues for which there is already a statutory process—a planning application and the right of appeal and issues such as planning or licensing applications. Repeat referendums may be refused if within four years of the original, and councils will have discretion to refuse if the costs of holding a referendum are disproportionate and above certain limits.
I hope that, taken in the context of the debate we have had this evening and future debates we are going to have on this subject and the approach of the Government, which is, indeed, to take note of the issues raised by noble Lords, my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Byford
Having listened very patiently, I have a very short question for the Minister. In his response he said that it obviously does not affect parish councils and I appreciate that it does not at this stage in the Bill. However, Clause 56 clearly does look at parish councils. I hope I am not too out of order—it is only a quickie—but will there be any trigger as to a percentage that would have to be considered for parish councils to able to hold a referendum? It is not clear; nothing is laid down in the Bill. I simply wonder, as we have been looking at the various percentages to trigger things, whether he has any information on that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not able to give a specific answer to that. All I can say is that the noble Baroness will be aware of the current situation in respect of parish polls and we will be consulting on the parish regime and, no doubt, consulting the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular.
Lord Greaves
I have just a couple of points. When we get to Clause 56 on parish councils we will have a stand part debate. It would be extremely helpful if the Government had some fairly clear ideas on where they are going on parish councils because those are the questions we will be asking.
The Minister said that the Government thought that it was right that people in an area should have a say on whether or not there should be a referendum, but if there is a petition signed by 5 per cent of the people to have a referendum, why should that prevail over an alternative petition in the same area signed by 10 per cent or 20 per cent of people who do not want a referendum?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend poses a complex question at this hour of the day and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not give him a full answer to the conundrum. The decision on whether or not to hold a referendum—on the basis of a petition, or on the basis of a councillor requesting a referendum—can be taken only by a full council agreeing to hold that referendum. The power to hold a referendum is vested in the council concerned. That is the most important provision, which would take care of that difficulty.
Lord True
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his very thoughtful and considerate response to the debate and also to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is an important matter. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for not being present when petitions were discussed—I was in proceedings on the Education Bill—but I can assure him that if a petition were presented to my council, it would be considered under the standing orders of the council at the next council meeting.
As far as the debate is concerned, I take the point that seeing it only from the point of view of the opposition was a defect in what we said—perhaps it comes from being under the control of my noble friends for 23 years—but I think the point made about the temptation on parties in power to procure referendums is important, and I hope my noble friends will consider it. Equally, the point made about the BNP by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was important, and I hope my noble friends will consider it further.
I did not comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I shall comment on it further when we come to neighbourhood planning matters, but in the processes that we have undertaken, local people have defined areas that they believe are their communities which are different from ward boundaries or electoral area boundaries. I believe that they could be capable of being recognised in petition and referendum procedures. I hope that my noble friends will consider that matter and that flexibility further because I have amendments down in relation to neighbourhood planning.
My noble friend and I did not seek to find the final answer on the issue of the threshold. The triggers in terms of ward councillors and, I still think, for a mandatory referendum—potentially a percentage—are too low in certain circumstances. I will reflect very carefully on what my noble friend said. I welcome the fact that he said he would reflect on the position of potentially having different thresholds for different quantities of population, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Cathcart. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.