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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
1. When he next expects to discuss the situation in Syria with his US counterpart.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I am in regular contact with Secretary Clinton and I last discussed Syria with her on Friday.
Mr Hanson
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. Given the recent violence, including the reported shooting of unarmed protesters, does he agree with Secretary of State Clinton that the Syrian Government have lost legitimacy? Given the level of violence, particularly the attacks on the US embassy and the French embassy, what steps is he taking to ensure the security of British citizens who work for the United Kingdom and are operating in Syria now?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman raises some important issues in relation to recent events in Syria. We absolutely deplore the continuing violence against protesters. Reports overnight from the city of Homs suggest that between 10 and 14 people were killed, including a 12-year-old child. We have condemned the attacks on the American and French embassies and we called in the Syrian ambassador last Wednesday to deliver our protests and to demand that Syria observes the requirements of the Vienna convention. The US and British Governments are united in saying that President Assad is losing legitimacy and should reform or step aside, and that continues to be our message.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Iran has been involved in training Syrian troops and providing materiél assistance, including crowd-dispersal equipment. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the dark hand of Iran in fomenting trouble in the middle east and in supporting illegitimate regimes?
Mr Hague
Iran has certainly been involved in the way that my hon. Friend describes, and I set out a few weeks ago that I believed it to be involved in that way. It shows the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Iranian leadership on this that it has been prepared to encourage protests in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries while it has brutally repressed protest in its own country and is prepared to connive in doing so in Syria.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the world has been far too slow in its response to the appalling abuses of human rights in Syria? Surely, after the events of the weekend and the past few days in particular, there is now an urgent need for a clear and strong United Nations Security Council resolution.
Mr Hague
I think the world has been not so much slow as not sufficiently united on this. It has not been possible for the Arab League to arrive at a clear, strong position, which makes the situation entirely different to that in Libya, where the Arab League called on the international community to assist and intervene. There has not been the necessary unity at the United Nations Security Council and at times Russia has threatened to veto any resolution. Our resolution, which was put forward with our EU partners, remains very much on the table and certainly has the support of nine countries. We would like the support of more than nine countries to be able to put it to a vote in the Security Council, but it is very much on the table and we reserve the right at any time to press it to a vote in the United Nations. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that recent events add further to the case for doing so.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
3. What recent progress his Department has made on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We continue to work across all three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty to build on the success of last year’s review conference in New York. I am particularly proud of the work we have done towards ensuring the first conference of nuclear weapon states, which was held recently in Paris—the P5 conference—in which further progress was made, particularly towards disarmament. Does not the tumult of the Arab spring mean it would be a good idea to advance the date of the planned conference next year? That would give us a real chance positively to involve both Iran and Israel.
Alistair Burt
The conference to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention was designed to provide for a middle east free of weapons of mass destruction, and was part of the outcome of the review conference in New York last year. The steps taken to build up confidence to get to that conference are obviously complex and although it would be good if it could be advanced, the practical difficulties will probably outweigh that. The fact that it is there on the table as something for people to work to for 2012 is a good thing and we should concentrate on that, but any hopes that it might be brought forward may be dashed.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on Afghanistan.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I meet Secretary Clinton regularly and last discussed Afghan security, political and economic issues with her on the eve of President Obama’s state visit here.
Thomas Docherty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. I hope that he will take the opportunity to convey both our thanks to the Secretary of State for the work of General Petraeus and our full confidence that General Allen will take that forward in the coming period. Will he discuss with the Secretary of State the way in which we can involve women more in the future of Afghanistan?
Mr Hague
I have conveyed those thanks. In fact, I will meet General Petraeus later this week, and will once again convey them to him. Women have a very important role, in our view, in the future of Afghanistan. I have met women students at Herat university, and a conference for women who could play a leading role in bringing peace to Afghanistan was held at the same time as the Kabul conference last year. That is an agenda that the United States and the United Kingdom want to push. Secretary Clinton is foremost in doing so, and we will support her.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
As the draw-down of troops begins in Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw combat forces from 2014? Is that still the collective policy of NATO and most particularly, from the United Kingdom’s point of view, is it the policy of the United States?
Mr Hague
It is our United Kingdom policy that by 2015, after the transition of security control to Afghan forces across Afghanistan, United Kingdom forces will not be engaged in combat operations or be present in anything like the numbers in which they are today. That, we believe, is consistent with the approach taken by NATO and by the United States which will lead, following the agreement at Lisbon last autumn, to a full transition in 2014. I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that that remains our policy, and it is consistent with that of our allies.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that a recurring theme for me is the protection of women in any talks with perhaps the more extreme part of the Taliban. Can we ensure that the progress achieved for women in Afghanistan will be protected and that they do not return to the home but can go to school, take up a profession and participate in the country’s political life?
Mr Hague
I very much hope so. We cannot foresee the whole future of Afghanistan but, as the right hon. Lady knows, enormous progress has been made regarding the involvement of women and the education of girls in Afghanistan. That should bring about profound changes in Afghan society in future. Concepts of human rights, including women’s rights, are written into the Afghan constitution. One of the requirements that President Karzai has set out for future reconciliation is acceptance of the constitution and of a democratic way of life. We will always insist that that is an important part of Afghanistan’s future.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I join in the tributes to General Petraeus, who has done a difficult job in Afghanistan? We have been there for 10 years, and some say that we are trying to tiptoe out of the country, suffering from Afghan fatigue. Is the Secretary of State reconsidering the Bonn accord and the constitution in line with what the Afghan people want, which is a less centralised and more regionalised approach to governance in Afghanistan?
Mr Hague
There is certainly no tiptoeing here. Our involvement in Afghanistan will remain very, very strong over the coming years—both the military effort over the next few years and our long-term commitment to Afghanistan through economic co-operation, development aid, governmental expertise and so on. My hon. Friend refers to local governance and devolved decision making, which are important issues in Afghanistan and must be considered as part of the whole debate on reconciliation by the High Peace Council and in meetings between the Afghan and Pakistani Governments as they discuss the matter. Ultimately, that is for them to determine.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What steps he is taking to maintain a close bilateral relationship with China.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Across government we have regular visits and exchanges with the Chinese authorities at ministerial and official level. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hosted Premier Wen of China for the annual UK-China summit on 27 June. In line with our commitment to boost exports and inward investment, the summit announced £1.4 billion-worth of trade deals.
Mark Hendrick
As the Minister has just mentioned, £1.4 billion-worth of trade deals were signed between China and the UK. After his visit to the UK, Premier Wen went to Germany and signed deals worth £9 billion, which is six and a half times the value of the deals signed with the UK. There were 13 Chinese Ministers in Berlin signing deals with 10 German Ministers. The Economist described the UK visit as a “sideshow” compared with the German visit. What are the Government doing to make sure that the UK does not play second fiddle to the Germans when it comes to economic partnership with China?
Mr Browne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the attention and effort he affords to China, because I share his objective that British society and British politics as a whole should engage with China at a much higher level. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary announced only a few weeks ago that as part of our network shift we will put an additional 50 staff into China to ensure that Britain plays an increasingly large role in what is now the world’s second largest economy.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
This month the Chinese Communist party celebrated its 90th anniversary, with the Chinese Premier stating that there would be no progress without stability. Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be no progress in China until there is respect for human rights and that any progress without it would be tainted? Will he also join me in calling for the immediate release of the Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo?
Mr Browne
I think that it is right that we acknowledge the extraordinary economic advances that have been made in China in recent decades, with literally hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of extreme poverty, but my view, and the view of the British Government, is that the rule of law and respect for human rights goes hand in hand with further economic progress in China. We believe that it is very much in the interests of the Chinese to embrace the agenda that my hon. Friend has so accurately described.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister shares our concern about the rising tensions in the south China sea, where there are many competing maritime claims. What discussions has he had with his Chinese counterpart on the situation, and does he believe that China’s planned deployment of its aircraft carrier would substantially alter the power balance in the wider region?
Mr Browne
That is one of the subjects that we have regular dialogue with the Chinese about, and the hon. Lady is right to point out the tensions and concerns that exist in some of the countries bordering China. We continue to be vigilant in trying to ensure that that is not an area of the world where conflict is brought about or tensions rise.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the level of political stability in the Balkans.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Progress on political and economic reform in the western Balkans is uneven. We welcome the successful conclusion of EU accession negotiations with Croatia but remain particularly concerned by the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where sustained international focus is needed.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the readiness of Croatia and Serbia to join the EU, given the fact that, with hindsight, Romania and Bulgaria probably acceded to the Union too soon?
Mr Lidington
The Croatian Government have met the conditions laid down by the Commission and supported by member states, but the European Council also agreed when it concluded accession negotiations that there should be a further stage of pre-accession monitoring to ensure that the Croatian authorities’ commitments to reform are still delivered in practice.
We look forward to the Commission’s report on Serbia’s progress on economic and political reform, which is due in December. Although the arrest of Mr Mladic was an important step forward, it does not remove the need for Serbia to do everything else with regard to internal reform and addressing regional co-operation to meet the terms of EU accession.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On that very point, while welcoming the EU-brokered talks between Serbia and Kosovo, does the Minister share my disappointment that immediately afterwards President Tadic called for the partition of Kosovo? Serbia is also meddling in Bosnia and Montenegro as if it still controlled Serb regions in those countries. Does he agree that Serbia has to be told that it must accept Kosovo’s right to nation statehood and recognise Kosovo, and that that is a sine qua non for British acceptance of Serbia going down the road to EU membership?
Mr Lidington
As far as the British Government are concerned, it is quite clear that the frontiers in the Balkans have been drawn and there is no going back on Kosovo’s independence. Regional co-operation must be addressed in the context of an accession process for Serbia and a full European perspective for Kosovo. We welcome the initial agreement reached through the dialogue and want that to progress further.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
While the political process in Bosnia is in such flux, the malign influence of organised crime is growing. I am very worried by this. What assessment does the Minister make this horrible influence on the day-to-day lives of people in Bosnia?
Mr Lidington
When I was in Sarajevo last month, the issue of corruption and, in particular, the failure of judicial and police institutions came up again and again in conversations with representatives of civil society. If Bosnia and Herzegovina is to make progress towards EU membership, it is vital that these matters are fully addressed. A detailed menu of reforms is laid out in the Commission’s report published at the end of last year. We continue to urge the Governments in Sarajevo and in Banja Luka—the two entities—to make progress. In the first place, they have to form a state-level Government. Until that is in place, it is difficult to see the required progress being made.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It has been 16 years since the massacre at Srebrenica. Will the Government indicate what is being done at home and abroad to make sure that young people learn about this atrocity?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi attended the anniversary commemorations in Srebrenica this year, and she made clear, in her public speech on behalf of the British Government and in her private conversations with civic and political leaders of the different communities, the importance of community reconciliation and of making sure that atrocities such as that of Srebrenica are not forgotten but serve as a reminder to everybody from all traditions, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the wider Balkans, that the horrors of the past must be put behind us and that we need to work for reconciliation for the future.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the political and security situation in the horn of Africa.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I visited the horn of Africa earlier this month. The security situation in Somalia remains a major concern. Piracy continues to present a significant threat. South Sudan’s independence is welcome, but agreement still needs to be reached on a comprehensive peace. The current drought in the horn of Africa is a serious humanitarian crisis affecting some 10 million people. We are working to prevent a crisis becoming a catastrophe, including helping to feed 1.3 million people facing starvation in Ethiopia.
Duncan Hames
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. I sincerely hope that the massive movements of people do not aggravate a humanitarian disaster through increased international political tension. The UN World Food Programme says that changing weather patterns have led to
“an almost constant state of food insecurity”
in the region. What forward planning is his Department preparing to respond to the increased likelihood of future flashpoints such as this, caused in part by climate change?
Mr Hague
The agencies state that the food insecurity situation in the region is the most serious in the world today. We are doing a great deal. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary was there at the weekend and announced a further £52 million of aid. We are the second largest bilateral humanitarian donor to this region in the world, after the United States. On the longer-term issues, we are one of the foremost countries in the world in putting climate change at the heart of foreign policy considerations, and this is one of the reasons for that. The Department for International Development will give consideration to other longer-term measures that now need to be taken.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary referred to the situation in Somalia. What is his assessment of the role of the al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabaab militia, with which it seems that the aid agencies and the Governments are having to co-operate at some level to get assistance through to starving people? What does this mean for the long term?
Mr Hague
Of course, al-Shabaab’s role is entirely negative in Somalia, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates. It is good that AMISOM—the African Union Mission in Somalia—has made some good progress in recent months to secure Mogadishu. There is now a new Prime Minister of the transitional federal Government. I met him on my recent visit to Kenya and have encouraged him in his work. Al-Shabaab has a very negative role. It has previously refused assistance into the area, and that has probably made the situation even worse and driven more people out of Somalia into camps on the Kenyan border that now cannot take more people. It has indicated more recently that it will accept help from the agencies, which are now considering how to approach that.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The whole House will be extremely concerned about the food crisis currently affecting the horn of Africa. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that the UK should take a leading role, but that we must also encourage our international partners to take a more active role?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. That is really a matter for my colleagues at the Department for International Development. Our strong commitment to put 0.7% of gross national income towards development aid helps us to find the necessary funds to help in this situation. I hope that other nations around the world will be encouraged, emboldened and inspired by the British example, and that some may even be shamed by it.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Let me stress our support for the Government’s response to the famine in Somalia and the creation of South Sudan. However, I urge the Foreign Secretary not to take his eye off the ball over piracy off the horn of Africa. Last year, some 60 cruise liners visited Mombasa; this year, just one. That has had devastating effects on its tourism industry. Seafarers around the world are considering boycotting the area. Over the summer, will the Government show more urgency in tackling this menace and in getting the international community to step up its action?
Mr Hague
We will continue to show a great deal of urgency. We are, of course, at the forefront of the EU’s counter-piracy operation. We provide its operational commander and headquarters. We have contributed £5 million to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which will allow pirates to serve custodial sentences in Somalia. Royal Navy ships have robust rules of engagement. We are examining what can be done to change the balance of risk to make it more risky to be a pirate off Somalia. I am anxious to do that and we are talking to our international partners about it. We are also giving a lot of attention to the political situation in Somalia and supporting the work of the transitional federal institutions.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the state of US-Pakistan relations; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom that there is a good and close relationship between the United States and Pakistan, particularly at the present time. I am in regular contact with senior representatives of the Governments of both countries about our mutual interests, including counter-terrorism, regional security and economic development.
Richard Ottaway
Bearing in mind that the Pakistan Parliament has called for the withdrawal of US drones, the anger in Pakistan Government circles over the killing of bin Laden, and the US announcement over the withdrawal of $800 million of military aid, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the relationship between the US and Pakistan is not good. Does he agree that those two countries will be the two key players in any Afghanistan settlement and that no country is better placed than the United Kingdom to broker or mediate a settlement between them?
Alistair Burt
I certainly agree with both the substantive points that my hon. Friend makes. It is clear that following the killing of Osama bin Laden there is an issue of confidence between the United States and Pakistan, particularly in defence and security matters. We are indeed encouraging both countries to get over the present difficulties, because their relationship is extremely important. In other respects, such as in the work being done to seek political reconciliation in Afghanistan and the work being done between the Governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States in the trilateral talks on Afghanistan, the relationship is much better. We hope that that will be a building block for restored confidence in security matters.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that last week three US drone attacks killed at least 30 Pakistani civilians. Will he outline the UK policy on the use of Predator drones, and say what discussions he has had with his US counterparts about their use?
Alistair Burt
The issue of drones is principally a matter for the United States and Pakistan. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we expect any conduct in a conflict to adhere to international law, including international humanitarian law. I had an opportunity to discuss matters concerning Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday with Marc Grossman, the US special envoy, and will be meeting the Pakistani Prime Minister Mr Gillani later today. Drone strikes can be exceptionally important in targeting those who have deliberately targeted others, and the hon. Gentleman and the House will be well aware of the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan caused by terrorists over the past year and the importance of drone strikes in eliminating key targets who cause such damage to so many people.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), given the importance of Pakistan as a front-line state, particularly in relation to Afghanistan, what real help can Britain give, as a strong ally of both Pakistan and the United States, to improve the relationship?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is right that it is a very important relationship, and that it is difficult at the moment, but he is right also to highlight the fact that there is a much closer relationship between Pakistan and the United States on political reconciliation and the political track that needs to be followed in Afghanistan. We see ourselves as a key encourager of that relationship, as well as following the political track ourselves. We work very closely with both countries. As I indicated, there are elements of that relationship that are good and strong and can be built on.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
9. What consular support his Department is providing to British citizens in Libya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have temporarily closed the British embassy in Tripoli. We have a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, but it does not have a consular element. At present, consular issues are dealt with by the normal diplomatic convention of another country covering them, and in our case it is the Hungarian embassy in Tripoli. The pressure on that consulate in relation to UK nationals is currently very light.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for that answer. He may be aware of a case that I have raised about one of my constituents, who is employed by an oil company in Libya. The company is refusing to pay my constituent unless he returns to work immediately against the express advice of the Foreign Office. He is also being threatened with legal action for breach of his contract. What further support can the British Government offer UK citizens who find themselves in that situation?
Alistair Burt
I have read the letters extremely carefully, and they were transferred to the Treasury to deal with the sanctions element. I sympathise fully with not only the hon. Lady’s constituent but others who have been in that situation. The reason why her constituent cannot return is not so much because of UK travel advice as because of the conflict in Libya. It is not possible for the UK Government to underwrite every broken contract that will have arisen because of the conflict, and there is nothing that can be done to provide financial assistance. What is most important is that the conflict comes to an end as soon as possible, so that the work of reconstruction can begin and contracts can be replaced. Unfortunately, the British Government simply cannot give the sort of guarantee that her constituent might be looking for.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
What assessment has the Minister made of the ability of the Libyan state apparatus to survive without Gaddafi, and what other conversations is he having with international colleagues about the possible need for a post-conflict stabilisation force?
Alistair Burt
Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I was at the Libya contact group meeting in Istanbul just last Friday. Post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction is now a very significant element of the international community’s considerations of Libya and its contact with the national transitional council. We believe that the future for Libya without Gaddafi is clearly much better than its situation with him. Everything is working towards him leaving power so that the work of negotiation for a new Government in Libya, and the stabilisation work that is a very important part of what is being considered at the moment, can begin.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Libyan transitional national council.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I met Mahmoud Jabril, head of the national transitional council’s executive committee, at the Libya contact group meeting in Istanbul on Friday, and spoke with him by phone on Tuesday. We discussed a wide range of issues, but with a particular focus on the national transitional council’s plans for Libya’s stabilisation post-Gaddafi.
Mr Watts
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. How sure is he that the regime that takes over from Gaddafi will be better than the one that exists now? What action would he take if Gaddafi was removed and a regime came in that was worse than the one that we have now?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman has left the House trying to imagine a regime worse than the Gaddafi regime over the last 42 years. I suppose that it is theoretically possible, but on the basis of my visit to Benghazi and meeting the people there, who have an inspiring commitment to freedom and a better future for their country, I can tell him that huge numbers of Libyans are going through what they are going through now in order to have a dramatically better situation. The commitment to democratic principles of the leaders of the national transitional council is genuine. Their commitment to forming an interim government after the departure of Gaddafi, including technocratic members of the current regime, is also genuine. So when Gaddafi departs, there is every prospect of a better future for Libya.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Given what the Foreign Secretary has said and the fact that the French are now dropping arms to the Liberal rebels—[Laughter.] I mean Libyan rebels. Is it not a fact that we are now taking sides in a civil war rather than trying to enforce UN resolution 1970?
Mr Hague
Thankfully our coalition is more robust than requiring arms drops to our right hon. and hon. Friends.
I would not characterise the situation in the way that my hon. Friend does. We are enforcing the UN Security Council resolution. If we were not undertaking the military action that we are, the Gaddafi regime would be able to harass and murder large numbers of the people of Libya. That is also why France is taking the action that it is taking. Our military action is devoted to enforcing the resolutions. A political settlement in Libya also requires the departure of Gaddafi, because the people who are fighting for their freedom and some democracy in Libya cannot reach such a settlement while he remains in place.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in the occupied territories.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We welcome the progress that the Palestinian Authority in the west bank has made in building the institutions of a functioning state. We continue to press for credible negotiations to deliver a two-state solution. The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement signed on 4 May has not progressed due to disagreements over the formation of the Government. We welcomed reconciliation in principle, but a new Palestinian Government must be committed to non-violence, a negotiated peace and the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Richard Burden
For more than half a century, Israel has rightly been recognised as a full member of the United Nations, with internationally recognised borders delineated by the green line. That has not been seen as an impediment to a negotiated settlement—in some cases, it has been seen as a prerequisite to it. In that case, what is the problem with recognising Palestine as a full member of the United Nations as requested by the Palestinian people, with borders delineated by that same green line?
Mr Hague
This is of course the issue that may come to the UN in September. Whatever happens then, we must remember that to have a truly viable Palestinian state in control of its own territory, it is necessary to arrive at that by negotiation. It can be obtained only through successful negotiation with Israel, whatever resolutions are passed wherever in the world, including at the United Nations. We have reserved our position on the question of recognition. I discussed it again with my European Union colleagues in Brussels yesterday, and we have all agreed that we will reserve our position, partly because it gives us some leverage over both Israelis and the Palestinians as we urge them back into talks in the coming weeks and months. That is our focus at the moment.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no recognition of a Palestinian state while Hamas is part of the leadership, especially because of its rejection of the Quartet principles, no recognition of Israel, no renunciation of violence and no acceptance of the existing treaties?
Mr Hague
Our position on recognition is as I just set out. We have reserved our position for the moment. Hamas remains a proscribed organisation and I call on it again to release Gilad Shalit. I have stressed that we look to any new Palestinian Authority to be committed to non-violence, a negotiated peace and the previous agreements of the PLO.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman join the very many Jewish supporters of Israel in Britain, the United States and Israel itself in expressing utter disgust at the legislation passed in the Knesset last week penalising those advocating boycotts, including a boycott of goods made in the illegal settlements in the occupied territories? Will he also agree that turning Israel into an authoritarian state—by limiting and damaging free speech—will not help the peace process?
Mr Hague
This is certainly the wrong way for Israel to proceed. The Knesset passed a Bill a week ago that would fine anyone proposing or supporting a boycott of Israel or Israeli organisations. The Government in no way support boycotts but are concerned about this law, which infringes on the legitimate freedom of expression. I understand that it will be challenged in Israel’s courts, and certainly it is not a law that we can support.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
A report is suggesting that Hamas has stepped up once again its rocket attacks on the state of Israel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be utterly premature for the Government to sanction UN recognition of a Palestinian state until such time as the Palestinians and Israelis sit around the table and negotiate on all terms?
Mr Hague
The position on recognition is as I set out a few moments ago. However, my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of returning to negotiations. The Quartet meeting last week did not reach agreement on a statement paving the way for that, but I discussed the matter with Tony Blair at the weekend and with my EU colleagues yesterday, and we remain hopeful that the Quartet can arrive at a statement that will form the basis for Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations over the coming weeks and months. That has to be the way forward.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
14. What his objectives are for the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Government are committed to reinvigorating the Commonwealth and strengthening it as a focus for democracy, development and prosperity. We see the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as a defining moment for the future of the Commonwealth and we look forward to the eminent persons group’s recommendations.
Ian Lucas
There are 11,000 people on death row in Commonwealth countries, and four people were executed in Commonwealth countries last year. Will the Secretary of State raise this issue at the meeting to which he referred, place it on the agenda and do something about making the Commonwealth a more civilised place?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The agenda for CHOGM is not yet decided, but I shall certainly give strong consideration to his point. Since the change of Government, this country has maintained its policy on the death penalty around the world, and we will continue to pursue it with our Commonwealth partners. One of the recommendations that we expect from the final report of the eminent persons group is about strengthening Commonwealth values—and this matter is part of that, so I shall seriously consider his proposal.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I join the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) in his bid? May I also commend the Foreign Secretary for placing so much emphasis on climate change? Will he use the next CHOGM to progress the matter so that we can carry the agenda forward in continents such as Africa that are battling with famine now but previously with drought?
Mr Hague
Yes. Climate change is an enormously important subject for the Commonwealth, which is a remarkable network now encompassing almost a third of the world’s population across many different continents and climatic zones, so I hope that climate change will continue to be discussed in many different Commonwealth forums and that we can use our membership to promote the legally binding global deal on combating climate change. That is what we need.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
We welcome the development of relations between Commonwealth countries and we share the Foreign Secretary’s hopes for CHOGM in Perth. However, we also need to recognise that this should be complemented by relations between the peoples of the Commonwealth countries. In that context, will he press for increasing involvement in CHOGM’s work and the wider work of the Commonwealth by the social partners, business and the trade unions?
Mr Hague
Yes, in general. It is important that this is not just about a relationship between Governments; the network of nations and peoples of the Commonwealth is felt in many different ways, through the Commonwealth people’s forum, the Commonwealth youth forum and the Commonwealth business forum, all of which will have events surrounding the CHOGM meeting that will take place in Perth at the end of October. We do not yet have the details of all those meetings, but the right hon. Gentleman can be sure that that broad agenda will be in action there.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
15. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the human rights situation in Belarus.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I regularly discuss with my international counterparts the abuse of human rights by the regime in Belarus. I most recently did so with the Russian deputy Foreign Minister the week before last.
Tracey Crouch
I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there has been very little progress in Belarus, with the Lukashenko regime continuing to arrest people who peacefully protest against the Government there. Given the regime’s blatant disregard for calls by international partners such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others to improve civil liberties in Belarus, does my right hon. Friend not think it time for the UK Government to take an international lead and call for further sanctions against the regime?
Mr Lidington
I think that we should use every means possible to persuade the regime in Minsk to cease its persistent and systematic abuse of human rights. It is important to try to do that in a way that does not make even more wretched the lives of the ordinary people of Belarus. We are among those in the European Union who are pushing for a rigorous further examination of sanctions that might be levied to achieve the outcome that both my hon. Friend and I want.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Yesterday I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, which reached strong conclusions on Libya, Syria, climate change, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No conclusions were reached on a common security and defence policy. I made it clear that we could not agree to the creation of an EU permanent operational headquarters.
Harriett Baldwin
I was delighted to hear that the Foreign Secretary had vetoed the creation of a European command and control HQ. What’s next?
Mr Hague
What is important, as I stressed to my colleagues in Brussels, is to improve the capabilities in defence around Europe and the will to use them, and that there are no institutional barriers in Europe to European nations making a greater contribution to, for instance, what we are doing in Libya or stabilisation in the Balkans. It is capacity and the will to use it that are lacking, rather than the creation of new European institutions that would be costly and distracting.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
We welcome the independence of South Sudan, to which the Foreign Secretary referred earlier. However, there is concern in all parts of the House about recent developments in the Nuba region of Sudan, including the use of aerial bombardment by the regime in Khartoum, which is somewhat reminiscent of events in Darfur in previous years. What pressure are the Government and the European Union putting on the regime in Khartoum to cease those attacks?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that issue. I attended the independence celebrations in South Sudan on 9 July, which was an inspiring occasion, but it took place in the shadow of continuing violence and the continuing lack of agreement on citizenship, oil and border issues. It is vital that the international community places the maximum possible pressure—and we will certainly continue to do so—stressing to the Republic of Sudan that what it wants to see on debt relief and working with western nations will depend on a peaceful and co-operative approach to the remaining issues in Sudan. We will continue to stress that very strongly.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T2. One of the remaining issues in South Sudan is that of Abyei. Will my right hon. Friend give us an update on what action is being taken to ensure that the promised referendum in Abyei goes ahead successfully?
Mr Hague
The urgent thing has been to bring peace and order to Abyei, and that is something that I have discussed with those in the north and south in Sudan, as well as with the Ethiopian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on my visit to Ethiopia 10 days or so ago. Up to 4,200 Ethiopian troops will go to Abyei, and we have been active in quickly passing the necessary United Nations authority for them to do so. That is designed to pave the way for political progress in Abyei, but the most urgent thing has been to get that Ethiopian force there and to prevent continuing violence.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Palestinian Authority, working with Tony Blair and the Quartet, has made major progress on developing the economy and governance on the west bank. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is urgent that negotiations take place so that there can be Israel and Palestine next to it, rather than a unilateral declaration that will not bring security for either Israel or a Palestinian state?
Mr Hague
It is certainly urgent that those negotiations take place and, as I stressed a few minutes ago, the current discussions in the Quartet are aimed at bringing that about. While reserving our position on recognition, as I also explained earlier, it is certainly my view that a truly viable Palestinian state, able to conduct its own affairs and in control of its own territory, requires successful negotiation with Israel and will come about only by agreement.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T4. Nearly 2,000 people remain missing in Cyprus as a result of the conflicts in 1963 and 1974. This affects Greek and Turkish Cypriots across the island. The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus has made progress, but does the Minister agree that an increased commitment and speedier resolution of this tragic issue would constitute a significant confidence-builder towards a final settlement for the island?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I visited the headquarters of the Committee on Missing Persons and its laboratory while I was in Cyprus a few weeks ago, and I was impressed by the work that it is doing to discover the fate of those missing people, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot. That is morally right, because it helps the affected families to come to terms with what has happened to their loved ones, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it is also a good measure for building confidence between two communities that, sadly, have become separated by the events of recent decades.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
On the morning of 13 August 1961, the people of Berlin woke up to find a wall being built across their city. That wall remained in place for some 30 years before it came down and allowed the unification not only of Germany but of the east and west. Will the Foreign Secretary, together with the Secretary of State for Defence, use that anniversary as an opportunity to remind Europe that that would not have been achieved without the help of the Americans, and to remind the Americans that Europe remains important to them?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T5. The French Defence Minister has said that the military action against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime is not working. He has also said that Colonel Gaddafi should be welcomed into negotiations with pro-freedom rebels. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with our French ally?
Mr Hague
Well, I agree with my own French counterpart, and with the Prime Minister and the President of France, on the way in which they have put this. I think that the French Defence Minister has said one or two things that differ from that. My own colleague, Alain Juppé, is absolutely clear on this. He was with me at the Libya contact group meeting in Istanbul on Friday, and at our Brussels meeting yesterday. France and the United Kingdom take exactly the same position: Colonel Gaddafi has lost legitimacy, and negotiations certainly exclude the possibility of his remaining in power. The United States has made that position very forcefully to the Libyan regime as well in recent days, and that is our united position.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
T8. The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, said that if there is “a UN resolution” about “a Palestinian state, and nothing changes on the ground, this will create a dangerous situation.”Given the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to have peace negotiations started as soon as possible, can he give us an insight into why, when the Quartet met on 11 July, it failed to agree a statement on President Obama’s framework for peace negotiations?
Mr Hague
The answer is that discussions continue within the Quartet. There was a difference of view between the United States on the one side and the European Union, the United Nations and Russia on the other about the details of a Quartet statement. I hope that those differences can be resolved. We welcome the fact that the United States has said, as we urged them, that a settlement should be based on 1967 borders. That has been a big step forward, but there are continuing disagreements over the definition of a Jewish state and over the precise way in which to phrase a commitment to 1967 borders, so we are working to overcome those differences. That is the current situation.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T7. Does my right hon. Friend think there should be a UN-led inquiry into human rights abuses in Bahrain, bearing in mind reports of the arrest and mistreatment of doctors from the Salmaniya medical centre in Manama?
Mr Hague
We take very seriously the human rights situation in Bahrain, but welcome the fact that the King of Bahrain has announced an independent investigation into human rights concerns and abuses. It is an investigation that carries some credibility; in fact, it is headed up by one of the members of my own human rights advisory group. I expect it will give a robust report up to international standards. We should welcome that, but we continue to urge the Government of Bahrain in the meantime, as I have done, to ensure that due process is followed and that human rights are satisfactorily looked after in Bahrain, because it has done the country no favours to give the opposite impression.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is 20 years to the month since little Ben Needham went missing on the island of Kos. His mother, Kerry, is my constituent. It appears that new evidence may have come to light, and Kerry believes that any investigation or review of her case would be helped by securing political commitments to her cause at the top level of Government, such as we have seen in the case of Madeleine McCann. Will the Foreign Secretary agree to meet Kerry and me to discuss the case of missing Ben?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady will appreciate that I would not want to comment in detail on the case across the Floor of the House, but I would happily make time to see her and her constituents to discuss it further.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will Ministers say what reports they have received on the economic situation in Greece, on whether there has been any intelligence on the likelihood of a default and on the likelihood of Greece remaining in the euro?
Mr Lidington
We receive many reports on Greece—including, of course, on the very grave economic situation there. The economic health of the eurozone, including that of Greece, is important in assuring jobs and prosperity in this country. It is important both that the Greek Government deal with the structural reforms and the changes to bear down on their own deficit and that the eurozone more widely addresses the causes of instability. We hope that they do so at their meeting planned for this week.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Hadeel fair trade shop in my constituency has for some years imported from small producers in the west bank and Gaza products of various types that support the very type of economic development that was supported earlier. It has recently had great difficulty in importing material and in sending money back to the producers. If I write to the Secretary of State with more details, will he look into this issue and try to resolve this blockage of what is a sensible fair trade measure?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Yes, I would be very pleased to receive a letter from the hon. Gentleman. Ensuring that the economy of both the west bank and Gaza continues to improve is of vital importance for security in the region, as well as for the development of both Israel and Palestine.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Nitin Gadkari, president of the Bharatiya Janata party—India’s main opposition party—was in Parliament yesterday singing the praises of Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat. What is the United Kingdom’s stance? Would Narendra Modi be a welcome visitor to the UK in the light of the massacres in Godhra 10 years ago?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State give us an update on the situation in Kosovo, particularly in relation to moves towards proper and full democracy and the stamping out of corruption at Government level?
Mr Lidington
A Government have been formed in Kosovo, after initial difficulties, but there is certainly much more to be done to deal with the problems of corruption and organised crime. We therefore fully support the work that is being done by EULEX, the European rule of law mission in Kosovo. We also take every opportunity to urge Ministers in Kosovo to take the lead in making dealing with those problems a priority.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I assure my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that Liberal rebels are not yet taking delivery of any weapons, although the notion of campaigning with a Kalashnikov in the one hand and the alternative vote in the other does have its attractions.
May I return my right hon. Friend to the issue of Palestinian recognition? Given that there is every indication that there will be recognition of a Palestinian state, what assessment has he made of the impact on the influence of the United Kingdom in the region if that recognition takes place without our endorsement?
Mr Hague
Campaigning on the alternative vote might be more successful with a Kalashnikov. [Laughter.] I think we are allowed to have a little tease within the coalition.
Of course recognition of a Palestinian state is one of the factors that must be weighed up. As I explained earlier, we will reserve our position on recognition, along with all our EU partners, and I therefore do not want to become involved in speculation about hypothetical scenarios either way. However, we will certainly weigh the implications for us—as well as all our European partners and the United States—of our relations with other states in the region. That is one of the factors that we will consider.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The development of nuclear weapons by Iran would not just trigger a middle eastern arms race, but would make it much more difficult to prevent Ahmadinejad from arming terrorists in the region. He is persisting with the illegal enrichment of uranium and continuing to call for Israel’s destruction, and has recently unveiled new missiles capable of reaching Israel. What more can the United Kingdom Government do to prevent Iran from acquiring those weapons?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is right about the concerns that the world shares about the development of Iran’s nuclear programme, on the subject of which it is being deliberately opaque. New sanctions were introduced only two weeks ago in relation to targeted individuals. The pressure of sanctions will continue from the world, and the determination of the world to see the nuclear programme opened to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has already expressed its concern, will continue until such time as Iran turns away from what appears to be a very dangerous course.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Some of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. What steps is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office taking to help our exporters and investors in those countries?
Mr Hague
Many steps, I am glad to say. We are making many more ministerial visits to the region. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just been to South Africa with a trade delegation, I have just visited Kenya, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), is in Africa at the moment. There is great ministerial engagement. We are enlarging many of our diplomatic missions, we are opening new embassies—including some in Africa—and we have the strongest commitment to developing trade links with Africa that this country has seen for decades.
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
Ordered,
That Cathy Jamieson be added to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Bridgwater By-pass
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bridgwater,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that EDF Energy should not be granted permission to proceed with the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development without first constructing a northern bypass for Bridgwater from Junction 23 of the M5 to connect with the A39 west of Cannington; that such a bypass would ensure that construction traffic would avoid Bridgwater’s already over-congested roads and leave the whole area a worthwhile legacy after the construction of the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development is complete; and that the Petitioners believe that a bypass would render an EDF facility and the Bridgwater Gateway Development an unnecessary and unjustifiable intrusion on farmland close to the residential area of North Petherton.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that permission for EDF Energy to proceed with the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development should be conditional on the construction of a northern bypass for Bridgwater from Junction 23 of the M5 to connect with the A39 west of Cannington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000946]
Abuse of Adults in Residential Care
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by Mark Lever, the chief executive of the National Autistic Society, together with some 10,000 other signatories from across the United Kingdom gathered by the society. They are concerned about the appalling treatment of those with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders, as shown on the “Panorama” programme “Undercover Care: the Abuse Exposed”, which was televised on Tuesday 31 May 2011.
The petition states:
The petition of supporters of The National Autistic Society,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the Secretary of State for Health should take urgent action to prevent abuse in residential care settings and work with commissioners, providers, individuals receiving support and their families to ensure that vulnerable adults are treated in a dignified, safe, enabling and respectful way.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to urgently review the work of the Care Quality Commission and the appropriateness of the inspection regime for protecting vulnerable adults in out-of-area residential accommodation.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000948]
Living Wage (Royal Household)
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This petition calls for a living wage to be paid to all those employed by the royal household. It is part of the decade-long campaign by London citizens to ensure that all Londoners are paid the London living wage. The petition, signed by more than 2,000 people, reads as follows:
To the House of Commons.
The Humble Petition of residents of London and others,
Declares that cleaners working for the Royal Households in London are paid £6.45 per hour even though the London Living Wage was set at £7.85 until April 2011—
you will know, Mr Speaker, that it has now been increased to £8.30—
declares that cleaners in the House of Commons and House of Lords are paid at the rate of the London Living wage; further declares that the Petitioners believe that as £30 million of taxpayers’ money is paid to the Royal family annually for the upkeep of the Royal Households it is clear that the London living wage of £7.85—
that should now read £8.30—
is affordable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage the Royal Households to ensure that all cleaners working within the Royal Households are paid the London living wage of £8.30 per hour, a rate that is supported by the Mayor of London.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
[P000947]
Point of Order
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order, which, for reasons that will readily become apparent, is time critical. Last night, a Member on the Government Benches objected to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) being put on to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. This was done in the knowledge that it would prevent her from being able to attend today’s very important Committee meeting, at which Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch are giving evidence. There is, however, a motion on the Order Paper, tabled by the Committee of Selection, that will allow the House to vote to put this right, but it will not be debated until later. Is there anything you can do, Mr Speaker, to enable it to be taken now, or earlier, so that my hon. Friend can take her place alongside the other members of the Committee when they meet at 2.30 this afternoon?
Mr Speaker
As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this is an unconventional time for points of order, but as his inquiry is time critical I have exercised my discretion, as I did yesterday, to take the point of order. The answer is that, for the protection of all parts of the House, the Order Paper is settled at the end of the previous sitting. The Back-Bench business takes precedence, and the motion to which he refers is one that cannot be made without notice. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
I shall exercise my discretion in favour of the very long-serving right hon. and learned Member.
Sir Menzies Campbell
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Those of us who were in the Chamber towards the end of yesterday evening’s sitting, over which, if I recall correctly, you presided for a substantial part of the time, must surely recognise that it was not Parliament’s finest hour—although it may have been the latest hour—because there was obstruction that has been met by a response. Surely this matter ought to be referred to the Procedure Committee to see if steps can be taken to prevent this kind of activity in the future?
Mr Speaker
I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I will not comment on that today. Suffice it to say that he has reminded the House of his interest in, and skill at, conciliation—a role to which many will feel he is well suited. We shall leave it there for today.
School Funding Reform
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our plans to reform school funding. As Members across the House will know, the current systems for funding schools—both their revenue and capital needs—are too complex and lack transparency, which is why I want to make the way we fund all schools fairer, simpler and more efficient.
I want to turn first to capital spending. Capital investment is crucial to education reform, but at a time of economic difficulty we need to ensure we are getting the maximum value for every penny we spend, and we must ensure that tight resources are targeted on those most in need.
In order to ensure that we could target money on those areas in absolutely greatest need, last year I had to take the difficult decision to stop a number of school rebuildings planned under the Building Schools for the Future programme. In areas where planning was most advanced, more than 600 projects will go ahead, but other projects were stopped. I recognise the deep disappointment that was provoked in communities where hopes had been raised, but we had to ensure money was spent efficiently, and the design of the old BSF scheme was not as efficient as it could have been. Specifically, it did not prioritise schools in the worst condition and it did not procure new buildings as cheaply as possible.
In order to ensure that we spent money properly, I asked Sebastian James of Dixons store group to review the entire Department for Education approach to capital funding. His report makes compelling reading and I commend it to the House. He found that the whole capital system was bedevilled by a complex allocation process with multiple funding schemes, a lack of good- quality building condition data, inefficiency in building design, a lack of expertise in improving new buildings, a failure to make procurement as efficient as possible, a lack of clarity on maintenance, and overly complex regulatory and planning requirements. I am grateful to Sebastian James for his exceptionally thorough work, and I wish to accept the majority of his recommendations, subject to a thorough consultation process over coming months.
Specifically, I have accepted the recommendation to conduct a full survey of the school estate. The last Government stopped collecting any data on school condition in 2005, which has made fair distribution of funding much harder. I have also accepted the review’s recommendation significantly to revise the school premises regulations, so that a single, clear set of regulations applies to all schools. I intend to consult fully on this in the autumn. In addition, I have accepted the recommendation to move towards greater standardisation of design. One of the aspects of the BSF programme that Mr James criticised was that each school was separately designed, costing unnecessary millions in consultancy fees and often resulting in buildings that were not fit for purpose. Greater standardisation will reduce costs, improve quality, and limit the opportunity for error.
However, I recognise that in the short term schools around the country are facing real and pressing problems. The most pressing problem is ensuring that every child has a school place. In some local areas, there are simply not enough school places to meet rising demand. Local authorities have told me that insufficient attention has been given to this issue in the past, which is why I have already doubled the sums available to meet this pressure, announcing £800 million of additional spending given directly to local authorities to meet the demand for school places. Today, thanks to efficiencies and savings that we have identified, including in BSF projects, I can announce an additional £500 million to fund more new school places in the areas of greatest need.
Funds will be allocated this financial year to the local authorities with the greatest demographic pressures so that they can provide enough places, especially at primary schools, in September 2012. Details of those allocations will be provided over the summer and finalised in the autumn. But that is not all. I am also aware that many of our existing school buildings across the country are in desperate need of repair. I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have shown me and my colleagues schools in their constituencies that desperately need investment. The energy and skill with which so many colleagues have lobbied underlines how effectively so many hon. Members across the House represent the most needy in their constituencies.
We have already made £1.4 billion available this year to deal with maintenance problems. Overall, we are spending more on school buildings in every year of this Parliament cumulatively than the previous Government spent in every year of their first two Parliaments. But I want to do more, which is why today I am launching a new privately financed school building programme to address the schools in the worst condition, wherever they are in the country. The programme will be open to local authorities and schools that had been due funding via BSF but, critically, it will also be open to those which, despite real problems, had never been promised BSF funding. I believe strongly that those in genuine need should receive the funding they deserve and that no part of the country should be favoured over any other. Individual schools and local authorities will all be able to apply, and I am launching the application process today. The scheme will be rigorously policed to ensure that we do not incur the excessive costs incurred by previous privately financed schemes. The programme should cover between 100 and 300 schools, with the first of these open in September 2014, and is expected to be worth about £2 billion in up-front construction costs.
Some of those local authority areas that had experienced the termination of their BSF projects asked for a judicial review of my Department’s decisions. In February, Mr Justice Holman found in favour of the Department on the substantive matters in dispute, but he found against me on procedural grounds and asked me to look again at the decision in six local authorities. He stressed that the decision to restore all, some or none of the projects was a matter for me. Over the past few months, Ministers and officials have listened carefully to the case made by the six local authorities and I am very grateful to them for the timely and constructive way in which they have presented their case. I have today written to those authorities to let them know that I am minded to indemnify them for contractual liabilities resulting from the stage their projects had reached but I am not minded to restore their specific BSF projects. They now have a further opportunity to make representations to me before I take a final decision.
I appreciate that the local authorities and their representatives will be disappointed, but let me also make it clear that this decision, if confirmed after any representations have been made, does not mean an end to new school buildings in their areas. These local authorities will all be eligible for support from the new programme that I am establishing to cater for population growth in the areas most in need and the new programme to cover the worst dilapidation. That is central to my reasoning on why I am minded not to restore their specific projects. I want to ensure absolute fairness in the distribution of the resources at my disposal. Because the previous Government chose to not to collect data on the condition of school buildings after 2005, I do not have the facts to judge how the needs of these schools compare with the needs of other schools around the country. The fairest thing that I believe I can do is to help to meet the costs which might arise from the stage these projects had reached and then to invite the affected schools to apply to the new school rebuilding programme and be assessed on an equal footing with everyone else, on the basis of need. Of course, should any of those local authorities have severe population pressures, they are likely to receive a portion of the £500 million fund that I have announced today.
I would now like to turn to schools revenue funding. The current system is of course extremely complex, opaque and often unfair. Most colleagues will have lived with the inconsistencies for years now, as similar schools in different parts of the country received widely differing and inequitable levels of funding, and the problem with the system we inherited was recently underlined by concerns expressed over academies funding. Under the system set up by the previous Government, academies received money in lieu of services that would previously have been provided by their local authority, but local authorities continued to receive the same funding as they would if they were still providing those services. That meant that local authorities were, relatively speaking, overfunded for duties they no longer discharged, so at the spending review we announced that from now on we would deduct money from local authorities to take account of the fact they no longer provided services to academies.
The huge success of the academies programme, with 803 open and more than 800 more in the pipeline, has meant that we need to reconsider the issue, and a number of local authorities have asked us to reconsider the amount of money deducted, so today I am publishing a consultation document for local authorities explaining the basis on which it is intended that the money will be deducted this year and next.
This area, however, is only one of those in which the funding system that we inherited is failing to meet the needs of the 21st century. Much wider reform is needed, so today we are also publishing a consultation proposing a fair and comprehensive reform of the way in which schools revenue funding is calculated overall. At present, similar schools in different areas can receive very different amounts of funding for their pupils. That is not fair on head teachers, teachers or pupils. That is why I am proposing a new, fairer national funding formula, with appropriate room for local discretion, in order to have a simpler, fairer and transparent system.
The problems with the current system run very deep, and we will not be able to solve them overnight. We want to consult and take everyone’s views so that we know how much change schools can cope with. We will not introduce change until we are confident in the new approach, and certainly not before 2013, and we will ensure that there are substantial transitional arrangements, but we are determined to start moving as soon as we can towards a system which ensures that all children are given the right level of funding to meet their needs. If that is taken together with our investment in 100 new teaching schools, announced last week, our investment of an additional £300 million in the early years, and an extra £2.5 billion in the pupil premium, I believe we can now begin to ensure that our schools are funded in a way that is modern, fair and just.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and wish him the best of British in securing media coverage for it.
Let me begin on the subject of revenue. Across the House, we share a responsibility to ensure that the £35 billion budget for schools in England is spent as fairly as possible, giving every young person the best start in life, and I can assure the Secretary of State that we will work constructively with him to achieve that. The current system is not perfect, and the principles he has set out are a good basis on which to build, but the devil really is in the detail, and changes need to be considered very carefully.
With that in mind, may I welcome the Secretary of State’s conversion to the merits of consultation before imposing change that affects the lives of young people? Three times he has failed to consult and then been forced to change course under the threat of legal action: on Building Schools for the Future, on the education maintenance allowance, and on academy funding. Today, we have some grounds for hope that he has learned his lesson, with one major caveat. Is it not odd timing, to say the least, to start a 12-week consultation just as schools and colleges start the long break? Will the practical effect of that not be that it is a rushed six-week consultation that will coincide with the start of term, when people’s minds are elsewhere? Given that his announcement has far-reaching implications for every school in the land, and given that these changes are planned to come in only from September 2013, will the Secretary of State agree to a 12-week period of consultation from the start of the school year?
On a national funding formula for schools, the Secretary of State will know that that has been considered in the past and there is considerable scepticism about the ability to deliver it fairly. Does he accept that a rigid national funding formula could bring lots of winners and losers and remove local government’s ability to ensure fairness across an area? Will he commit to retaining as much flexibility as possible and will he ensure that any changes are carefully managed so that we do not see wild swings in school budgets?
As I have said, the changes will take effect from 2013-14, but we know that the Secretary of State was recently forced to agree to an interim review of academy funding. Will he update the House today on the progress of that review and how it will link to the consultation he has announced? Equally, can he assure the House that this review of funding will take account of responses to the special educational needs Green Paper, as parents of children with SEN will have concerns that giving more direct funding to schools will give them fewer guarantees over the funding available for their children?
The Secretary of State was silent today about 16-to-19 funding, which is perhaps not surprising, as it is the subject of a devastating report today from the Education Committee. Is it not the case that changes to post-16 funding, and reductions in funding to school sixth forms, could see some forced to close their doors? He has promised a review of post-16 funding. Would it not make sense to conduct this review concurrently with the consultation that he announced today?
The Secretary of State mentioned progress on academies. It is clear that we are moving at pace to a very different school system. An all-academy world where schools are directly contracted to London under a national funding formula will feel very different from the world we have known. It also raises the question of what happened to localism. Can he tell us what, if any, ongoing role he sees for local authorities in education? His consultation talks ominously about “chains of academies”. Can he tell us today how big he expects these chains to become, and whether he will place any limits on their expansion?
On capital, we will look carefully at the announcements that the right hon. Gentleman made today. Let me set out the context. At the spending review, the schools capital budget was left in tatters. His own officials briefed the Financial Times that the Secretary of State had folded too early in negotiations with the Treasury—possibly the understatement of the year. From that much-reduced budget he is funding his pet projects and giving them priority. There will be deep disappointment in the six local authorities that were forced to take legal action because he failed to consult them first. He says he has listened carefully to them. He made a promise to visit Sandwell, for instance, which I believe he has never carried out, so how can they have any confidence that he has properly looked at the condition of schools in Sandwell, and that this is not just a hollow exercise that has been ordered by a High Court judge?
The Secretary of State said today that he would meet the costs—that he would indemnify the six local authorities concerned. How much will he now have to pay to those schools? Is that not money that could otherwise have been properly spent on schools and children? It is a waste of public money in the current climate. How much money has he spent on legal costs since he became Secretary of State? He has never been out of the dock since taking on that job. We need to know how much money he has wasted.
In my constituency, the Secretary of State is funding free schools, having terminated the Building Schools for the Future programme. That has led to concerns that existing schools are trapped in crumbling buildings while the Secretary of State is funding one of his pet projects. It raises the question whether he can live up to the fairness and transparency about which he spoke today. Can he explain to the House how it is fair to fund the creation of surplus school places in cities such as Bristol, when he is failing to fund basic need in primary schools up and down the country? Is that not ideological rather than fair? With a much reduced budget, should he not be prioritising basic need? And can he tell us what is transparent about a free school programme where cheques are handed out around the country, but parliamentary questions from Members on all sides about the costs of that programme go unanswered?
The statement comes on a day when the Conservative-chaired Education Committee has delivered a devastating end-of-term report on the Secretary of State’s conduct. The education world has learned through bitter experience to be extremely wary of his announcements on funding. As ever, we will be watching closely to see whether the reality matches his rhetoric.
Michael Gove
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the broadly constructive tone of his response. He asked a series of detailed questions, which I shall do my best to reply to in the time available.
On the timing of the consultation, plans to move towards a national funding formula were outlined in the education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, which was published last autumn. There has been extensive engagement on the ground with local authorities and school leaders, not least through the task and finish group of the ministerial advisory group on local government finance. This consultation is a step towards ensuring that we can move in the right direction, but judging by the response that we have today, I know that there are many people who are impatient for us to proceed. We will make sure that in the consultation there is, as the right hon. Gentleman requests, appropriate room for local authorities to stress the importance of flexibility.
In the consultation documents, which are available in the Vote Office now for all Members, we emphasise that there are a range of options, and it is clear that we want to ensure that there is appropriate local flexibility—not just room for local authorities to allocate resources to those schools most in need, but greater transparency, for example, over the operation of schools forums. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will engage constructively in making sure that those decisions on the ground can properly balance school autonomy with local accountability.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the interim review on academies and LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant. We are specifically consulting today in a way which can ensure that local authorities are funded fairly, and that we do not have the double funding that has arisen under the complex funding system that we inherited. As a result of that consultation, I hope we can provide a reassurance to all students in all schools.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about special educational needs. In the consultation overall on schools funding, we make it clear that high needs pupils are a specific priority. There will be a block of funding in the overall dedicated schools grant which is for them and which will be disbursed at local authority level. The central role of the local authority in protecting vulnerable pupils will be protected, and I am sure he will want to work with us in ensuring that that is successfully implemented.
On 16-to-19 funding, it is critical that we ensure that we align any reforms with the Wolf review, which the right hon. Gentleman so warmly welcomed just a few months ago. Wolf argued that we need to ensure that when we reform the funding of 16-to-19 education, we do not recreate the perverse incentives in the old system of 16-to-19 funding, so we aim to align that reform with the broader reforms to improve vocational education.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on academies. Like him, I am delighted that so many schools have now become academies. He asked about the sustainable level of growth of chains. I believe that chains such as the Harris group, Ark or the United Learning Trust are doing an amazing job on the ground, working with local authorities and turning round schools in the worst condition. As far as I am concerned, they should grow at the fastest sustainable rate. That is why we are making the reforms that we can. Our aim always is to help those children most in need, and those academy chains have helped those children most in need.
On negotiations at the spending review, I am proud of the fact that at the spending review we were able to secure the best revenue settlement for any domestic Department, apart from the Department of Health. I am proud of the fact that as well as guaranteeing fat cash payments for all schools for the rest of the spending review period, we secured additional money for the early years and for the pupil premium. I am particularly proud that we have since then ensured that on our capital budget, we have driven forward efficiency. The James review and the associated steps that we have taken have meant that we have liberated an extra £500 million for basic need.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would listen carefully to representatives from Sandwell and other local authorities. I shall. I appreciate the particular concerns in every local authority, but the vital thing is that we need to be fair to all local authorities. There are local authorities represented across the House that were not in the BSF scheme and have not had their case heard, and we need to ensure that they receive the funding that they deserve.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about basic need and the importance of prioritising it. We are spending 62.5% more on basic need than the previous Government. They were specifically warned in February 2010 that local authorities were saying that basic need funding was far from adequate, and they were invited to undertake an urgent nationwide review. No action was taken. The lead member for children’s services in the London borough of Newham, the Labour councillor Quintin Peppiatt, said:
“We gave warning for the last five years through various deputations that this was a real problem, and I have to say it was not taken with the seriousness that it should have been. At last, serious action is being taken and not a moment too soon.”
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is another statement to follow and a series of very heavily subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, as a consequence of which there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Bench alike.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. Too many areas, particularly rural areas, have suffered from grossly inequitable funding for too long. I welcome what the Secretary of State said because rural areas have additional costs, which are not met by current funding. Can he assure the House that we will not falter in moving to fairer funding and we will put real need ahead of political convenience in bringing forward a national funding formula in due course?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say to the Secretary of State that “modern, fair and just” is a description that we all aspire to for educational funding, but is he not missing off his list—and adding—the danger, “highly centralised”? For many of us who believe in a good education system in our country, there is a real fear when the Department takes so much responsibility into the centre. Also, will he stop members of his party from criticising, in a very unfair way, Tim Byles, who is a fine public servant and did a very good job with Building Schools for the Future? It does no one any good to revile fine public servants of his character.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes two very fair points. On the first, we want to strike the right balance between local accountability through local authorities and school autonomy. The consultation seeks to do that, and I will welcome his response to it. On the second point, let me place on record here, as I did in my letter thanking Tim Byles for all his public service, that I am immensely grateful to him for his work. I have criticisms of the way in which BSF was run, but those are not criticisms of Mr Byles or of any of his team; they are merely a reflection of the difference of opinion between myself and the previous Government on how capital spending should be prioritised. Let me underline that Mr Byles is an exemplary public servant, and I hope that we can continue to work with him in future in whichever role he pursues.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Glossopdale community college in my constituency was not due any imminent BSF funding despite being in desperate need of renovation, or even rebuilding. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that schools that genuinely need renovation or rebuilding will be given priority in the new capital programme?
Michael Gove
That is absolutely correct. What I want to do is make sure that the schools in greatest need receive the funding. Resources are limited and it will be difficult to prioritise, but we must be fair.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday I will meet school governors from Walthamstow. The Secretary of State has just, again, cruelly dashed their hopes that our fears about the lack of school places and the condition of our schools in Walthamstow will be acknowledged. Will he join me at the meeting on Thursday and explain for himself why he will give Waltham Forest the money for its legal fees but not the money to fix the leaky roofs and the asbestos problem that we have in our schools, or for the school places that we so desperately need?
Michael Gove
That was a passionate case well made, but I have to emphasise that I need to be fair to all local authorities. That means that we will look at the condition of schools in all local authorities, and the evidence will be sifted objectively. I am aware that Walthamstow, like many London boroughs and many areas in the south-east, is facing particular pressure on primary school places. Because Building Schools for the Future was primarily about secondary school places, we need to ensure that the absolute need for every child to secure a school place is at the front of everything we do.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. This long overdue review of the funding formula will ensure that there is a much fairer system across the country, and will involve looking at the possible double funding of local authorities and any potential overpayment that academies have had over and above LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant. That is due to replace the services that local authorities provide. On capital, will he ensure that there is a constant review to see whether there is any underspend from any other programmes in the Department or other money that could be channelled elsewhere? Will he also ensure that schools that need renovation or rebuilding will be prioritised?
Michael Gove
We will absolutely seek to ensure that academies are fairly funded and that they are neither penalised nor overfunded. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to emphasise that in some cases we need to look again to ensure that there is absolute propriety. On the broader question, we will continually seek to bear down on inefficiencies, and money that we liberate will go to those most in need.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Five schools in my constituency lost out with the cancellation of BSF, including St John Bosco and Holly Lodge. Those schools will have their hopes raised by the Secretary of State’s announcement of the new private capital fund. Can he tell us how quickly decisions will be made on the allocation of that fund? Will deprivation be a criterion according to which it is decided which schools will get money, and will there be scope for match funding by local authorities?
Michael Gove
I hope to take decisions this autumn. I would not wish precipitately to raise hopes in any part of the country, but we will seek to work constructively. Deprivation obviously figures in revenue funding, but in capital funding the question I have to ask is: which schools are in the gravest danger? We need the information now to ensure that every child is in a safe school place, whichever part of the country they are in. Obviously, if a council such as Liverpool is prepared to work constructively, we will work constructively with it.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement, which I know will be read with great interest by, in particular, the governors and head teacher of St John Bosco college in my constituency. My local authority despaired of the—often—30 months of bureaucracy that preceded any BSF project getting to the construction phase. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the new capital programme will be a big improvement on that?
Michael Gove
We will absolutely ensure that capital gets to those who need it more quickly, as a result of the James review recommendations.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about additional school places from September of next year, but what help can he give to parents and children in the Sale area of my constituency—Trafford residents in an area run by the Conservative party—where we have long waiting lists and insufficient primary school places? That is the situation now: what help can he give? Will he also consider what help he can give to schools in the Sale area in the year ahead?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his typically well-made point. One reason why schools are oversubscribed in Trafford is because it has such a superb local education authority and so many brilliant schools. I enjoy working with Trafford because it is such a good local education authority. Wherever there is basic need we will do everything we can to support it.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Knights Templar school in Baldock in my constituency is an outstanding community school that provides an excellent education for children from all backgrounds. It has recently become an academy, but its buildings are dated and in some cases need rebuilding. Will an academy of that sort be able to apply for the new private funding that my right hon. Friend has described, and what is the application process?
Michael Gove
Yes. All schools—academies, community schools and voluntary-aided schools—and local authorities that are responsible for the maintenance of a number of schools will be able to apply this autumn.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
As a member of the Education Committee I was recently invited to a meeting with Lord Baker and Lord Adonis, who told me they had managed to secure £150 million from the Treasury for an experiment in university technology colleges. That £150 million would go a long way towards reinstating the education maintenance allowance, which is the one big thing I have seen in 30 years of working in education that has made a real difference to the participation of poor pupils and to narrowing the attainment gap. The Secretary of State tells us that we cannot afford EMA, which we know works, so how can we find £150 million for an experiment, when we have no idea whether it works or not?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points, but we must agree to differ on EMA. I think that the new learner support fund that we are introducing with the discretionary capacity that local colleges and schools will have to support students will effectively meet needs. On university technical colleges, I do not believe that they are an experiment; they are on the ground and working well already. I was pleased to read a speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) only last week in which he reflected on his visit to a university technical college that JCB helped to establish.
Michael Gove
In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the success of the Conservative donor, Sir Anthony Bamford, in helping to establish that school. I, too, should like to pay tribute to Sir Anthony Bamford, who is a great man. May I underline the fact that that is a cross-party initiative? Lords Baker and Adonis are heroes and their work deserves to be supported.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that Ian Ramsey school in my constituency has a particularly dire need for capital investment to secure its future in the buildings that currently exist. If it applies for the new funding that he has announced today, how soon at the earliest might it get a decision and some certainty about its future?
Michael Gove
I had the pleasure of visiting Ian Ramsey school, which is a superb school with great leadership that also enjoys the advocacy of a great constituency Member. Like every other school, it should be able to apply and should know this autumn.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would police the new privately financed school building programme to ensure there are not the excessive costs incurred by previous privately financed schemes. Can he give some more detail about how he intends to do that?
Michael Gove
We have benefited from looking at some of the PFI schemes that were inaugurated under the previous Government. The James review drew various appropriate lessons about how we could ensure, through standardised design and more effective procurement, that we can save money right at the beginning of any process. My colleagues in the Treasury have today published a report revealing how it has managed to bear down on costs in existing PFI schemes, never mind new ones. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ministers in the Treasury, and to the campaigning energy of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Together, they have ensured that we will make sure that PFI works in the interests of the whole public.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the fair funding formula, which is something I have been championing for more than 20 years, since local management of schools let the genie out of the bottle, with local authorities publishing school spending. It is not fair that one school gets £4,000, while another gets £8,000, for the education of young children. Can I get an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will look into rural funding and so-called leafy suburbs, and that they will not be left out? They have always been penalised in the past by local authority funding. Will he also look at the funding for Lees Brook school, which takes a lot of pupils from my area, and is falling down? I have sent him the documentary evidence of that.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the full survey of the school estate include sixth-form colleges, and can they bid for capital support under the new private finance initiative scheme?
Michael Gove
We want to make sure that all schools are capable of bidding under the scheme, and we want to make sure that the gateway into such bidding is fair. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman to make sure that there are no anomalies that mean that any institution that educates children is excluded for any reason. I shall seek to work with him, given his experience as a distinguished former further education principal.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of more basic need funding. I urge him and the Government to focus on Stratford town, where there is a severe shortage of primary school places.
Michael Gove
There are many parts of the country that have serious problems with population growth, including Stratford-on-Avon, not least because it is such an attractive town that has enjoyed effective representation for many years.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I speak as Member of Parliament for one of the six boroughs that took legal action, and I wish to express our deep disappointment at the Secretary of State’s announcement, particularly for Perryfields and Bristnall Hall schools. Year after year, much-needed refurbishment and repair has been put on hold by the Department for Education, because those schools were in the BSF programme. They now face inadequate overcrowded buildings and a rising school population. Does the Secretary of State understand how let down they feel, and will he come and meet them so that they can get that view across?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is a formidable constituency Member of Parliament. He invited me to make sure that I made this announcement before the House rose for the recess, and I am happy that I could do so. I appreciate that Sandwell, like many other local authorities, will want to make its case fairly, so I want to make sure that it is heard alongside every other local authority in a way that is fair to all.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Secretary of State kindly arranged for civil servants to visit Montacute school, an outstanding special school in my constituency. They subsequently wrote a report on its condition and fitness for purpose. When will he release the contents of that report, and can he give the school some indication of when it will hear, and how to apply for funding if it has to do anything more, in the light of his statement?
Michael Gove
That work will help to inform decision making. I will work with the hon. Lady to make sure that she can do the best job possible for that school, and other schools in her constituency that wish to apply.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that the outstanding and good schools that are most likely to become academies under his system will probably have less need for support for special needs, behavioural support and advisory services. Does he agree that it follows that the academies that he is creating will be tempted not to buy back support services from local authorities under current arrangements, which will mean big cuts in authorities such as Sefton, where seven schools are becoming academies. Will he review funding arrangements for academies so that support services available within local authorities are—
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think we understand the thrust of his question.
Michael Gove
That is a thoughtful question, but behind it lies an uncomfortable fact for the hon. Gentleman. If the majority of good and outstanding schools are in leafy suburbs or richer areas, that only underlines the way in which Labour failed to advance social mobility in their 13 years in power.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware from representations that I have made to him that, as has also been said by Opposition Members, there is an urgent need to get capital funding into schools in Sandwell. Does he agree that now is the time to draw a line under the BSF programme and find innovative ways of getting capital into Sandwell schools in the most cost-effective way possible?
Michael Gove
I entirely agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the effective way in which he has lobbied for a more imaginative and sensitive response to school building in future. He has specifically argued that we should ensure that we safeguard the interests of the schools in the west midlands that are in the greatest need, whether in Sandwell or in adjacent boroughs. I commend him on his statesmanlike and constructive approach.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
At a time of devastating cuts to local authority budgets, will local authorities face yet another in-year cut for which they will not be able to budget? As there is an economy of scale in providing services to schools, will children in non-academy schools suffer because of that deduction from local authority funding?
Michael Gove
Again, that is a thoughtful question. First, our consultation on reform of LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant—is designed to balance stability with a reflection of the fact that some local authorities no longer discharge such responsibilities, but still receive funding. On the second point made by the hon. Lady, it is only fair to say that in our consultation we point out that some economies of scale that are claimed do not materialise on the ground— but she will have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation, and I look forward to hearing her thoughts.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will the new capital building programme offer opportunities for special schools such as Crowdys Hill in Swindon, which has ageing buildings and limited space, so that they can benefit while avoiding the pitfalls of previous PFI schemes?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. It is critical that we recognise that some schools that have not received the investment that they need are special schools—or, indeed, schools with a large proportion of students with special educational needs. We will ensure that the scheme takes account of their specific needs.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I would expect Birmingham to be one of the local authorities to benefit from the Secretary of State’s announcement of extra funding in areas that require extra places. Given Birmingham’s Lib Dem/Tory-controlled administration’s ability not to do what Government want them to do, irrespective of which party is in government, will he keep a close eye on it so that it does not waste the money that it did on BSF, and spend a million on architects when it comes to bidding for money for extra places?
Michael Gove
As my noble Friend Lord Adonis has pointed out, education in Birmingham needs many things to change, and I suspect that the hon. Lady and I know just how much change is needed.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s focus on special schools will be particularly welcome to the Ridgeway, St John’s and—oh my goodness. [Interruption.] The Grange, Ridgeway and St John’s—I am terribly sorry, Mr Speaker, I shall not live that one down. May I ask my right hon. Friend, particularly on the issue of capital allocations to schools that are transitioning to academies, for an assurance that the scheme will not be used by local authorities in any way, shape or form as a brake on the decisions by those schools to become academies?
Michael Gove
That is a very fair point. I have sought in the consultation—and we will seek in the decisions that we make—to be absolutely fair and balanced. It is no secret to anyone in the House that I am a great champion of school autonomy and I am critical of local authorities that have not done their job well. However, local authorities have a vital role to play in future, which is why the huge increase in basic need funding will go directly to local authorities, which are best placed to make those decisions. That balanced approach, encouraging autonomy while respecting local authorities’ critical role, is the right way forward.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is deeply insulting to parents who have wanted a community secondary school for their area for more than 20 years to hear the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) criticise Bristol free school, particularly when many of those parents are frantic about the shortage of primary school places in Bristol? That ticking time bomb should not have been a surprise, given the baby boom four years ago, and the certainty that children grow up.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is incumbent on all of us to recognise that the provision of schools in Bristol has not been good enough for far too long, although recent changes have brought about real improvement. Some of those changes have been driven by councillors who have shown imagination, but they have also been driven by organisations that have helped to establish new schools and to extend the academies programme. Bristol free school should be seen in that light. It is an effort to drive up attainment in an area that has underperformed for far too long.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
There could be no greater evidence of the inequities in the funding system than the situation in the East Riding of Yorkshire and in North Lincolnshire, where per pupil funding is well below the national average. Similarly, many schools are leaking, despite the 13 years in which we were told that there was investment. Having been through the BSF process both as a schoolteacher and as a local councillor, may I have an assurance that there will be an end to all these expensive airy-fairy vision statements and massive consultancy fees, as well as perfectly functional buildings in one local authority area being knocked down only to be replaced with butterfly-shaped schools, while others in more affluent or more rural areas do not receive any money at all for their schools?
Michael Gove
That is a blast of good sense from north of the Humber. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Swindon borough council on seeking to design and build a generic modular school at half the cost of a bespoke new design?
Michael Gove
Swindon council does a lot of things right, and that is just one more.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I warmly welcome the commitment to a new national funding formula—something for which I have been calling since I made my maiden speech. Today the Secretary of State will receive a letter signed by all six Worcestershire Members of Parliament urging him to press ahead with these desperately needed reforms, and to close the appalling £1,100 gap between Worcestershire and the neighbouring authority of Birmingham. May I urge him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, did, to press ahead with the reforms and not to listen to the siren voices calling for delay?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an impressive case for Worcestershire, as do my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I am very sympathetic to the case they make.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Wiltshire schooling has long been among the least well funded in England, so I welcome the Education Secretary’s review of the fair funding formula for schools. Will he give particular attention to the challenges in rural areas faced by small primary schools—that is, those that we still have left?
Michael Gove
That is a very fair point. In our consultation we are explicitly saying that there should be a fixed sum for all primary schools, to ensure that smaller primary schools remain viable.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Woodlands school in Basildon has just received the excellent news that its much-needed rebuild is to proceed. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend to adopt a slightly more flexible approach so that if schools wish to keep some of their existing better-quality buildings they can do so, to meet local need?
Michael Gove
I absolutely support local flexibility, and I think that Essex county council has shown admirable imagination in the past in doing just that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Parents, pupils and teachers alike at the four schools in Swanwick and Alfreton in my constituency that lost their BSF funding will head into the summer in a much more optimistic mood following the announcement that there might be some funding coming their way. Will my right hon. Friend advise them on whether they should think about dusting off the radical BSF plans that were scrapped—or should they perhaps be looking for a simpler and more cost-effective approach to replace buildings that are in desperate need of rebuilding?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I press the case for Northamptonshire, where the number of primary school places is struggling to catch up with population growth that is among the UK’s fastest?
Michael Gove
I am very much aware that all of Northamptonshire, east and west, is benefiting from population growth. It is critical that we meet basic need pressures wherever they are. They are most acute in London and the south-east, but there are many parts of the country where the population is growing fast.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I welcome this announcement. The shortage of primary school places is due in part to the baby boom, as we have heard, and it is staggering that those warnings went ignored for so long. In my constituency this has been compounded by massive residential estates on brownfield sites, leaving my schools to struggle and the situation to get worse. I urge my right hon. Friend to give due consideration to that, and to the schools that are suffering.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Our population has risen for a variety of reasons, and unfortunately the previous Government did not prioritise that in the way they should have done, but I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Leigh is now emphasising that basic need should be our shared first priority.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, especially the announcement on capital funding, and ask the Secretary of State to keep the very patient King Richard school, and other schools in Portsmouth, at the forefront of his mind as the process develops. I ask him to go further on funding reform to ensure that as well as fairness, we have more flexibility in how we spend per pupil funds in the independent sector, if that is the best provision for the child.
Michael Gove
I am in favour of more flexibility overall, but we need to recognise that money spent on state education should stay in state schools. There are many great state schools in Portsmouth, and I was fortunate enough to talk yesterday with the leader of Portsmouth city council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, and appreciate how hard he is working, along with my hon. Friend, to ensure that Portsmouth gets the support it deserves for its state schools.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In making the new capital programme more efficient than BSF, will my right hon. Friend confirm that sums of money will not be earmarked and siphoned off for things like the unnecessary IT projects that led to such cost overruns under BSF?
Michael Gove
That is a very distinguished point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). One of the problems with BSF is that £210 million was spent by local authorities on consultants, including IT consultants, and some of that money was invested in material that we would not describe as state of the art. It is critical to ensure that we get value for every penny we spend. Information technology is critical to effective learning in the 21st century, but so is ensuring that we get proper value for money.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Education Secretary will know from his recent and very welcome visit to my constituency how grateful parents and teachers will be for his announcement today about changing the schools funding formula, under which pupils in my constituency have for far too long received almost half the spend per pupil received for pupils from areas with similar levels of deprivation in other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend will also know that we have a short-term immediate problem with LACSEG funding. I seek an assurance that his Department’s officials will work closely with the local education authority to try to overcome those problems before the start of the new school year.
Michael Gove
I very much enjoyed my visit to Gloucester and Stroud on Friday, and the first thing I did when I arrived at the Department on Monday was to instruct my officials to co-operate with Gloucester city council and the Young People’s Learning Agency to ensure that we deal with this issue.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Parents in the city of Winchester will have heard his statement loud and clear, despite various other noises going on in the media today. What guidance has his Department issued to local authorities in recent years about the need to keep spare capacity in the primary system?
Michael Gove
That is a typically shrewd point from my hon. Friend. One of the problems we inherited is that under the system that prevailed under the previous Government, guidance was given in 2007 to reduce surplus places, particularly in the primary sector, and we now have a basic need problem. It is good that the Opposition now recognise that we should prioritise meeting basic need.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that Mildenhall college of technology in my constituency is one of the most dilapidated schools in the country. The skylights are falling in: it turns out that no one fixed the roof when the sun was shining. Will he give me an assurance that fixing the school will be promoted, and that a date will be set for when we can start to rebuild it, so that children can be educated somewhere they can be proud of?
Michael Gove
This will be a needs-led process. Putting the jargon aside, that basically means that the money will go to the schools in the worst condition. I hope that we will see that building commence in 2014.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the statement, and I am particularly interested in the private finance side of things, with regard to improved specification systems. Will the Secretary of State consider the need to build in more capacity when looking at the school funding formula, so that schools can plan ahead?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point from another member of the Education Committee. One of the things we want to do is to ensure that good schools can expand. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made the point earlier that when we have good schools we often find that the original pupil place planning is out of date. We need a system of school buildings that is flexible enough to accommodate parental choice.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
How quickly will many of the oversubscribed primary schools in my constituency, including Lindley junior school, which is going through a consultation on becoming an academy school, find out what share they will receive of the £500 million of additional funding for new school places?
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly his commitment to fairer funding for schools. As he will be aware, Devon languished close to the bottom of the funding league table under the previous Government. Will he assure me that he will look very carefully at the possibility of improving the relative funding for schools in Devon?
Michael Gove
I visited almost all the local authorities in the F40 area—very possibly because they contain a number of Conservative-Liberal Democrat marginals. For a variety of reasons, I want to ensure that I am fair to all local authorities, which is why we will prioritise funding on the basis of need.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The London borough of Harrow was at the absolute bottom of the queue for BSF funding, because all the secondary schools are outstanding despite being in very poor buildings. At the same time, there is a basic need case estimated for 16 forms of entry at primary school within the next four years, which is the equivalent of two additional secondary schools. How quickly can we start to see some finance flowing to get the places for the children who need them now?
Michael Gove
I hope that the finance will be flowing in this financial year. That is the intention. I appreciate that Harrow, like a number of local authorities in London, including Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham, has specific problems. We need to look at them all in the round in order to ensure fair funding for all.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
There is huge pressure on school places in the borough of Croydon, partly as a result of the UK Border Agency’s presence there, and we did not get a single penny of funding from Building Schools for the Future, so I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said. In the absence of the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), may I give a particular plug for the Archbishop Lanfranc school in connection with rebuilding?
Michael Gove
That plug has been registered, and I hope that it will appear in the South London Press and other newspapers that circulate in Croydon.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My constituency has one or two of the primary schools that are now in urgent need of repair. How long will it take before the doomsday survey of the fabric of our schools is completed and the funds are therefore available?
Michael Gove
We are prioritising that survey and we hope that it can take place within a year, but that need not mean that schools have to wait. They can make clear their specific needs and we will look at the evidence, judging school against school so that those most in need are prioritised.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
In contrast to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my constituents are passionate about a university technical school and we have put in a very strong bid because of all the benefits of vocational education that it may bring. Residents will also welcome the £500 million extra for deprived areas. Will my right hon. Friend set out how that money will be allocated?
Michael Gove
We will seek to allocate that money to the local authority areas where there is the greatest population pressure. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the principle of university technical colleges, which enjoy growing support across the House.
Mr Speaker
Let me take this opportunity to inform the House that after the Front-Bench exchanges had been completed, we had 32 minutes of questions from Back Benchers, and the pithiness of those questions and of the Secretary of State’s answers meant that in those 32 minutes we got through 44 inquiries. The Secretary of State has, I think, set a record in this parliamentary term. He has won the trophy; I hope he is pleased.
Bovine TB
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Today I am publishing the Government’s bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England. The programme sets out a comprehensive and balanced package of measures to tackle TB in cattle, badgers and other animals. Nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2010 because of bovine TB, which cost the country £90 million in the past year alone. The problem is particularly bad in west and south-west England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to being affected by the disease.
Cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions and removal and slaughter of infected animals, will remain the foundation of the TB eradication programme. Measures to address bovine TB in cattle remain the cornerstone of efforts to control the disease right across the country, and existing measures will be strengthened. Measures already introduced include a significant expansion of the areas on more frequent routine TB testing and the DNA tagging of cattle to prevent TB reactor fraud.
Planned new measures that I am announcing today include reducing compensation payments for reactor animals from herds where TB tests are significantly overdue and removing some of the exemptions to the requirement to test animals before they move out of herds under annual and two-year routine testing. The Government will work with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to promote good biosecurity and provide advice and support to farmers, as well as investing £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible. The programme also sets out the proposed way forward on controlling the disease in the badger population, including plans to license groups of farmers and landowners to carry out science-led, strictly controlled culls of badgers in the areas worst affected by TB.
This terrible disease is getting worse, and we have to deal with the devastating impact that it has on farmers and rural communities. There is also the effect on the farming economy and taxpayers. Bovine TB will cost us £1 billion over the next decade in England alone if we do not take more action. First, we need to stop the disease spreading even further, and then we need to bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. We cannot go on like this. Doing nothing is not an option. Many farmers are desperate and feel unable to control the disease in their herds. If someone has repeatedly had to send their cows to be slaughtered, one can understand the desperation that they feel. We know that unless we tackle the disease in badgers we will never be able to eradicate it in cattle. We also know that no country in the world has successfully controlled TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.
Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, and we are investing in research, but there are serious practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to dispense it. We are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but a usable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much further away than we thought, and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready. We simply cannot afford to keep waiting. We already have a robust set of cattle controls in place, but we need to accept that in some parts of the country they are not enough. Unless we tackle each and every transmission route, including from badgers to cattle, we are likely to see the situation deteriorate further.
There is great strength of feeling on this issue, and that is why I have carefully considered the scientific evidence and the large number of responses to our public consultation. I know that a large section of the public is opposed to culling and that many people are particularly concerned about whether it will actually be effective in reducing TB in cattle and whether it will be humane. I wish that there were some other practical way of dealing with this matter, but we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in areas worst affected by bovine TB.
With the problem of TB spreading and no usable vaccine on the horizon, I am strongly minded to allow controlled culling, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. Badger control licences would be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners to reduce badger populations at their own expense. In light of concerns raised in the public consultation, a number of amendments to the proposed policy have been made. Key stakeholders will now be further consulted on the resulting draft guidance to Natural England, which is the licensing authority for the culling activity. The draft guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet to ensure that any culling is carried out safely, effectively and humanely. Initially, in the first year, the culling method would be piloted in two areas to confirm the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. An independent panel of scientific experts will be asked to evaluate the pilots.
Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified from the randomised badger culling trial, we would expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years. The Government will not attempt to eradicate the disease nationally by culling, and there would be no culling over the whole endemic area at the same time. However, controlled culling can make an important contribution in the worst affected areas. In the event of a decision to permit culling following the consultation, any culling licences granted by Natural England would be subject to strict conditions, based on evidence from the RBCT, designed to ensure that culling results in an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where it takes place.
Applications for licences would be considered only for a cull area of at least 150 sq km, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient experts and paid for by groups of farmers and landowners over a minimum of four years. Farmer groups would have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs at the edge of culling areas, in order to minimise the effect of perturbation, where disturbing the badger population can cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area. If culling is ultimately authorised, we will look to the farmers involved to show that they take their responsibility very seriously and that they are committed to delivering culling effectively and humanely.
I can assure the House that I have not reached this decision lightly. I am very aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate. However, having now considered all the evidence and all the views, I believe that this is the right way forward.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Opposition know that bovine TB is a major animal health problem. We understand the desperation of farmers affected by this devastating disease. That is why, in government, Labour set up the randomised badger culling trial. It cost £50 million and remains the most extensive scientific study over a 10-year period on the effects of culling badgers, protecting cattle and reducing bovine TB. The report concluded that
“the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results…suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”
Labour’s approach in government was led by that science, and we continue to be led by it. The Secretary of State talks of a badger vaccine. However, when she became Secretary of State, she cancelled five of Labour’s six trials a vaccine for badger TB. Why did she not give those vaccine trials a chance to work?
The Government’s announcement today is led by short-term political calculation. These pilots will not change the science. The Secretary of State’s solution of the free shooting of badgers has never been tested. It is therefore not supported by the science. There is strong evidence that localised culling, which she proposes, significantly increases the TB risk in neighbouring herds, as badgers move out of cull areas and spread the disease, particularly in the first two years. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that farmers outside cull areas and non-participating farmers inside cull areas are protected from bovine TB? The scientists who met at DEFRA on 4 April 2011 stated that vaccination, which she proposes, is unlikely to be effective at reducing the risk of infection. Her impact assessment states:
“For farmers in cull areas, monetised costs exceed expected monetised benefits.”
So the costs to farmers will exceed the benefits. That is hardly a compelling case to sign up for a DIY cull.
The Secretary of State said the costs of bovine TB will reach £1 billion over the next 10 years. What estimate has she made of the reduction in that £1 billion cost to the taxpayer over the next 10 years with her proposed cull? The taxpayer will still pay for TB testing, monitoring, issuing licences and judging the scientific effectiveness of her cull. Will she tell the House how much the cull will cost the taxpayer? The science shows that there will be, at best, a 16% reduction in TB cases after nine years. Does that mean a reduction in taxpayer costs of about the same amount?
The science also states that culling must be wholesale and sustained. What will the Secretary of State do if the results of the one-year pilot show that the cull has made things worse? How will she deal with farmers who sell up, move on or decide that they no longer want to be part of the cull? Will DEFRA pay for the cull if that happens? Has the Secretary of State seen the letter in The Times of Wednesday 13 July from seven members of the original independent scientific group? It states that
“there are no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades. If the Government decides to proceed with this untested and risky approach, it is vital that it also instigates well-designed monitoring of the consequences.”
There is obviously some doubt in the Secretary of State’s mind that this is a humane way to proceed. What kind of information will reassure her that killing badgers in this way is humane? How will she monitor and measure the effectiveness of the free shooting pilots? How will she prevent the pilots from becoming an open season on badgers elsewhere in the country? The Badger Trust estimated in 2008 that there were about 300,000 badgers in Britain. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of badgers that will be culled, and of the time frame? The guidance states that the aim is to reduce the number of badgers in control areas by 70%. What measures is she taking to prevent the localised extinction of badgers? What contact has she had with the Bern convention secretariat? Does not the policy she announced today put us at risk of breaching the convention on protecting our wildlife?
The impact assessment estimates that the additional policing costs to deal with protesters against the cull will be £200,000 per year. Devon and Cornwall police are losing 700 officers over the next four years. Which Department will pay for the police required in cull areas—the Home Office, which has had its budget cut by 20%, or DEFRA, which has been cut by 30%? What advice has the Secretary of State had from the Home Office and what public order issues has it identified? Will she publish that advice for the House?
The right hon. Lady promised farmers a science-led approach on bovine TB; today she has turned her back on the science. She promised that she would do something on bovine TB; today she has shown that she will do anything. The right hon. Lady has achieved the almost impossible: with the forests sell-off, her inept handling of wild animals in circuses and now an ill-thought-out badger cull, she has shot herself in the foot not once but three times—a hat trick unmatched by any other Minister.
Mrs Spelman
This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.
The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.
The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.
The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.
The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.
On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.
The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.
Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.
I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I commend the Department for bringing forward this extremely difficult decision. May I go back to 1972, when I understand badgers were protected for the first time in this country? The badger population grew, but infections in cattle grew incrementally. I hope that the programme will recognise the animal welfare effects on farmers, who lose not just individual cattle but often whole herds. The statement partly redresses that balance.
Who will issue the licences, and what will the conditions of them be? How broad will the areas be, and what consultation will there be on the specifics of them? The report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the last Parliament made some helpful recommendations, from which I hope my right hon. Friend will take some comfort.
Turning to vaccination in the long term, will the Secretary of State address the real concerns about vaccinating cattle and the prospect of their meat not being able to enter the food chain?
Mrs Spelman
I am publishing today the draft guidance to Natural England, which contains detailed information for my hon. Friend. I expect that her Committee will want to examine the conditions of the licences in some detail, but as I have said, there must be a minimum area of 150 sq km. Natural England will consult locally on each area to be licensed.
Cattle vaccination is a very difficult issue. It is prohibited by EU legislation, and since the United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two member states that currently have TB as an endemic disease, I am sure the House will appreciate how difficult it will be to get the law changed. We first have to establish that we have a viable cattle vaccine and a viable test to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
This is a sad day for conservation and animal welfare in the UK, especially given that in 2007 the independent scientific group rejected a cull as an effective means of managing bovine TB. How has the science changed since then?
Mrs Spelman
I do not accept that it is a sad day for conservationists, of whom I regard myself as one. I think the hon. Lady will be aware that nature conservationists regularly have to cull species in the natural world. That is part of good conservation. As regards the 2007 position on the science, things have moved on. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh): in 2011 we have had the publication of the data produced by one of the original scientists, Christl Donnelly, which show that the ongoing beneficial effects of having culled the badgers in the cull area are maintained, and that the perturbation effect moves away. I think the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) will find when she reads that document that, since it has been peer reviewed by other scientists, it meets with strong support in the scientific community.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The right hon. Lady will be aware that this is a matter of immense importance to my constituency, which is in the south-west. The coalition agreement states:
“As part of a package of measures, we will introduce a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine tuberculosis.”
Science-led policy would require a thorough and rigorous evaluation of the two pilot projects of which she has spoken before the policy was rolled out to the rest of the areas affected by TB. I imagine that it might take years for the scientists to evaluate them. What form would that evaluation take, and can she give more details of what resources DEFRA will put in place?
Mrs Spelman
I commiserate with the hon. Lady on the fact that her part of the world is so badly affected. That is one reason why we want to undertake the pilots in the worst-affected areas, where they are likely to be disproportionately beneficial. I can assure her that the pilots will be rigorously evaluated by an independent panel of scientific experts, veterinary scientists, academic scientists and practitioners. However, we need to be clear that the pilots are to establish the efficacy and humaneness of this method of reducing the population, and are not about the wider question of the science, which had already been established by the randomised badger culling trial. For that reason, I do not think it is remotely likely to take years. It will be more a matter of weeks or months.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the Minister on fulfilling an election pledge, and indeed a coalition pledge, in her statement today. While other Members are elsewhere, fulfilling a media cull, it is good to see that DEFRA is going to pursue a cull of an animal that has put into our society great poison among our bovine herd. When people talk about the welfare of a wild animal, they never seem to be concerned about the welfare of our bovine herd. I am glad that we are hearing some sensible talk about protecting a multi-million pound industry, as opposed to protecting cuddly things in the countryside.
Will the Secretary of State share the basis of her scientific evidence with the Northern Ireland Executive, and with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, so that in a part of the United Kingdom where we have suffered from TB in our cattle we can see the scientific information and protect our national herd as well?
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman makes the very important point that the 25,000 cattle slaughtered just in the past year also deserve our respect for their welfare as animals.
The Minister of State has just mentioned to me that he did share our thinking on this subject with the Northern Ireland Executive in the spring, but given that we are now consulting on two pilots to examine a controlled reduction, it is important that everyone has the opportunity to learn from that science-led, evidence-based approach.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just say before I bring any more Members in that there is a lot of pressure on time, so short questions and certainly short answers will be very helpful?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for all their work in looking at all sides of this argument. In 1997, 3,700 cattle were culled because of TB. By 2009, it was 37,000, and the point that Ian Paisley made—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not meant to mention Members’ names. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his question.
Neil Parish
The number of cattle slaughtered in those years has meant huge heartache for farmers, nowhere more so than in the part of Devon that I represent. The Republic of Ireland has had a cull that has reduced by 30% the number of infected cattle, so I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement.
Mrs Spelman
I thank my hon. Friend. The figure of 37,000 cattle related to England and Wales and this programme applies to England only, but the most important point is about the spread of this disease. We have published a map to accompany this statement, and I encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to look at it and see how this disease has spread from the late 1980s to the present day: it speaks for itself.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is not this big society, badger-slaughter spree a combination of bad science and animal cruelty by the nasty party?
Mrs Spelman
That was an emotive intervention without a critical question. This is a science-led, evidence-based policy for the eradication of TB.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The decision by the Secretary of State to grasp this contentious issue will be welcomed by farmers in the west country who have been dismayed by years of dithering by the previous Government. I support the introduction of a vaccine, which we all know is the long-term solution, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the limitations of a vaccine is that it is not a cure, as it can only inoculate healthy badgers against the disease?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The life cycle of the badger is approximately four years and therefore vaccination to reduce the rate of infection is a slower method than controlled reduction by controlled shooting.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those who carry out the cull will have their names published?
Mrs Spelman
The locations will be made public, but the identities of those contracted to undertake the operation will not, for their own safety.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
In the last Parliament, as a member of the Select Committee, I welcomed the report that we published which, having looked at the evidence, decided that the approach that the Secretary of State has set out would be beneficial. Some members of that Committee went into the inquiry opposed to a cull, but came round to that view having seen the evidence. Does she agree that it would be great if those who have understandable doubts about a cull could come to rural areas, such as Cornwall, and see the devastation on the ground so that they could understand that we need to do something about this issue?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I thank him and the Select Committee on which he served, as well as the present Select Committee, for the efforts that they have put into addressing this difficult issue. However, nothing compares to visiting a farm in one of the worst affected areas and learning at first hand about the devastation and heartache that repeatedly having to send cattle to slaughter brings.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
There are some Opposition Members who do not have a romantic view of badgers, but nor do we want to see animals killed unnecessarily. As a former DEFRA Minister, I understand the pressure that Ministers are under to deal with the problem of infection in the cattle herds and among badgers. However, I do not agree with the interpretation of the science.
Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the reducing compensation for farmers, because that will be greeted with concern? This is about making the farming community observe the guidelines that some do not observe. Will she confirm that the evidence that swung her decision in favour of the cull is the latest extended evidence on the randomised badger cull, because that is a new element of science? How will she report culling progress to the House, and how often?
Mrs Spelman
To be clear, I do not have a romanticised notion either. Like anyone who loves nature, I love the badgers too, but we must be clear about the humaneness and efficacy of what we are discussing. As regards new science, the science published since 2007 by Christl Donnelly and peer reviewed is an important factor in the decision. On the compensation, if farmers do not get their cattle regularly tested in a timely fashion, as they are required to do, they will have their compensation reduced. This is a balanced package and people must take responsibility. The farming industry has shown its willingness to do that and I commend this balanced package to the House.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State expand on the criteria that will be used for granting a culling licence, and can she confirm that licences will be granted only when the recipient has a clear commitment to acting in a humane and safe way?
Mrs Spelman
I commend to my hon. Friend a good read of the draft guidance that we are issuing to Natural England today, which is worth reading. It is very detailed and there will be a nine-week consultation period. Of course it requires those carrying out the controlled reduction to do so in an effective and humane way.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that the status quo is not an option, but I am concerned that the vaccination programme will be put on the back burner. She said that she was concerned about Europe: can she assure me that the programme will carry on and be developed as a useful tool to eradicate TB, in Wales as well as England? Is she talking to the chief scientists in the devolved Administrations?
Mrs Spelman
I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on that point. Not only are we putting resources behind the ongoing research and development required for an oral badger vaccine and a cattle vaccine, but both the Minister of State and I have been to see the relevant commissioner at the European Commission to discuss how we can accelerate an acceptance at the European level of the need for a change in the law to allow the vaccination of cattle. The £20 million that we have committed to vaccines over the next five years is evidence of how seriously we take that quest.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I warmly commend the Secretary of State for having the bravery to tackle this dreadful disease, which has heaped so much misery on farmers and indeed badgers. She will be aware that under the Labour Government 275,000 cattle were killed, some needlessly, at a cost of £700 million to the taxpayer. We owe it to farmers and wildlife—and above all to taxpayers—to get on with this job efficiently.
Mrs Spelman
As I have made clear, if we do nothing the bill for the taxpayer will mount to £1 billion over the next 10 years. That is a significant fact and we owe it to the taxpayer to try to do something about it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It has been obvious to those of us who attend Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions that the Government have intended for months to sneak this statement out on the last day before the recess. That is because the Secretary of State knows that the science does not support culling or the new blood sport that she has just created. When will the Government stand up to the farming lobby and tackle the impact of cattle movements and farmers allowing cattle that they know to be infected to go to market?
Mrs Spelman
It is clear that we have taken our time on this decision because it is important that we make the right one. We have taken more time than we originally intended to listen to all the stakeholders involved—some of them more than once. We wanted to make an oral statement and the decision is in our business plan for July. I have therefore come to make that oral statement.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
May I urge the Secretary of State to ignore the advice from the Labour party, which failed to act decisively when it was in power and instead allowed the problem to escalate?
Mrs Spelman
Perhaps more than anyone in the Chamber, I understand how difficult this decision is to make—because the Secretary of State has to make it. I have weighed the arguments and deliberated carefully. I am, of course, sympathetic to those who always have animal welfare uppermost in their minds. So do I, and that is one of the factors that I weighed in my consideration. However, I do feel that the decision we have announced today is the right one.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Is the message that the Secretary of State is sending out today not highly likely to be seen as a green light to an increase in small-scale illegal badger killing that in turn is likely to increase the incidence of cattle TB, and will she acknowledge that there is significant scientific evidence countering the evidence that she has cited today?
Mrs Spelman
I want to make it perfectly clear that the badger remains a protected species and that those caught culling them illegally face severe penalties. That remains in place. Today we are asking Natural England under licence to consult farmers consortia to undertake a controlled reduction of the badger population in a careful, effective and humane way. On the science, I think that we have been through this argument several times already. I recommend that the hon. Lady read the latest scientific evidence, peer reviewed, by Christl Donnelly, on the outworking of the random badger culling trial post-2007.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
As I represent a constituency in the south-west, I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement. It sometimes takes courage to do the right thing in politics—and she has shown that courage. My farmers will be eternally grateful for this decision. Does she agree that there is not a country in the world that has tackled bovine TB successfully without getting on top of the reservoir of that disease in the wildlife population?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is right about other parts of the world trying to eradicate TB in the cattle population. Possums had to be culled in New Zealand, feral buffalo in Australia, and white-tailed deer in America; and badgers in Northern Ireland had to be culled in order to reduce the rate of infection in the wildlife population. No country has succeeded in eradicating the disease without doing that.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that in Wales a legal challenge in June stopped the badger cull, as a result of which an advisory committee on the science has been established. What contingency plans has she made for a legal challenge to this announcement? If the Welsh Assembly’s assessment is that the science shows that culling does not work, will she revisit her decision?
Mrs Spelman
One of the reasons we have taken our time to weigh up this decision carefully is that there is, as we acknowledge, a risk of a legal challenge. We are piloting reduction by controlled shooting and evaluating the results in part to establish the evidence base for our decision. I have done all that I can to deal with a potential legal challenge. The pilots themselves will prove whether the method is effective and humane.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
May I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on the courage she has shown in making this difficult decision and on making this balanced statement to the House today? Can she confirm that at least one of the pilot areas will be in Devon, which is one of the hot spots for bovine TB?
Mrs Spelman
I cannot confirm the location of pilots yet because the industry has not made such proposals to me. It is important to define pilot areas with boundaries so that the perturbation effect can be minimised.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I think that the Secretary of State has a curious way of showing her love for badgers and her desire to protect them—by introducing a new blood sport. I hope that the pro-blood sport influences on the Government Front Bench are not behind this decision. Does she accept that culling badgers will not solve this problem? The scientific evidence suggests that it will actually increase the likelihood of bovine TB. Bad husbandry can be a reason for the spread of bovine TB, too, so will she explain to the House why she is rejecting the scientific evidence suggesting that a cull will not work?
Mrs Spelman
Nature conservation includes the controlled reduction of species in nature. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would give me that as a fact. I beg to differ, however, on the science. The randomised badger culling trial showed in the initial period that if the badger population is controlled within a confined area under controlled conditions, the population is reduced and a significant reduction in TB breakdown of herds can be achieved. The subsequent outworking of that trial shows that that benefit lasts.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement because it shines a spotlight on the fate of cattle and the impact on farmers and rural areas. I thank her for the statement. Does she have any thoughts on the evaluation of the vaccination being developed in my constituency and on how long it will take to produce results?
Mrs Spelman
There have been trials in my hon. Friend’s constituency on the deployment of the injectable vaccine. That is all there is available to tackle badger TB. I have seen the trials for myself. They have concluded that it is possible but impractical and certainly difficult to make affordable. We have established through those trials the practicalities, and that was what was being undertaken in his constituency.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of her own expert wildlife crime unit that the free shooting of badgers presents a very real danger of persecution being carried out under the pretext of culling?
Mrs Spelman
I think that those assumptions were made before we published the detailed guidance today. I recommend to her the guidance that we have issued to Natural England because it shows precisely the controlled conditions we propose would be required for licences to be granted in order to minimise risks to public safety and maximise the effectiveness and humaneness of this approach to dealing with badgers.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I realise that many of my hon. Friends who represent farming communities feel strongly about this issue, but I hope they will accept that my constituents are likely to be concerned about what the Secretary of State has announced. The key thing is that policy is determined by scientific evidence, so may I encourage her to publish a plain English version of the evidence that she alluded to in her statement?
Mrs Spelman
I would be happy to do that. My hon. Friend’s constituents might be reassured to know that nine of the scientists—most of them involved in the original randomised badger culling trial—have agreed on one version of the truth and the facts relating to that scientific exercise. They are the facts that I have set out today: with a controlled reduction in the badger population in a confined area it will be possible to reduce significantly the number of TB breakdowns.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I represent the area in the Northern Ireland with the highest level of bovine TB in the whole Province, where it is a devolved matter. I welcome her commitment to sharing the information with other devolved regions. It is good news. Will she agree to work with other regions in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—to ensure a concerted and concentrated eradication of bovine TB across the whole of the UK?
Mrs Spelman
Of course, and in the interests of the respect agenda in particular, we would be keen to work with the other devolved regions. However, it is also important to point out that Scotland is currently TB-free, and I expect that it would want us to do all that we can to ensure that that remains the case.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that badgers infected with TB and with TB lesions in their kidneys excrete large amounts of TB on to grass? We all get many letters from constituents asking us to ensure that cows have access to grass and are not reared on large factory-scale farms, so surely controlling bovine TB is an important way of ensuring that grass is safer for cows to eat.
Mrs Spelman
Of course, my hon. Friend has a professional background that helps her to understand epidemiology. However, the important point is that it is beyond doubt that there is transmission between badgers and cattle. The fact that they share pastures and fields means that they can pass the disease between them in the way she has described. Even the Badger Trust would acknowledge that the disease is passing from badgers to cattle, as well as from cattle to cattle. Controlling the badger population in a particular area in the way I have described should indeed help.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State publish any advice she has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers on public order issues arising from this decision?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
For more than a decade, it has seemed obvious to many of us that an effective pilot badger culling scheme is needed to help develop a policy to tackle the bovine TB catastrophe, for the benefit of both cattle and wildlife. However, we know that there will be a well-funded, well-organised campaign of opposition. What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the legal pitfalls that scuppered a project by the Welsh Assembly Government a few years ago to carry out a similar policy?
Mrs Spelman
We have been following that closely, which is one of the reasons why we are proceeding with two pilots to establish the efficacy and humaneness of controlled shooting as a method of controlling the population of badgers in the affected areas. The measured approach that we are taking to rolling out the scheme is important in sustaining the Government’s case.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. She is clearly doing the right thing, albeit acknowledging that it will not necessarily be the popular thing among large parts of the community in this country. I have seen the suffering of badgers and cattle at first hand, so can she assure me that accurate information about the appalling suffering inflicted by this disease will be widespread, and say why the science-led approach is absolutely necessary?
Mrs Spelman
Yes, I can give that assurance, and the industry, too, will provide many examples of the human angle in the devastation suffered. I invite those who do not support the approach we are taking to think what the alternative is, in the absence of a viable vaccine at this point in time, to help to combat a disease that has devastated so many lives and so much of the countryside.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the serious focus that she is showing on this issue. However, in Cumbria, which has been largely TB-free, we are now under threat. Recent incidents have arisen from dealers moving infected cattle from infected areas into Cumbria. May I urge the Secretary of State please to look at what we can do to prevent that from occurring in the future and, in the meantime, to encourage auction houses to let farmers know before they buy cattle whether they have been in an infected one to two-year testing zone in the previous six months?
Mrs Spelman
This is a balanced package of measures for the control and eradication of TB in cattle, and at its foundation are cattle movement measures. My hon. Friend is quite right, and we are looking to tighten up on pre-movement testing. We have already introduced an expansion of areas for more frequent testing. We are extending the use of gamma testing, and we will be strengthening enforcement of TB surveillance and control. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are tightening up on cattle movement as an integral part of this package of measures.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2011
Finance Act 2011
European Union Act 2011.
Point of Order
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that on 8 July, the Prime Minister held a press conference during which he said that he had instructed or commissioned a private company to do a basic background check on Andy Coulson, but he did not mention the name of the company. Following the statement made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport at the beginning of the following week, I asked for that name to be released. However, it was still not released, so I tabled a written parliamentary question later that day, for answer on the Thursday. On the Thursday the answer did not come back. It has still not come back today, and No. 10 is refusing to issue or release the name of the company that carried out the basic background check. Is there any way that we could encourage the Prime Minister to fulfil a basic duty?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
What I can say is that it is not for the Chair, and my advice would be to go and see the Table Office. However, I am sure also that No. 10 will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and there will be an opportunity tomorrow to catch Mr Speaker’s eye.
Betting Shops
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to create a new planning use class for betting shops which would require the granting of planning permission; to provide that local planning authorities assess demand for betting shops when considering applications for premises in that planning use class and place a cap on the number of betting shops for which planning permission may be granted in any area; and for connected purposes.
In 2005, the Yellow Pages business directory created a league table for high streets in London. Deptford high street came first, beating Kensington high street into second place as the most diverse and vibrant high street in London. It is full of colour, and noise and smells, and people who originated in every part of the globe. It is not precious, and never pristine. Some establishments have been there for over a hundred years, such as Manze’s Pie and Mash; others are much newer, such as the Train Carriage café. Deptford high street is much loved by locals, and its diversity is a matter of pride.
But a change is being brought about in Deptford high street. It is unsolicited, unwelcome, and out of control. Betting shops are proliferating, squeezing out diversity and attracting antisocial behaviour. Again and again, when a property becomes vacant, another betting shop chain bids for the premises. Such properties have included some of the high street’s most iconic buildings. I am not opposed to betting, and it is clear that many of my constituents use such facilities; rather, it is the number of betting shops that is the problem and the lack of any opportunity for local people to have a say on the profound changes affecting their environment. That is why I am introducing this Bill today. It seeks to make a simple change to the planning laws, to put more power into the hands of local people.
Let me first pay tribute to the interest that Lewisham council has taken in this matter. In 2009, the council developed a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 for a change in the law. It had responded to local protests in Brockley in 2008 against a betting shop, and had turned it down. The bookmakers won their case on appeal, although the appeal judge said that had he been allowed to take demand into consideration, he might have refused the appeal. In its submission, the council said:
“The Gambling Act had what we believe was the unintended consequence of disempowering communities and local government by removing the ‘demand’ criterion for new bookmakers’ premises and replacing it with criteria including the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people which, while welcome, have proven ineffective in preventing unpopular applications being allowed and which allow no consideration of the number of existing bookmakers.”
Clearly those unintended consequences were not spotted in time, and Lewisham council was not successful in its bid to change the law.
A turf war is now under way, as bookmakers, including new entrants, seek to seize market share. The matter was aired again in an Adjournment debate on 24 November last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), to whom I pay tribute for leading this campaign. He is one of my Bill’s sponsors today. He graphically described the effects of betting shop proliferation in Haringey, saying:
“Cultural landmarks that have been anchored in our communities for decades are evaporating and betting shops are opening in their place…The latest application for a betting shop on Tottenham High road—the 10th along that stretch of road—would mean a betting shop replacing one of the most famous independent music shops in the north London area.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 403.]
In the same debate, the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), another of my sponsors, reported on a similar problem arising in her coastal towns, indicating that this is not just an inner-city problem.
Let me now return to Deptford, and to the latest campaign, led by my constituent, Ms Sue Lawes. About 1,000 individuals, alongside shop owners and other local businesses, rejected proposals for a Betfred to replace a building society. Ms Lawes said in her letter to the planning department:
“On behalf of the petitioners I strongly object to this application since it will be the eleventh betting office in the vicinity of Deptford high street, the eighth actually on the high street, and the sixth within a 150m stretch that already has five other betting establishments, two pawnbrokers and one money lender. As an A2 use, like banks and building societies, they”—
that is, Betfred—
“state that they expect to attract footfall throughout the day. However, very unlike banks and building societies, they also expect to attract footfall in the evenings, as well as weekends, especially Sundays. This does not sit well with residents, many of whom have signed the petitions or have written their objections.”
Clearly, something must be done.
In response to the Adjournment debate to which I have already referred, the Communities and Local Government Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) told my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham that
“a localism Bill will give local authorities more discretion in regard to the way in which they reflect local need in the planning process. Before too long, we will present proposals relating both to the Bill and to associated planning reforms. I do not suggest that that will automatically provide a silver bullet either, but we will keep these matters under review.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 410.]
Since then, the Localism Bill has passed through this House, during which process another concerted effort was made by Labour Members to get amendments accepted on Report. New clauses 30 and 31 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and supported by me. Amazingly, for a Government supposedly committed to empowering local people, Tories and Lib Dems voted down the new clauses.
The Bill that I present today mirrors those new clauses. Taking betting shops out of their current place in use classes order A2 alongside banks and building societies would make it possible to make planning judgments appropriate to the local area. Local planning authorities would be able to assess demand for betting shops, and indeed place a cap on the number of betting shops for which planning permission may be granted. This simple measure would not inhibit the industry from creating a natural spread of outlets, but it would give some hope to areas such as mine, in which extreme clusters are totally unacceptable.
Deptford is the 87th highest in the indices of multiple deprivation. The two wards surrounding Deptford high street are among the top 10% for deprivation in the country, and those in work are earning below the London average. Sadly, we have high levels of substance abuse, addiction and mental illness. Is this really a community that needs 11 betting shops, or is it a community that is being cynically exploited by corporate business?
Overall, however, Deptford is a vibrant and resilient community. It has an amazing arts and cultural scene, including the annual Deptford X festival. Over the past 10 years, I have campaigned for a new railway station on Deptford high street, and in April I cut the first sod. Developments around the station are under way, and much investment is in place. Given all this community endeavour, it cannot be acceptable that bookmakers should be allowed, in the pursuit of their own profits, to trample over the wishes and aspirations of the local community. I urge Ministers, as they undertake their review of the use class order system, to give my local constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members much-needed control over their local environment, and their local representatives the power to respond to local demand. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has spoken with great enthusiasm, passion and obvious care about her constituency. Because of other business taking place in one or two Committees here today, I do not intend to divide the House on the Bill, but I want to put forward another way of looking at this issue that might not have been considered.
First, I want to look at what betting shops are. They are no longer the seedy establishments that they might once have been. They are places where people can have an innocent flutter on the grand national, on the Cheltenham gold cup—which takes place in my constituency—on the Derby, or on the 2.35 at Lingfield on a rainy Tuesday. The betting industry, of which the shops are obviously a part, supports more than 40,000 jobs across the country. In addition to corporation tax, they pay extra betting duty, and all that tax put together amounts to £700 million being paid to the Exchequer every year.
The betting industry also pays the horse race betting levy, which goes a long way towards funding the sport of horse racing, which is the second most popular spectator sport in the UK, and employs many thousands of people on top of those employed directly by the betting industry. Betting paid £60 million to racing through the levy in 2010-11. On top of that, the industry pays millions of pounds in voluntary contributions as sponsorship of the sport.
It is important to look at where that money from betting shops goes. Yes, some of the money from those bets goes to prize money for the top races such as the grand national, but it also goes to many races that are worth less than £2,000. That money in turn is redistributed to trainers, and to jockeys and stable staff, many of whom are not very well paid at all. It also funds training and education, including the schools programme. It pays for integrity and regulation in horse racing, which keeps the sport clean. It pays for veterinary education, science research and advances in science. It is not only prize money that the betting shops pay for; they also fund the education of youngsters. There are moves to change the way in which the levy system works, but the betting industry will, without doubt, continue to contribute towards horse racing in a big way. There is an awful lot more to the role of betting shops than might meet the eye.
The Bill would introduce a planning requirement that applies to very few other businesses. First, it would restrict the number of betting shops in a particular area, although competition is hardly ever considered to be a valid planning objection. The Bill would also require an assessment of the demand for extra shops, but surely the person or company proposing to open the business will already have carried out such an assessment. The Government are now proposing to refine the planning guidance that they issue, but I hope that they will not be tempted down the road of preferring one business to another. I do not believe that that is the role of the Government.
The argument for restricting the number of betting shops is based on the so-called proliferation of problem gambling, but that problem does not exist. With less than 1% of those who gamble being defined as having a problem, the UK is way down the list in the international league of countries that might have problem gambling. It is also wrong to suggest that there has been a proliferation of gambling itself. It is important to remember that the amount of money that people gamble is not the most important statistic; the important measure is the amount that people lose, and that is not a problem for very many people in the United Kingdom at all. Nor is it the case that two shops operating on a high street instead of one would lead to double the amount of money being gambled in that area, because the law of diminishing returns will set in. Even so, the number of betting shops across the country has fallen from about 15,000 in the 1980s to about 8,800 today. That is almost a halving of the number of betting shops in the country. Indeed, in the right hon. Lady’s own area, I understand that there has been an overall fall in the number of betting shops. I also understand that Haringey council has recently refused a number of applications for betting shops, so the power to turn down those applications already exists.
Nevertheless, it is important to say that the betting industry contributed £5 million last year to support the research, education and treatment of problem gamblers, and that the Gambling Act 2005 requires the vast majority of betting shops to have an operating licence, a personal management licence and a premises licence before they can start trading. There are a number of safeguards in place—and quite rightly so.
To conclude, we have betting shops and the industry more generally paying a lot of money in taxation; employing thousands of people; funding horse racing and its associated activities, some of which involve education; and, yes, responding to market need. I thus ask where is the problem that requires even more nanny-stateism, even more needless regulations and even more costs to be added to businesses and local authorities? I would suggest that the problem is not there. With great respect to the right hon. Lady who is trying to introduce this Bill, it represents a solution looking for a problem. As such, although I will not divide the House, for the reasons stated earlier, if the Bill makes progress I will seek to oppose it in its later stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joan Ruddock, Debbie Abrahams, Heidi Alexander, Tom Brake, Mr Mark Field, Mike Gapes, Mr David Lammy, Tony Lloyd, Mr Andrew Love, Caroline Lucas, Tessa Munt and Mr Virendra Sharma present the Bill.
Joan Ruddock accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 223).
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been the manner of the House that, before making a speech, one declares an interest. We have just heard a speech by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and it is my understanding that he has a role supported by the betting industry. It should have been declared before his contribution, which, frankly, felt like a speech that had been written by the industry itself.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for each Member to decide whether they feel it is relevant to declare their interest.
Mr Laurence Robertson
I made the speech, and I think most Members would understand that I came from a horse racing background. I am indeed joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, but that group is not supported by bookmakers.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I think that answers the point of order. I want no more points of order on that subject.
Tony Lloyd
On a different point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It used to be the convention of the House that when a Member opposed a ten-minute rule Bill, they took that opposition to a vote. Will you consider whether that practice should be reinstated, Mr Deputy Speaker? Quite frankly, it is a waste of the House’s time for somebody to oppose my right hon. Friend’s Bill today, but not to seek to divide the House so that the opinion of Members can be tested.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can reassure the hon. Member that that is not the case. It has always been an option not to seek a Division. Furthermore, we are now eating into the debate by raising points of order rather than making good progress. I want us to make some progress now.
Backbench Business
Summer Adjournment
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thought that this moment would never arrive. A total of 66 Members want to participate in the debate, including our newest Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie)—who is hoping to make his maiden speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is unfortunate therefore that two Government statements, important though they both were, have taken almost two hours out of Back Benchers’ time. To set an example of brevity and to prepare us for all the constituency carnivals and fairs at which we will be spending most of our time during the recess, I hereby declare the debate open.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We are now coming to a maiden speech, and I remind hon. Members not to intervene on it.
Business, innovation and skills
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate to make my maiden speech. I regard it as both a privilege and an honour to represent the constituency of Inverclyde. My constituency has been served extremely well by many accomplished individuals; however, I am only the second Member for Inverclyde to have been born in Inverclyde. The first was, of course, David Cairns.
My two immediate predecessors in my seat, which has often had its boundaries changed, were Dr Norman Godman and the late David Cairns. Dr Godman served in the House for 18 years, and his hard work and enduring commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland earned him a great deal of respect and admiration. David Cairns was an excellent MP for Inverclyde; his parliamentary career was cut all too short by his sudden death, and I am well aware of the great respect that all parties had for David, as did the people of Inverclyde, as reflected in the large majority he held in the 2010 general election. If I can serve my constituents half as well as David, I shall be doing well indeed.
Like David, I was born, and for a time grew up, in a small part of Inverclyde. It is, I think, unique that an area of Greenock known as Broomhill should produce two MPs virtually from the same street. Back then Greenock’s population was growing, and my parents, guilty of participation in the ’60s baby boom, moved to a bigger home in the new housing being developed in the south-west of Greenock in the appropriately named Fancy Farm. Its housing was truly both modern and very fancy indeed, boasting electric underfloor heating, and even a rear door to the home.
My constituency is now composed of the towns of Greenock, Gourock and Port Glasgow, as well as the villages of Inverkip, Wemyss bay, Kilmacolm and Quarriers. We are surrounded by some of Scotland’s most stunning natural beauty. From the Lyle hill in Greenock, one can look down to Gourock’s Cardwell bay and watch the ferries head off to Argyll. Stunning views can also be enjoyed from the amazing engineering feat that is the Cut—a waterway cut into the hillside some six miles in length, with a precision gradient that offered steady and constant water power to our industries of the 19th century.
As anyone who recently visited Inverclyde in the by-election will confirm, at times it seems we do get more than our fair share of rain—an abundant energy source, water. From the Cut we can look across the Clyde and see the Gareloch, the Holy loch and Loch Long. Beyond the Rosneath peninsula lies Ben Lomond and the majestic Lomond range. To the west there is the unmistakeable figure of the Sleeping Warrior of Argyll, and to the south lies the Burns country of Ayrshire.
Our history is the history of the River Clyde—the lifeblood of my constituency. We continue to be a maritime people, either seafarers or shipbuilders, and two of our most historic sons are connected in that way. One of them, the great inventor and scientist James Watt, who captured the power of steam, was sought after by leading authorities in industry; the other, the pirate Captain Kidd, was just sought after by the authorities!
Shipbuilding was, not surprisingly, our dominant industry over the last 300 years. We built the finest ships ever to set sail. Even today, many years after shipbuilding is all but gone from my constituency, Clyde-built ships can still be seen travelling the oceans—testament to quality in design and craftsmanship. It took us a long time to recover from the devastation of the closure of our shipyards. The cruise ships that visit the deep ocean terminal in Greenock no longer carry the label “Clyde built”, but are increasing in number year on year, bringing tourists into the west of Scotland. Again, the River Clyde seems to be playing its part in—we hope—delivering a new industry, tourism.
Only two weeks ago Inverclyde welcomed the tall ships race, a four-day celebration of all things maritime, and our young people took the opportunity to volunteer to help with that great event. Indeed, some sailed on the tall ships as crew to the next port of call. We have found that they return the better for the experience, motivated and energised, and ready to contribute positively to our communities.
Inverclyde has also shown its resourcefulness and determination to apply itself to new emerging industries and technologies. The 1980s saw us pioneer the mass production of the personal computer, adapting our skills to revolutionise the speed of communication across the globe once again, as once our ships did. A Labour Secretary of State for Scotland had the good sense some 50 years ago to persuade IBM to set up a plant in Greenock. IBM Spango Valley, which lies between Greenock and Inverkip, was to write itself into history as the venue where the world was first introduced to the mass-produced personal computer. So Inverclyde embarked on a new journey building and exporting computers, earning itself the title of the export capital of Scotland. A short distance from Spango, over the hill in Larkfield, ground-breaking work on processors by National Semiconductor pioneered the way for much of today's hand-held technology.
Unfortunately, with the decline in electronics Inverclyde again finds itself in the shadow of rising unemployment. Notwithstanding the delivery of new school buildings, new housing and modern leisure facilities, unemployment stubbornly remains our biggest challenge. On average, more than 30 people are chasing every job vacancy in my constituency, and an even higher average number of young people do so. That is an appalling and depressing level of unemployment. To retain and attract population growth we need employment, and a variety of employment, giving opportunity and hope, especially to our young people.
Full employment is a great and fine principle, as enunciated in the House by Keir Hardie when he spoke of the right to a job. The people of my constituency ask for the right to work: they are social people, who truly believe in a society in which all have a job, and they believe that it is the duty of Government to deliver full employment.
The number of tourists on the last cruise ship that visited Greenock was greater than the combined number of votes—3,000—for the Government’s candidates in Inverclyde’s by-election. It would seem that the people of Inverclyde need a lot more convincing that their ship has indeed come in.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Time is pressing, so I am introducing a four-minute limit.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and commend him on his maiden speech. It was good to hear from a Member who, like me, was born in the constituency that he represents. Given his description of his constituency’s stunning natural beauty, it clearly has similarities with Cleethorpes.
I will be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker. The economy of northern Lincolnshire could be described as “stuttering” at the moment. It has taken many knocks, but it has the potential of a new dawn from the renewables sector. Despite its name, Cleethorpes is a highly industrialised constituency, containing Immingham docks and much of the Humber bank. Associated British Ports operates the Grimsby-Immingham docks complex, which is the largest in the country. However, expansion and regeneration are being held back by transport infrastructure that is in urgent need of improvement.
The northernmost town in my constituency is Barton-upon-Humber, which is just 20 minutes’ drive from the centre of Hull, but Humber bridge tolls are a tax on jobs. The free movement of labour is restricted. It is totally unrealistic to expect someone in Barton to accept a job in Hull paying the minimum wage, and even more unrealistic to expect people to take part-time work.
The hopes of all local people are resting on the current Treasury-led review, which is due to report in November. The business community and local people are encouraged by the work of the review team, and by Ministers’ determination to deliver a sustainable solution that may well be based on a social enterprise model. It is essential to have lower tolls in the relatively near future; we do not want promises that may never materialise.
In the East Halton and Killingholme area of my constituency sits the site of the proposed south Humber gateway development—in which Able UK Ltd has invested £100 million—alongside the largest undeveloped deep-water channel in the UK. It is thought that £1.5 billion of private sector development may follow, much of it in the renewable sector. That would offer an opportunity to develop a cluster for the sector, involving the construction of wind turbines. The ports of Immingham and Grimsby are ideally located for the service and supply of offshore wind farms—and offshore is where we want them to be, rather than in the countryside.
A major problem with the gateway development is the bottleneck in the planning process. It has been caused by a number of Government agencies, notably Natural England. Such agencies, including the Environment Agency, must appreciate that planning issues are commercial issues, and that they must move at the same speed as the demands of investors and developers. The current leisurely pace is not acceptable.
Northern Lincolnshire has taken a bit of a body blow in recent times, with the announcement of 1,200 job losses. Many of those jobs were done by my constituents at the Tata Steel works in Scunthorpe. It is encouraging that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be visiting the steelworks tomorrow. It is also encouraging that the Prime Minister has taken an interest, and we eagerly await a meeting with him. I hope, however, that Ministers will be able to give us some confidence that not only the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, but the Government as a whole, will support the local infrastructure. The highways, particularly the A160 route to Immingham, urgently need an upgrade, and it is desperately important for that to be included in the first phase of the next building programme. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that he will press our case with transport Ministers at the earliest opportunity.
The area is building itself up for the renewables sector. There are great training prospects at the Grimsby institute, Lincoln university and other institutions—
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on his eloquent and passionate maiden speech. Having made a maiden speech myself only two months ago, I can imagine the relief that he is feeling now that he has got through it and sat down, but his speech was excellent. I am also pleased that I am no longer the new boy in the House.
I welcome the equality impact assessment that was published yesterday. I think that some Opposition Members would have preferred it to have appeared a little earlier, but we are none the less grateful for its publication in time for this debate. I also thank other Members who have secured debates on English for speakers of other languages—commonly known as ESOL.
As many Members will know, Leicester is a richly diverse city, and for that reason the changes in ESOL provision are causing much concern in areas throughout the city, including my constituency. Five thousand learners in Leicester, 2,000 of them in Leicester South, have benefited from ESOL provision in the past year, with some degree of fee remission. A total of 1,500 learners were enrolled in the Leicester adult skills and learning service, 84% with fee remission, of whom 75% were not receiving work-related benefits. As the equality impact assessment showed, many of those people are women. That does not surprise me, because when I visit providers, such as Highfields youth and community centre, I am particularly struck by the number of low-income women, usually from Asian or African—particularly Somali—backgrounds, who are benefiting from ESOL provision.
Women have told me moving stories about how they would never leave the house before they went on ESOL courses, but had to wait for their husbands to come home. Other women have told me of wanting to help their children at school. Given that Leicester has one of the highest levels of child poverty in the country, I think that the ability of a mother to help her child at school is vital. As we know, education is the fastest route out of poverty for many of those children.
I have also heard stories of men and women who have moved into work, and even started their own businesses, after taking ESOL courses. As a result of the state’s investment in them, they are now investing in the local economy by employing people. Although I understand that ESOL provision will be maintained for those receiving jobseeker’s allowance and other active benefits, colleges and providers fear that following the cuts they will no longer be able to sustain courses this September.
For example, on the St Matthew’s estate there is a course just for Somali women. Its providers are worried that the course will have to end this September if the Minister does not change his mind. Although I have not met the Minister directly, I know he has met many Members, and I appreciate that he has listened on this topic. In his statement yesterday he made some concessions, such as saying he wanted to provide more support, but there is still a lack of detail, so will Minister say more today about how he expects the new changes he is working on with the Department for Communities and Local Government to develop? Also, will the new scheme be unveiled by September or August?
We talk a lot about community cohesion. Indeed, when the Home Secretary launched the Prevent strategy a few weeks ago she said that this Government would
“do more than any Government before us to promote integration”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 53.]
I therefore ask the Minister this: has he discussed the impact of his ESOL changes with the Home Secretary? In cities such as Leicester ESOL is absolutely vital to community cohesion and integration. I am worried that the ESOL changes would not serve to back up the Home Secretary’s grand statement that this Government will do more than any other to promote integration. Will the Minister give us more detail in his summing up, and will he at least delay the changes in ESOL provision planned for this September? If not, I will be worried about the consequences for my constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am looking around at a very quiet Chamber, with no Members standing to indicate they wish to speak.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Before turning to the exciting subject of Swindon town centre regeneration, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on his excellent maiden speech?
We in Swindon have had our challenges. For the past five years there has been an annual drop in footfall in the town centre of about 22%. Swindon has dropped 10 places to 65th in the league table for the best places to shop, with our neighbouring competitors Bristol in 12th place, Reading in 15th, Bath in 22nd, Cheltenham in 27th and Gloucester in 107th. In 2010, 17% of retail units were empty and local Labour politicians had seemingly given up on any hopes for town centre regeneration. But fear not: all is not doom and gloom, because we have seen some dramatic recent improvements.
The local council has introduced cheaper car parking, focusing on a flat £2 for four hours. That has reversed the fall in footfall; there is now a 10% increase. Crucially, there has been a significant increase in dwell time as well. Instead of shoppers popping in to do one task, such as banking, they are now staying and spending. Café Roma in the Brunel centre has reported an 18% increase in its business, and I salute it for helping refuel our shoppers. The new £10 million central library has been delivered on time and on budget. There has been significant private sector investment, which shows that there is a belief in our town centre, with a £20 million investment in the Parade, and new BHS, Topshop and River Island stores opening. The dirty old canopies have been removed from the Parade and replaced at the Brunel centre, and we have a refurbished Debenhams. Some £2.8 million has been invested in public open space, improving the shopping experience to Canal walk, Regent street and Wharf green.
In Swindon, the town centre business improvement district company, which is responsible for helping traders improve their business, is making a real difference, such as through marketing support for retailers, the town centre website, the four-page monthly promotional newsletter in the Swindon Advertiser, the events it organises—including the 2010 Christmas campaign, partnered with Walt Disney World, when 20,000 visitors came to the turning on of the Christmas lights—and additional street cleaning and security. I wish those people the best of luck in their re-election campaign for a further five-year term in early 2012. There has also been a significant fall in the number of empty units. The vacancy rate in the Brunel shopping centre is now only 4%.
Turning to the future, as developers once again gain confidence and access to funding, it is essential that we are first in the queue to secure further regeneration, in particular for Union square, a £350 million scheme which is one of the largest non-Olympics construction programmes in the past 10 years, and for the College site, which was delayed at the last minute due to Labour’s wrecked economy. To help achieve that, Swindon borough council set up the arm’s-length urban regeneration company Forward Swindon.
We must also embrace the Mary Portas high street review. In particular, I fully support Mary’s mantra that customer service is king. For example, the Forum, an independent clothes store in the Brunel centre, has traded from strength to strength for over 20 years. It has managed to survive the economic cycles and relentless competition as it focuses on providing an alternative with exceptional customer service.
We can all play a part in delivering Swindon town centre regeneration. As the local MP, I will continue to champion all that is good about Swindon, and through my work on the all-party parliamentary groups on retail and on small shops, I will continue to push opportunities for retailers. Swindon borough council must remain committed to town centre regeneration as set out in the central area action plan. Local traders must continue to focus on customer service and offering alternatives to our neighbouring competition. Finally, as local residents, where possible we need to continue to support and use our town centre, building on the encouraging recent increase in footfall.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is fortunate that today’s debate follows yesterday’s ministerial statement accompanying the publication of a new equality impact assessment of courses in English for speakers of other languages. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth), I welcome its publication and I am pleased that the Minister has asked the Association of Colleges, together with Lord Boswell and Baroness Sharp, to advise on how funds can be targeted. However, I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that this is too little, too late.
Colleges have already planned their provision for September. ESOL learners who are no longer eligible for fee remission will have already decided whether they can afford to enrol on courses or continue their studies, and ESOL tutors will have made plans for the future. My first questions to the Minister are as follows, therefore: when does he expect to receive the report that he has commissioned, and why does he not delay these changes to allow him time to respond?
Not all Members will have had the opportunity to read the equality impact assessment, so it may be useful to highlight some of the key findings. Last year, there were 187,000 adult ESOL students, 68.1% of whom were female. The vast majority of them came from black or ethnic minorities. Some 42% of women enrolling on ESOL courses last year received fee remission because they were in receipt of income-related benefits. A further 2% of women and 7% of men were asylum seekers. If those learners were enrolling this year, they would have to pay hundreds of pounds towards their course costs. That is why 75% of colleges have scaled back ESOL provision. In the most basic terms, people on low incomes will no longer be able to afford to learn English. BEGIN —Basic Educational Guidance in Nottinghamshire—published its own equality impact assessment in April. It found that 73% of adult ESOL clients were from black and ethnic minorities, 83% were not on active benefits, and 84% could not afford new or higher fees.
The Government’s report summarises the evidence they received, stating that those required to contribute from August 2011 would be unable to afford to take up ESOL provision, that people will be increasingly reliant on their own families and communities to interpret for them, and that this change would deter people from accessing public services. It also stated that people would be unable to obtain work or make progress in the workplace, that parents would be unable to support their children’s learning at school, and that more would need to be spent on translation services. Members should note that the Government did not engage in an open public consultation, and by the report’s own admission it is “speculative”.
I therefore have a number of questions. The Department says that public funding should not substitute for employer investment and I agree, but what measures are the Government taking to ensure that employers do contribute to the cost of training for their workplace? What measures is the Minister taking to ensure that women learners who care for small children or dependants are not penalised for their caring responsibilities? The document also refers to the single learner support fund, but how much is available, and how much of this will be available to ESOL students? The report states that informal learning opportunities are expected to be available for older Asian learners, but what evidence supports this view?
The needs of asylum seekers do not appear to be addressed in any meaningful way, despite significant concern expressed by the Refugee Council. I know from my own discussions in Nottingham that it is vital that those who have been subject to persecution are not isolated and excluded due to lack of English. How can asylum seekers be expected to cover half their course fees when they are unable to work?
I would like to thank the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for the constructive way he has kept colleagues on both sides of the House informed about this matter, but I have to say that, despite his good intentions, I fear his Government have fundamentally misunderstood the importance of ESOL to the communities we represent, and I urge him to think again.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I declare a lifelong interest in this subject and refer Members to the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I want to talk about a tale of British craftsmanship at its best, our failure to compete and a remarkable industrial revival.
The automatic watch is almost the same now as when it was invented in 1770 and it has often triumphed over computers. For example, in 1970, after Apollo 13 was crippled by a ruptured oxygen tank, Jack Swigert’s Omega Speedmaster was famously used to time the critical 14-second engine burn, allowing for the crew’s safe return. Even today, the Omega Speedmaster is still the only watch to have been worn on the moon.
Secondly, I wish to discuss British craftsmanship. London led the world, changing the course of history in the 17th century by manufacturing accurate clocks that allowed us to sail throughout the world, trade, make maps and acquire the British empire. British companies such as Smith and Son, George Graham, Josiah Emery, and J. W. Benson forged the first clock-making industry, despite outbreaks of the plague and the great fire of London. Many hon. Members will know the story of John Harrison, a self-educated English clock maker who solved the problem of longitude and was eventually awarded thousands of pounds from Parliament.
Sadly, in the 18th and 19th centuries Britain lost its expertise. The decline of our watch industry is a British parable, just like the tin can.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend shares with me a love of watches. I know that he is also passionate about apprenticeships, so does he have anything to say about their importance in this area?
Robert Halfon
I will answer my hon. Friend in my later remarks, and I thank him for his intervention.
The decline of our watch industry is a British parable, just like the tin can and the car assembly line: we invent but others capitalise. In 1800, London was producing some 200,000 watches a year, which were exported not just to Europe, but to Russia, the middle east and even China. However, we became trapped by tradition. After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, the Swiss started to make machine-made copies of London clocks and flooded the market with cheap products. Britain responded with protectionism and price controls. We failed to compete, and our expertise was lost to Switzerland, America and even the far east.
However, there has been a revival in recent times. In 1923, the British National Physical Laboratory produced quartz oscillators, and we all know about the production of the atomic caesium clock in 1955. These are the foundation of telecommunications, satellites and space travel. Famous British household names in horology have resurfaced: Dent & Company, and J & T Windmills, which even has a factory in Essex. Today, we have one of the greatest living names in horology, George Daniels, a British man who invented the coaxial escapement, which is the first practical new watch escapement in 250 years; it is a smoother watch movement that almost eradicates friction, and it was commercialised in 1999 by Omega. Those who have done the most to support this revival in Britain are the British Horological Institute and the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. We have lost out to Switzerland and the far east, but we still have repair shops, a wealth of academic study and some ultra-high-end manufacturing.
So what is to be done? I welcome the Government’s policy on apprenticeships and the work of the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is in his place, in his promotion of craft. As I mentioned in my early-day motion 623, our funding for skills qualifications must be open to small specialist courses for industries such as horology. I strongly welcome what the Government did last year to extend funding for BHI certificates in clock and watch servicing, and repair, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his letter of support in that campaign.
However, there is a wider issue to address: many smaller qualifications are being discontinued because they are not profitable enough for awarding bodies. There are now just three horology training facilities in the UK: Birmingham City university; West Dean college; and the British School of Watchmaking. In Harlow, we are very lucky to have the Eversden family of watchmakers, and they show that in an age of digital technology there is still a public demand for the crafts of old. As George Daniels proved, there is still a demand for British horological genius. I hope that all possible support will be given to the watch-making and clock-making industry, which was once dying but is now showing signs of life in Britain today.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
In the four minutes available to me, I wish to say a few words about the extractive industries in Africa. The UK has an important role to play, because some of the large mining companies from across the world are listed in London, and that brings a certain amount of responsibility to those companies. Most people recognise that, and I have had the good fortune to have long conversations with representatives of a number of mining companies based in the UK, which, naturally, operate mainly in Africa and across the rest of the world. Most of them seem to approach their role responsibly. New measures that are emerging, such as the Dodd-Frank legislation in the United States, which increases the transparency on payments made to Governments in some of those countries, are generally accepted as very important by most of the mining organisations that I have encountered.
I have spoken before in this place about a company whose way of operating in one particular country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has troubled me. I will not go into that today, but it is good that there has been some response by all the other companies. As they have seen that debate unfold to some extent in the newspapers and in the media, they have asked to have a chat with me and some of my colleagues who are interested in the issue. I think that these matters are taken very seriously across the industry.
The Secretary of State for International Development recently made a speech at the London business school about the importance of ideas that Paul Collier, an academic, has reflected on over the years. He wrote a very famous book called “The Bottom Billion” and what he says epitomises the argument that many others have put. He says that we should help these African states, which are potentially very rich in minerals but are very poor otherwise, to benefit from extracting the stuff that is beneath the ground and sometimes beneath the sea. Of course, such countries cannot always do that for themselves and need assistance from outside companies. Standards of governance apply to those companies, both in London, if they are listed in the UK—or in any stock market, for that matter—and in the countries concerned. The transparency with which payments are made is increasingly crucial.
For example, I discovered recently a number of cases in the Congo—I shall not give the names of companies or particular mines—where it seems that a mine may have been expropriated by the Government or may already have been owned by the Government and sold on. The World Bank has an understanding that it will be told the price for which state assets are sold, because that allows us to see how much is actually going back compared with the worth of the asset. It is clear that how much has gone to the treasury from a number of sales in the DRC in the past couple of years has been far from explained. I suspect that it is a very small amount compared with the large sum—hundreds of millions—that has been made available to private entrepreneurs.
The World Bank has an understanding with countries such as the DRC that when assets are sold to mining organisations it is known how much was paid for them. That is not happening in the DRC as far as I can tell at the moment. The UK Government, to their great credit and following on from the Labour Administration, make a very large contribution each year to the DRC and to other developing countries, such as Rwanda next door. The UK Government are doubling the sum at the moment and the Labour Administration ramped up expenditure too, moving towards a figure of 0.7%, but the amount that we give in aid is dwarfed by the amount that is not accounted for when such assets are sold on. It is completely pointless giving aid to a country if we cannot be sure that we are going to get the benefits, because money is simply being extracted from another place by the sale of assets. I hope that both our Administration and the European Commission, which will introduce regulations soon, will look very carefully at that.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I very much welcome this debate and the opportunity to speak about the importance of the growth of business to our economy. In doing so, I should express a personal interest, in that I have a majority holding in a small private company.
The Government have set the stage well for business growth, in that we have at least avoided being where Greece and Ireland are and where Portugal is teetering on the brink of being. Our economy is fundamentally sound and growing. That is happening against a backdrop of our having inherited the worst budget deficit in the G7 and against the more recent headwinds of the spikes in the oil price—it has increased by 60% in the past year—and the eurozone crisis, which we are all facing at the moment. Although some of the Labour Members who are shaking their heads may disagree with that, I am sure we can all agree that if we are to move away from a debt-driven, public sector-reliant economy into manufacturing and exporting, creating private sector jobs will be vital. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that over the past year, creating 500,000.
We must do whatever we can to support business and I welcome the fact that the Government have intervened in a number of critical ways. The first is Project Merlin, which aims to get the largest five banks lending another £190 billion to small and medium-sized businesses. I know from such businesses in my constituency that that is vital and I urge the Government to maintain that progress.
I also welcome what the Government are doing about red tape through the one in, one out rule on regulation, through embracing the recommendations of Lord Young’s review, which is extremely important, and through the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning on apprenticeships, on which this Government have a particularly proud track record, much of which is down to the personal commitment that he has shown in this vital area.
I also think that Government should get out of the way of business. It is important that we get taxation on businesses down. Over the next four years, as hon. Members will know, the corporate tax rate will fall by 5%, but that is not good enough. We need to do even more. When our local and national tax rates combined are compared with those of other countries in Europe they show that we are doing pretty well: in Germany, they are at 30%, in France at 34% and we are at 26%. However, when we look further afield, as we must when we consider the competitive pressures of the future, we see that places such as Hong Kong and Singapore have combined rates of 16% to 17%. I urge the Government to keep pressing firmly in that direction.
Let me make two more important points. First, although we have avoided the worst excesses of what Labour planned to do with national insurance, although it is expensive to lower national insurance as it is one of the three great revenue raisers of taxation and although I recognise and applaud the fact that the Government have introduced national insurance holidays in most regions of this country for new business start-ups, we must do more. It is a tax on jobs and we must start to get the figures down.
Secondly, micro-businesses—those that employ 10 or fewer employees—represent 96% of the businesses in this country and employ 700,000 people. We must get the number of onerous regulations for that group down. In particular, we should consider paternity and maternity rights and the idea that employees can leave the work force for 26 weeks or up to 52 weeks-a-year and their jobs must be held open. That needs to be considered and perhaps relaxed for those businesses, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House about the impact of the Government’s plans to reduce funding for English for speakers of other languages courses, plans which undermine the Prime Minister’s own vision for community cohesion. Members will remember that earlier this year he said in Prime Minister’s questions
“we will be putting in place…tougher rules”
to ensure that
“husbands and wives, particularly from the Indian sub-continent”
do
“learn English, so that…they can be more integrated into our country.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 856.]
It is deeply irresponsible to talk tough on language skills while removing the opportunities to develop them.
When the Government’s decision on ESOL funding was announced in the skills White Paper, the accompanying equality impact assessment said of ESOL that the changes
“should result in a very small overall impact on protected groups.”
That is not an assessment that those of us who are familiar with ESOL provision would have made and I welcome the fact that the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning did not accept that either and commissioned an equality impact assessment.
We have been wanting that impact assessment to be published for quite some time and were assured in the Westminster Hall debate on 3 May that it would be
“published in good time—certainly before the summer recess”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 211WH.]
I am sure that the Minister would have wished it otherwise, but the assessment was published only yesterday, 24 hours before the start of the recess. Better late than never, but what does it tell us? On gender, nationally 68% of ESOL learners over the age of 19 are women and in my city, Sheffield, the figure is even higher, with 83% of the 3,310 ESOL learners being women. That is a much higher proportion than the 50% of women learners in further education as a whole. On ethnicity, as would be expected a higher proportion of ESOL learners identify themselves as black or minority ethnic than those in FE overall.
In Sheffield, our local college is advertising a 34-week ESOL course, starting in September, at a cost of £715. Contributing half of that sum, as would be expected under the new rules, is simply unaffordable to those who depend on those courses so the college is planning for a “huge drop” —these are the college’s words—in numbers. Women who will be affected have written to me and they describe movingly how they rely on ESOL courses to interact with each other, with society and with their children.
I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the negative impact, reflected in his Department’s own assessment, of the introduction of the changes. I welcome the fact that he is considering, in partnership with the Department for Communities and Local Government and in consultation with the Association of Colleges, ways in which the Government can mitigate that impact. I hope he will explain more about his plans to the House today and, crucially, the timetable for their introduction.
The problem is that the new rules for ESOL funding take effect in just 12 days, so I urge the Minister to give us an assurance that before the start of the new college year he will put in place measures to avert the unfair impact—or, if he cannot do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) said, I hope that he will tell us that the new rules will be put on hold.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I want to raise an issue on behalf of my constituent, Mrs Noureen Shah. She is one of several people caught in the same nightmare, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) have constituents who are also affected.
Mrs Shah was persuaded in 2006 to invest in the Cube, a development in the Westside district of Birmingham. It includes offices, an hotel and 244 apartments. Mrs Shah paid a deposit of about £65,000—her children’s legacy—and like other investors she was told that the properties would be completed in 2008. Gateley solicitors say that that is not the case and, apparently, buried in the large contract is a clause that covers delays. That is just as well, because the building contract was not let until 22 June 2007—two days before the cut-off point—which, not surprisingly, made a 2008 completion date impossible.
Early in 2010, the developers, the Birmingham Development Company, went bust and PricewaterhouseCoopers was called in as the administrator. The company was eventually restructured as Aruna Project LLP. Nearly half the investors cannot raise a mortgage because of the collapse in the value of the properties, but director Neil Edgington of Aruna is not too concerned, telling Property Week in April 2011,
“I’m sure some”—
that is, some investors—
“will need more of a nudge than others. Some people will need a bit of encouragement via the legal route”.
Such intimidation has been the hallmark ever since. Lloyds TSB claims that it is
“working closely with administrators to ensure all outstanding cases are handled fairly”,
but it appears that “fairly” means that the Cube, which started out on the loan book of HBOS, is going to be paid for by bankrupting and evicting from their own homes the small investors who have been foolish enough to believe the sales pitch.
Lloyds and Aruna are now using the solicitors Gateley to threaten those small investors. It is a disgrace, and I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State would agree to have a look at what has happened in this case.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a former college principal. As such, I am well aware of the need for local practitioners to make sense of the impact of decisions taken here on real people in the world out there. At least in the skills Minister we have someone who is truly committed to and genuinely cares about learning and learners. Unfortunately, the original decision regarding eligibility for free access to ESOL learning was probably taken to make the high level numbers add up, without the consequences being properly thought through.
The Minister’s written statement yesterday, however, makes it clear that he intends to take steps to address the shortfall in the equality impact assessment also published yesterday. I welcome this and thank him for contacting me this morning to ensure that I was apprised of the context of both documents.
A reasonable proportion of ESOL learners at North Lindsey college in Scunthorpe are currently working and already pay for their courses, so they will be unaffected by the changes. However, a significant number of North Lindsey’s adult ESOL learners, who are in low-skilled, poorly paid jobs in local factories, currently benefit from free tuition, but will not do so in future. Many of the college’s ESOL learners are highly motivated parents who learn English in order to help their children with homework and to not be reliant on them to be translators when accessing public services, such as the health clinic. Many of these mainly women learners will not be able to access ESOL and could therefore become isolated, rather than more integrated into our local community.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published the equality impact assessment yesterday, just in the nick of time to deliver the Minister’s promise that it would be published before the recess. Paragraph 53 of the assessment indicates that the policy changes
“may have a disproportionate impact on some groups or sub-groups of learners.”
Paragraphs 30 and 35 confirm that there are more minority ethnic groups and women studying ESOL than there are among FE students as a whole.
I ask the Minister to consider delaying the removal of fee concessions until a major change in the benefits system—the reclassification of claimants on to employment support allowance—is completed. The Government’s target timetable for this change is four years. The delay would allow current ESOL students on income support to remain in free provision, rather than be at considerable risk of dropping out of education for several years.
To ensure that parents are enabled to give the best possible support to their children, the Government might also consider giving all parents with children aged 0 to 7 fee concessions, regardless of their benefit status. This is essential if we want to prepare them to take an active part in their children’s education and be ready for work later on. These changes would not impact on Government budgets this year as the funds are already allocated to colleges. It is the restrictions and the changed policy in relation to ESOL that is preventing colleges from meeting those needs.
None the less, like my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government on developing new forms of community-based learning of English and working with the Association of Colleges to determine how best to target funds at settled communities where language barriers prevail. The involvement of Lord Boswell and Baroness Sharp, who are well respected and have much expertise, is also welcome.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Mr Brooks Newmark)
I begin by thanking the Chief Whip for indulging me this one time by allowing me to speak. As the House is aware, in the Whips Office we take a vow of silence, so I am particularly pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to Members in the area of business, innovation and skills, and to thank everyone for their excellent contributions. I feel a little like Garbo in her first talkie, when the next day’s headlines were, “Garbo Talks”, although when tomorrow’s press reports that “Brooks Talks”, I suspect it will not be about my performance at the Dispatch Box.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for organising today’s debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for organising the format, which I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is known as the Hollobone format, in which there is a rapid-fire series of short debates and short replies—a sort of political speed-dating, in which the Member raises his or her questions and sees whether or not he or she fancies the relevant Minister’s replies. I shall therefore do my best to make the Government as attractive as possible in relation to all the areas covered in the debate.
Before I begin my formal response to hon. Members’ contributions, I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on his excellent maiden speech, which was delivered with warmth and a deep understanding of the community he represents.
Let me respond first to the hon. Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth), all of whom rightly drew attention to the important issue of English provision to speakers of other languages. I know that hon. Members have previously campaigned on this issue and have highlighted the importance of English language provision to members of their respective communities. I am sure that they will agree that, although the ability to speak English is important to ensuring integration, if employers wish to recruit abroad—I address this point particularly to the hon. Members for Nottingham South and for Sheffield Central—they must not expect the state to pick up the cost of teaching their workers English. The reforms will target public funding to those in the greatest need and will ensure that higher standards are set for providers, thereby making ESOL provision work better for learners, employers, and taxpayers.
I am sure that hon. Members will have seen the second impact assessment, and yesterday’s written statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, in which he further clarified our policy in this important area. Members will be aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to formulate a strategy specifically to target vulnerable communities and particularly women and families who rely on community-based English language learning to help them gain access to public services and to communicate with their children’s schools. That point has been stressed by all the hon. Members who spoke on this issue. The Government are anxious to ensure that women and families do not lose out on this important provision.
My final point on this issue is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has listened to and worked with the Association of Colleges and other key providers to make sure that we make rapid progress in this area—we hope by September when we reconvene—to ensure further and better integration in our communities.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has demonstrated his lifelong interest in horology and has done much to promote that sector. I particularly appreciate his concerns about horology training facilities in the UK and the need for small, specialist courses, and I agree that we must support specialist British industries such as the watch-making and clock-making industry. I add that, although there is a British watch maker called Newmark, we are not related. My hon. Friend rightly cited the importance of the Government’s internship programme, and I assure him that the Government are exploring the opportunities for the craft sector to engage with the apprenticeship programme. I have met my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning to discuss this matter, and he will write to my hon. Friend about the progress that the Government are making to boost craft apprenticeships so that Britain will become the international centre of excellence in horology that he so rightly wants it to be.
On regulation, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) should be commended for his continued focusing of attention on the behaviour of the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, which he has mentioned in this place in the past. I particularly thank him for drawing my attention to the need for greater transparency and good governance, especially for companies dealing with developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Government expect and the law requires all UK directors of companies to adopt high standards of business conduct. We rightly focus on bad behaviour and we certainly do not condone criminal offences such as bribery or phone hacking. We need to help directors and shareholders through a strong system of corporate governance. Overall, the current system works well but needs to evolve continually to meet new challenges.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for highlighting the importance of having a strong town centre and a vibrant community, as well as for continuing to be a strong champion for Swindon and for mentioning the importance of supporting retailers and small businesses in his area. I agree that having a successful and buzzing town centre helps to create and maintain jobs in shops and offices. A vibrant town centre creates a positive image that attracts new businesses and employment. Indeed, we should applaud the work of independent groups such as Forward Swindon and InSwindon which, in conjunction with the local council, have sought to revitalise growth and prosperity in the town centre.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for focusing on Lloyds TSB and the sale of flats in the Cube in Birmingham, and for highlighting the concerns of Mrs Shah and other small investors. He raised the inability of flat owners to secure mortgages, and I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be made aware of his concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is right to raise the important issue of Tata Steel and the development of north Lincolnshire. He mentioned the importance of renewable industry in Lincolnshire and the need for improved transport links. The pan-Humber local enterprise partnership has focused on strategic opportunities growth based on renewable energy, ports and logistics, and chemicals among other things. The Humber LEP is bidding for an enterprise zone to support the creation of renewable clusters in the area. I shall of course pursue that matter with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the demands of local people and investors can be met. On Tata Steel, the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Members to discuss the issue was cancelled, and will be rearranged, as is the case with a visit by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Prime Minister has expressed disappointment at job losses resulting from reductions at Tata Steel, but he is working hard with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring a taskforce together to ensure that we do everything possible to mitigate the impact on local jobs and communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) is right to emphasise economic growth. He mentioned the importance of not driving growth with debt, and the need to reduce unnecessary regulation. Growth remains at the centre of the Government’s strategy, and the growth review will work throughout this Parliament to address barriers facing industry. The Government’s role is to create the conditions conducive to private sector investment and to make long-term choices, not offer short-term fixes. We continue to listen to businesses to understand how to help them.
Finally, on maternity and paternity leave, Government proposals will allow both parents to take an active, caring role while retaining their attachment to the workplace. Our proposals allow more flexibility, because one size does not fit all firms or families. We will work with businesses to help them to adapt to these changes. My hon. Friend made a specific point about national insurance, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is made aware of his concerns. Once again, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for arranging this debate, all the speakers for their contributions and wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members a relaxing summer break.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Thank you, Minister. Before we move to the health debate, I remind Members who are taking part that page 5477 of the Order paper states:
“Members are expected to attend throughout the debate for which they are grouped.”
That includes listening to the Minister at the end of the debate, so it is regrettable that some Members who participated in the debate that has just concluded are no longer in the Chamber. I am sure that the Whips will inform them.
Health
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
There is increasing evidence that the number of people taking part in shisha smoking is on the rise. Hookah pipes have become a regular sight on university campuses, and shisha cafés or bars are springing up across the country. I have seen evidence of this in my own constituency of Preston, and it is particularly true of young people from ethnic minority Asian communities, as shisha smoking is seen as a legitimate social activity compared with drinking alcohol. This is creating a number of issues for both the Government and local authorities. Chief among them is how best to educate smokers about the health risks associated with shisha.
First, what is shisha? To avoid confusion, let us be clear that shisha is the process of smoking tobacco through an ornate water pipe. Tobacco is mixed with fruit or syrup and then wrapped in aluminium foil before being heated by charcoal. The smoker then uses a pipe to breathe in, forcing the smoke through the water, producing bubbles, before it is inhaled. Shisha is also referred to as hookah, hubble-bubble, goza and narghile and is a common pastime in parts of Asia and Africa, where it dates back around four centuries.
There are a number of myths surrounding shisha, the most prevalent of which is the belief that it is either not a danger to your health, or much less serious than smoking cigarettes. This is simply not the case. There is of course variety in what is smoked, but in the majority of cases it is tobacco. The fact that it is flavoured or described as herbal hides the impact it can have. I stress this because reports have suggested that some people do not realise that tobacco is involved and many do not regard the activity to be the same as smoking cigarettes.
In addition, there is a belief that the process of passing the smoke through water filters out many of the harmful chemicals that are released by burning tobacco, but it does not. Shisha smokers expose themselves to nicotine, carbon monoxide, heavy metals and other cancer-causing chemicals, and they do so in much greater quantities than those smoking a cigarette. Research carried out by the World Health Organisation found that the average cigarette involves eight to 12 intakes and produces a total of between 0.5 and 0.6 litres of smoke over a five to seven-minute period. When looking at shisha, it was found that the average smoking session involves between 50 and 200 intakes, producing between 0.15 and 1 litre of smoke per intake, over a 20 to 80-minute period.
The health dangers associated with smoking tobacco are now well established. Shisha smokers expose themselves to the same risks as those who smoke cigarettes. Increased risks of heart disease, cancer and gum disease are all direct consequences of smoking tobacco. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the increasing popularity of shisha smoking as a social activity is resulting in a number of challenges. How can we effectively regulate shisha cafes and bars to ensure that they comply with the Health Act 2006? How can we ensure that safety is maintained and risks minimised?
In short, Britain is witnessing the emergence of a shisha culture. Young people from a range of backgrounds, but especially those from ethnic minority communities, are taking up shisha smoking. We need to do more to dispel the dangerous myths out there relating to shisha smoking. Today I call upon the Government to instigate a nationwide campaign, similar to that instigated by the Labour Government, to talk about the dangers of this type of smoking.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Before the House rises for the summer recess, I would like to draw attention to the importance of speech therapy and communication aids for profoundly disabled young people, and to raise a query about care home costs.
I am privileged to have in my constituency, in Ivybridge, the Dame Hannah Rogers Trust, which for over 220 years has provided education, therapy, care and respite for children and young people with profound physical disabilities. It is a genuine centre of excellence and has been rated as outstanding by Ofsted since 2006. A few weeks ago, I attended one of its special assemblies, which was designed to promote a greater understanding of the importance of electronic communication aids for people who have no other way of communicating. A number of dignitaries and members of the press were invited, along with parents and friends of the students.
During the time together at the assembly, we were given a presentation by a young man called Ben, whose sole method of communicating is by pushing a yellow button with his cheek to select certain words and phrases from his computer. In a very powerful presentation lasting about 15 minutes, he sat in his wheelchair in front of the whole assembly and told us, with a large screen behind him to illustrate his computerised words, about his family, his likes and dislikes; about his life. He told us that when we spoke to him we should look at him and not at his carer, and that when we asked him a question we should be patient when waiting for his response. I will never forget those words of guidance.
Ben did something else: he told us a joke—in front of all those people, using just his cheek, his yellow button, and his computer. I was so impressed that I promised him that I would share it with the House of Commons, and here it is: “I say, I say, I say, why did the fish blush?” “I don’t know,” came the reply, “Why did the fish blush?” “Because he saw the sea weed!” As you can imagine, the assembly dissolved into laughter. I am sure the House agrees that that would be a pretty good joke at any time, in any place, but for it to be delivered by a fine young man facing so many challenges, in a school assembly, with dignitaries and press present, was quite remarkable. I went up to him afterwards and told him that his presentation was awesome. I pay tribute to Ben, to his family and to his carers. I acknowledge the wonderful work done by Nicola Blundell, the speech therapist at the school, and her team, and of course to Dame Hannah Rogers Trust itself for so many years of astonishing service and dedication.
I intend to return to my second issue, which relates to the cost of residential and nursing care, in the autumn, but I wish to put down a marker at this early stage. It was recently drawn to my attention that local authorities are operating one set of charges for residential homes run by themselves and another, much lower, set for care homes run in the independent sector. I have taken these issues up with councils in my area and wish to share my findings with the House. In one local authority area, the going rate for a person entering one of its council-run care homes is £630 per week, while in independent homes in the same area the going rate is £429 per week—a differential of £200 per person per week. A similar disparity appears in neighbouring authorities.
My immediate reaction was to wonder why it is possible to have such a discrepancy. I have visited many care homes in the private sector and the public sector over the years, as we all have, and I would certainly not say that local authority care homes are necessarily superior. I took up the discrepancy with the council and received an interesting response:
“the £630 per week cost of in house services includes nationally agreed terms and conditions for local authority employees to include pensions, absenteeism, sickness and leave entitlements. This makes it difficult to compare rates with the independent sector.”
I do not agree with that. The Minister needs to look into this—no doubt he can do so in his thorough review following the Dilnot report on the costs of residential care—as it is something that possibly needs to be changed.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) makes the House a better place with his story about Ben. I am delighted to follow him on that basis.
I, too, want to talk about care homes, particularly in relation to Southern Cross. The House will know that not so long ago Southern Cross announced its intention to go into liquidation—to cease trading. That means that the 750 Southern Cross homes in this country now face a varied and uncertain future. Some 250 of those homes will pass automatically to landlords who intend to continue to offer care, but that means that the majority of homes, and therefore the majority of residents, are still in a kind of limbo as to what their future is. In my own city of Manchester, where the local authority has already made contact with one of the care home owners who intends to carry on the process of caring for the residents, things are proceeding in a sensible way. However, my local authority has found it difficult to have any dialogue with some of the offshore companies, which are merely rentiers, that own the property in the Southern Cross homes system but seemingly have no interest in pursuing the care packages involved.
Everyone on both sides of the House would agree that the care of the 31,000 elderly people affected should be the paramount consideration. It should not be a question of the profits of these companies. The care element must come first and foremost. A secondary issue, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon, is the important employment base involved. These homes do not exist to create employment, but they do have employees who are entitled not only to reasonable working conditions but to some certainty about continuity of employment. However, the primary need must be to give reassurance to the 31,000 care home residents that their future is secure.
In previous exchanges in the House, the Minister has rightly said that the regime that allowed Southern Cross to operate as it did was not the right one, and that people need to look back and accept responsibility for that. I absolutely agree with him.
I would ask the Minister to do two things. First, up and down this land there are people who are genuinely concerned. They want to know that the offshore landlords will not simply take the roofs from over their heads, and that there will be continuity of care. We need an absolute statement that that will be the case. I know that things have progressed with NHP, one of the property owners, and that it made a statement yesterday. We need a much more positive approach that tells people home by home, or residence by residence, that their future is secure, who their landlord will be, and how their care will work.
Looking to the future—the Minister has hinted that he is sympathetic to this—we need a system that locks in a process whereby in all circumstances the needs of the residents, not the needs of the private operator, are the paramount driving force. We must not have the kind of unseemly operation that applied with Southern Cross, where profit was filtered from the homes and some people made an awful lot of money. Those people are long gone, and the people facing uncertainty are the elderly people and their carers. I hope that they are not facing too much uncertainty, and that the Minister can put the uncertainty to rest today. We have to move on, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some clarification.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak, and for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I am unable to be here for the winding-up speech, but I have to be in Westminster Hall at 4.30.
This is an important opportunity to raise issues that are close to our hearts. I want to talk about the potential contribution of the NHS to medical innovation in the life sciences sector and in this country, and to driving economic growth. Before coming to Parliament I had the privilege of working for 15 years in the biomedical industry. It is a subject close to my heart, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise it. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My key message is that because of major changes in biomedicine and the structure of the pharmaceutical industry, including in the disciplines of drug discovery and drug development, the NHS is now one of the most valuable assets in global biomedicine. It is vital that Parliament and the Government support the NHS in unlocking that opportunity, ensure that our NHS reforms recognise and support it, and recognise the global potential of our health care sector and our NHS to drive growth and revenues around the world, which can be reinvested back into our research base.
The life sciences are an important sector in the UK. Some 27,000 people are employed in UK pharmaceutical research and development, and there are 250,000 employees in life sciences-related industries. Employees working in the highest value sectors each generate more than £190,000 in gross value added. We are of course home to GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, but we also have a range of specialty pharma, biotech, device and diagnostics businesses.
However, there is a problem: the pharmaceutical sector has been a victim of its own success. While research and development spend has doubled in the past 15 years, the rate of success in new chemical entities discovered has fallen by about a third. That crisis is driving a wave of consolidations and restructurings in the industry, some of which we have seen recently, and the rapid closure of some of the older-style, Fordist discovery structures. The increasing trend in biomedical discovery is towards patients and getting back to the places where one can observe disease and watch it taking hold in tissues. The trend is to look at anonymised, consented mass patient data to understand how it is that different patients respond differently to diseases. That is undermining the global pharmaceutical business model. These days, a one-size drug does not fit all. The industry needs to understand why it is that people react in different ways.
As the industry looks around the world for places where it can access large repositories of anonymised, consented patient data that are in the hands of world-leading clinicians and scientists with an ethical regulatory framework, this country and the NHS stand out. This is a massive opportunity for our sector and the NHS to unlock new revenues around the world. The benefits for us are obvious. We can accelerate new medical discovery, cut costs, generate new funds for the NHS and give our sector a position of global leadership. The irony and the challenge is that the NHS itself is an obstacle to the rapid uptake and adoption of some technologies and innovations because of its centralised and bureaucratic budgeting, its lack of empowered and devolved responsibility, difficulties with its reimbursement and procurement structures, which are often dominated by the bigger companies rather than smaller more innovative companies, and problems with career structures for our most innovative scientists.
I know that Ministers and officials at both the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are considering this matter. I merely wanted to take this opportunity to highlight how important it is, not just for our medical innovation and health care but for our global growth imperative, for the UK to unlock that potential and ensure that the NHS reforms, far from undermining that important sector, support it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
NHS changes and the drive to achieve efficiency savings are causing a diminution in health services in my constituency. Salford has fewer GPs than the national average, and the Little Hulton ward is in the most deprived 3% of areas for health, yet the Little Hulton walk-in centre, which has served 2,000 people a month, is set to be closed by the primary care trust—a real blow to local people.
Salford PCT has also consulted on ending active case management for people with long-term conditions. Active case management is aimed at co-ordinating health and social care interventions to prevent deterioration, enable the patient to stay at home and avoid an emergency admission. It has had positive benefits for my constituents, and the loss of that support is another blow. Health Ministers say that they are protecting NHS budgets, so can the Minister tell me why my constituents in Salford are losing those vital health services?
GPs in Salford are also in the final year of moving on to practice-based commissioning budgets, which are based on the Department of Health’s fair shares toolkit. Two local GPs have alerted me to a problem with the way budgets are calculated. Their practice had 70% of its patients from the most deprived categories, whereas another practice had only 58%, yet the toolkit weighting applied to list size gave an uplift of 9% to the more deprived population’s practice but a 21% uplift to the less deprived. We could call that a lottery within a postcode. That calculation means that the practice in the more deprived area is faced with an apparent overspend of £200,000, and that GPs have to re-examine referrals and cancel activity for patients, giving them an increased work load and potentially having an impact on treatment for patients. Will the Minister find out why the toolkit gives a smaller uplift in weighting to a practice serving a more deprived area? As GP practices move on to real budgets, getting those calculations right is vital, as is dealing with the anomaly that I have outlined.
On social care, I welcome the report of the Dilnot commission and the opportunity to deliver a settlement on the funding of care and support. We need to work together across parties to agree a solution based on the report’s recommendations, and that work has already started in Parliament. I feel that it must include an acceptance of the report’s clear finding that additional public funding is required now for social care. As the Dilnot commission says,
“the impact of the wider local government settlement appears to have meant that additional resources have not found their way to social care budgets”,
and
“the current social care system is inadequately funded. People are not receiving the care and support they need and quality of services is likely to suffer”.
Social care provision is suffering as councils struggle with the Government’s front-loaded cuts of 27% over four years, and research by Age UK has highlighted cuts of 8.4% this year in council spending on older people’s social care. The social policy research unit has projected that spending cuts of 6% to 7% would mean that 250,000 older people would lose their services, so cuts greater than that would mean more than 250,000 losing services.
Back in 2005-06, half of all councils provided support to people with “moderate” care needs, but now only 22 councils provide that level of support. In its document “Care in Crisis”, Age UK states that there are
“huge discrepancies in the quantity and quality of support offered to older people by different local authorities”.
We have to deal with the current crisis as well as working to carry forward the reforms in the Dilnot report.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The principle that the national health service should be free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, regardless of background or wealth, is one that few in the House would disagree with. It is a principle that we are all proud to defend, knowing that there is nothing as important as the health of the nation. We recognise that the NHS is paid for by taxpayers’ money and is the result of the hard-earned wages of citizens and taxpayers, and as citizens we are happy to provide for those in the greatest need—the vulnerable, the elderly, those who cannot care for themselves and those who are dying; we know that one day that fate will be ours, and we hope that the NHS will be there for each of us then.
We also recognise that the NHS must make record efficiency savings over the next four years, savings that will be reinvested in the service so that the NHS can meet another challenge—rising demand and an ageing population, which will put ever greater pressure on health care services. As a result, NHS spending is coming under greater scrutiny than ever before. But in recent years there has been a rise in the number of foreign nationals, ineligible for free care, who have been using NHS services. A recent parliamentary answer that I received on this issue revealed that since 2002-03 the Department has written off, and is no longer seeking to claim back unpaid bills, of nearly £35.4 million. The figures show that last year alone £6.9 million was written off, three times the £2.1 million lost in 2002-03.
It was made clear in the Minister’s reply to me that this figure does not include money yet to be collected, or money owed to foundation trusts for which the Department does not hold data. I have now begun to collect these data, which the Department does not keep, as a result of a freedom of information request to each trust. As a result of this, a picture is beginning to form that points to a far deeper problem than perhaps we recognise. So far 31 trusts have responded, stating that they have written off a total of £7.8million. This includes my own local trust, North Bristol NHS Trust, which has written off a total of £1,727,000 since 2003. That is as unacceptable as it is unsustainable.
The problem is not just one of cost. The variation and discrepancy in the collection of data is astounding. It seems that no criteria or framework exists under which one hospital or trust might charge another for its services. As soon as I have a more detailed and complete picture, I shall be happy to share these findings with the Minister.
I know that the Minister and the Department have been actively consulting on the problem of how to deal with the use of NHS services by foreign nationals, and I would welcome an update on the Department’s current thinking on how to tackle this issue for the future. We need to expose the reality of the problem, especially at times when the NHS seeks to make savings. We need a comprehensive plan to ensure that local services are not put under pressure by what many are now calling “health tourism”. The NHS may be free, but it is not a free-for-all. It is a national health service, not an international health service. Let us do all that we can to ensure that that remains the case.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the critical issue of public health. This time I want to look at the importance of exercise to promote health and well-being. Like many people, I have been alarmed at the rising levels of obesity in the UK and its associated diseases. Treatment of chronic conditions now takes two thirds of the health budget.
The problem is complex. The chair of Public Health Wales, Sir Mansel Aylward, believes people have lost their sense of belonging—once so evident in the south Wales valleys when heavy industries, coal and steel thrived. So he has called for local communities to be made formidable again—a bold ambition.
The latest figures for Wales show that one in three children are overweight. The costs of obesity are huge. If you include the wider cost of days lost from work and out-of-work benefits, they nudge £8 billion. Given the complexity of the problem, we need a much stronger regulatory and policy toolbox. Only 25% of children are getting the recommended 60 to 90 minutes of daily exercise outside school. Nothing can be more fun, or better exercise, than taking a young child to the park. So it is important that we invest in play for young children, and veto charges for playground entry.
Encouraging youngsters to keep active can take patience, good humour and a tailored delivery. Teenage girls sometimes feel that sport at school is a “boy thing”, so I applaud the BBC for its recent coverage of the women’s football world cup. But if young women do prefer dance, martial arts or yoga, they should be timetabled and encouraged. Swimming is a great way to exercise for all ages, all sizes and both sexes. I therefore regret the coalition’s removal of free swimming for under-16s and over-60s—a Labour Olympic legacy initiative.
Buzz Bikes in Blaina, in my constituency, was founded by teenage boys hanging around on their bikes. They received money from the Prince’s Trust, which helped them to set up an outdoor cycling club, and now they run a small shop, and repair and hire out bikes too. Funding was given not to improve the boys’ health, but rather to keep them out of trouble, but it has been a great boost to their physical health and self-esteem.
Finally, I would like to comment on the need for the elderly to keep active. In my area up and down the country, bowling is a popular pastime enjoyed by all ages. It is a source of physical, social and mental activity. It makes for better neighbourhoods, and opportunities to play should be increased, not jeopardised. I understand that the Government’s new obesity strategy should be published soon, and I hope that it will be the subject of a full parliamentary debate. If people of all ages are to become and keep active it is critical that local infrastructure, and play and leisure facilities, be maintained, and that charges be kept low. Many people cannot afford a gym subscription to keep fit, and investing in projects with longer term dividends is always difficult. Nevertheless, if we do not do it the cost to the NHS could be overwhelming.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I wish to bring to the attention of the House and particularly the Minister the east midlands cancer drugs fund. The original concept of the fund was to help thousands of extra cancer patients receive treatment if their clinicians believed it would help them. The policy was warmly welcomed by cancer patients and their families. I have had two patients come to my surgeries on different occasions trying to access the life-prolonging drugs Avastin and Rituximab.
Since my election, I have discovered enormous anomalies between different parts of the cancer drugs fund. The East Midlands strategic health authority provides Avastin for the first-line treatment of both metastatic colorectal cancer and renal cell carcinoma, but it will not make provision for the use of Avastin as second-line treatment. In fact, it has been rather obstructive in giving us information about what it does. That has turned the life of one of my constituents, who is a cancer patient, into a living nightmare. In order to prolong her life, my constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, has to date spent more than £50,000 of her own money on funding second-line treatment with Avastin. That included money that she got from taking early retirement. She has also sold many of her possessions, including her car and family heirlooms, to continue her treatment. But now she is running out of things to sell.
The drug costs my constituent £1,600 every three weeks—a sum that most people would find very hard to find—but she is still alive, which she would not be had she not funded it herself. She is living proof of the effectiveness of the drug in second-line treatment. However, if she resided just 12 miles away in Staffordshire, she would fall under the West Midlands SHA, which has confirmed that it provides Avastin—the drug that she so desperately needs to stay alive—for patients on both first and second-line treatments to treat the type of cancer that she is suffering from. However, the East Midlands SHA has not approved any applications for Avastin for second-line treatment of bowel cancer. This lack of consistency across the country is appalling. The Avastin that my constituent has funded herself, when used alongside chemotherapy, has seen her tumour levels drop from 41 to five—so clearly it is working very well. She is naturally infuriated that the east midlands cancer drugs fund is so resistant to funding Avastin for second-line treatment. I cannot understand why it is not looking at the clear medical evidence that she personally presents showing the effectiveness of the drug. She is living evidence that the medicine works, and she needs such help now.
I know of another patient with scleroderma who has been refused Rituximab. Hers is a terminal illness and she is being refused the drug. According to her doctors, she has three years left to live. She was told seven months after she applied that she could not have it, and it takes six months to take effect, so this lady is having enormous difficulty in understanding why she is not allowed it. She has been to London and been told that, yes, people get it there, but she cannot have it in the east midlands. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he will see how he can help those two brave individuals, because although I believe in local decision making, the current situation is just not fair, and they are not getting the treatment that they both deserve.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly in the time available to me about mental health services throughout the country. The Government are quite rightly focusing on mental health, as well as on provision in the acute sector. Their commitment to “No health without mental health” is absolutely right, and the £400 million being put into the early prevention of mental health conditions through talking therapies is an important commitment.
Before I go any further, however, it is worth highlighting how mental health services have historically been something of a Cinderella service in the context of the NHS budget. A good reason why we need reform to get rid of primary care trusts and put medical professionals in charge of service delivery is that mental health services have been particularly targeted for front-line cuts by PCTs over the past few months. For example, Leeds has seen £3.5 million cut from mental health budgets, with Oxford and Buckinghamshire withdrawing all police mental health liaison officers from their services. I am sure that the Minister would agree that mental health services are already under-invested locally throughout the country, and also that such cuts to front-line services are not desirable given the importance of early primary intervention in mental health. Indeed, that is exactly why we need reform to put professionals in charge of the NHS, so that they can deliver the community-focused services that we need.
It is also worth pointing out that nearly half of all adults suffer from depression at some point in their lives. We know that 60% of adults in hostels and the homeless have some form of mental health condition, while 90% of prisoners are estimated to have one too, so there is a big issue. We know that intervening and helping those individuals earlier in the disease process—through exactly the sort of commitments that the Government are making, with their £400 million commitment to talking therapies, and through commitments on a local level throughout the country—would make both a difference to health care economics, by driving down the cost of care for mental health patients later on, and a huge human difference to the patients themselves.
In the time available to me, I want briefly to call on the Minister to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to early intervention. We know that too many people are presenting with mental health conditions in the acute sector too late, when they are already in crisis, which is expensive for the NHS and bad for those people. The failure of mental health services has been to become a responsive service, rather than what we need, which is a service focused on patients and developing a properly community-sensitive approach, particularly in isolated rural areas and areas of high population churn, such as the inner-city areas over the river from this place.
I am not going to say much more; there is no time to develop a full argument. What I would like to hear from the Minister—I am sure that he will give us this—is a confirmation of the Government’s commitment to one of the key reasons for the NHS reforms that we are putting through, which is that we need much more of a community focus to mental health services, much less reactive mental health services and a much more proactive focus on helping people early on in their condition. Such a service would be good for them and good for the NHS, not only because it would reduce the cost to the taxpayer, but primarily because it would be good for the patient.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I really enjoy these pre-recess Adjournment debates, which give us Back Benchers such a useful opportunity to raise issues that otherwise might not get discussed. However, this is a slightly bizarre pre-recess Adjournment debate, given that we shall be back tomorrow to discuss phone hacking.
I want to talk about an issue that is pretty topical, given today’s reports about the Government reviewing private finance initiative contracts to save the taxpayer £1.5 billion. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has been a thoughtful and tireless campaigner on the issue. We have all heard stories of the catastrophic mistakes made in relation to PFI that have resulted in astronomical costs to the taxpayer. We should also have a debate about another classic example of Labour’s poorly executed attempts to bring the private and public sectors together. I want to talk about private sector contracts with the NHS.
The Cheshire and Merseyside NHS Treatment Centre was located in my constituency, in Runcorn. It was run by private company Interhealth, on a fixed-term, five-year contract between Interhealth and the Department of Health. The contract ended on 31 May, and the terms imposed by the Labour Government mean that the operating contract cannot be renewed. The high-quality care provided at the treatment centre very much fits as part of a modern national health service. The treatment centre is in a new building with high-quality facilities, and it has received excellent patient satisfaction feedback. The centre was also extremely popular locally, as demonstrated by the thousands of constituents who signed a petition opposing its closure.
That shows that, given the right conditions, the private sector can work with the NHS for the benefit of both organisations and the patients. Indeed, I agree with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who said when he was Labour’s Health Secretary that we should celebrate the role of the private sector in the NHS. Even if orthopaedics do not return to the treatment centre site in Halton Lea, patients are almost certain still to be treated in the private sector under the “any willing provider” guidance.
However, it is essential that any private sector contracts with the NHS are undertaken for the benefit of the taxpayer. Due to Labour’s poorly thought-out contracts, treatment centres under private ownership were paid a fixed amount regardless of how many patients they treated. The Runcorn centre did okay, and the local primary care trusts did their best to fill it to capacity, but others paid out millions for operations that were never carried out. Private providers were also paid a premium above the national NHS tariff. This is why I strongly welcome many of the aspects of the coalition’s NHS reforms, which will prevent the taxpayer from getting ripped off in bad private sector deals and ensure that patients get better choice and high-quality treatment.
Going back to the local case in Runcorn, the treatment centre building has now reverted to the ownership of NHS Halton and St Helens PCT, which is running a consultation on its future. It is vital that this world-class facility should continue to be used for the benefit of the local area, and I continue to urge my constituents to respond to the consultation to make certain that their voices are heard.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I should like to start by responding to the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), who talked about the impact of shisha water pipes. I entirely agree with his comments about the need to dispel the myths surrounding them. They do endanger health, and it is not the case that they are less harmful than smoking cigarettes. The flavours might hide it, but they can still kill people. The hon. Gentleman was right to bring this matter to the House’s attention today. Water pipe use might actually increase exposure to carcinogens by smokers and those exposed to second-hand smoke. The evidence is clear that water pipe usage can increase the risk of cancers of the lung, mouth and bladder. It is also associated with markers of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and an increased risk of mouth and gum disease.
A number of local councils are already doing work in this area, not least the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Coventry city council, which are implementing enforcement strategies that include information and advice on the health hazards from smoking water pipes. We believe that, as local authorities take on their new public health responsibilities over the next few years in conjunction with Public Health England, they will be well placed to improve awareness of the risks of these practices, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) raised two issues. He highlighted the work of the Hannah Rogers Trust on speech and language therapy, and I can tell him that Health Ministers have been working closely with their Education colleagues on the production of the Green Paper on special educational needs that was published earlier this year. We are now looking at the results of the consultation. He included a well-delivered joke from Ben in his speech, which demonstrated compellingly the importance of ensuring that people have access to appropriate communications technologies, so that they can fully express their views, wishes and feelings and live full lives.
My hon. Friend talked about the differential fee levels that are paid—on the basis, it seems, of ownership rather than anything else. The Government have set their face against that when it comes to the NHS. My hon. Friend rightly raised some issues that need to be looked at. Particularly when local authorities are facing resource difficulties, they need to look challengingly at how they use resources to ensure that they deliver quality, while also delivering value for money for the taxpayer. In that regard, we will certainly look at such issues as part of the work we are doing on the White Paper.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and his questions about Southern Cross. Here, too, we have work in hand around the need to reform social care in England to make sure that it is genuinely fit for the 21st century. Earlier today, I laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement to update hon. Members on further developments in the restructuring of Southern Cross. The Government’s overriding concern is and remains the welfare and safety of the 31,000 residents in Southern Cross care homes. Whatever the outcomes of the restructuring processes to which the hon. Gentleman referred, no one will find themselves homeless or without care. We expect Southern Cross, its landlords and lenders to continue to work together to secure a consensual, solvent restructuring of the business that meets their collective responsibilities to secure the welfare and care of residents.
My officials continue to maintain close contact with Southern Cross, its senior management, lenders and landlords. We continue to stress to them the need for timely announcements of the sort we saw from NHP yesterday about who will be taking on the operation of homes as we go forward. We need the necessary work to be done by the Care Quality Commission to ensure that the operators meet the necessary standards to be able to operate these homes in the first place. I entirely understand the concerns of hon. Members of all parties about this matter. That is why I have undertaken to keep Members informed while we are in recess. I will do just that as matters progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) raised issues about the NHS’s contribution to economic growth. As he rightly says, the NHS has huge potential for supporting UK innovation and research. We are increasing investment in health research by more than 8% in real terms over the next four years. That includes the £775 million that we are providing to promote translational research and development through biomedical research centres and units, and an additional £220 million for the construction of the Francis Crick Institute. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are, in a way, passing from the era of industrialised medicine into one of personalised medicine; that will certainly transform these things.
The Health and Social Care Bill, which has been the subject of much of my life over the past few months, includes measures to place duties on commissioners to promote and drive forward innovation and research. We think that that is a crucial way of unlocking the potential of the NHS to secure for patients the full benefit of research in that regard.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) talked about social care funding and resource allocation in the NHS. She will know that in last year’s spending review, the Government identified the need to support the fragile social care system that they inherited. That is why by 2014-15 an additional £2 billion of support will be going into social care. In fact, over the next four years, £7.2 billion extra—over and above what was committed previously—is going into social care.
We recognise that local authorities have to make tough decisions, but some of them ought to be about ensuring real efficiency in the way social care services are delivered. That means looking at things like telecare and reablement, and looking critically, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon said, at the way local authorities procure the services they provide for people in need. I think I need to write to the hon. Lady in more detail about the questions she posed about the working of the fair shares toolkit in active case management and the Little Hulton walk-in centre. I will write to her about that.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) raised issues about foreign nationals’ use of the NHS. While we have a clear entitlement to a free NHS based on current residency in the UK, it is not based on nationality. There are exemptions for some categories of visitor, which are set out in the arrangements that have been in place since the 1980s. I commend the hon. Gentleman's research, and, along with my ministerial colleagues, I look forward to seeing the results of his freedom of information requests. As he said, the Government announced back in March that we would conduct a fundamental review of current rules and practices. That work is just beginning, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to it.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—I apologise for my mispronunciation of his constituency—made a compelling case for the benefits of exercise. We know that the taking of more exercise is linked to a reduction in the risk factors connected with coronary heart disease, strokes, type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity, musculoskeletal conditions, and much more besides. Some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman should be addressed to the devolved Administration in Cardiff, but the Government remain aware that a cross-Government approach is needed to issues that involve transport, planning and housing if we are to secure the public health dividends that we need to see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) raised an important point. Notwithstanding the success of the cancer drugs fund, which has already delivered relief to 2,500 patients, it seems that the situation is different in her local strategic health authority in the east midlands. I will look into the matter carefully, and will seek explanations for the difference. I shall also want to be assured that these processes are genuinely transparent, so that justice is seen to be done and people can gain access to the benefits of the fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) talked about mental health. In February, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I launched “No health without mental health”, a cross-Government strategy. I believe that our “life course” approach sends the clear and powerful message that prevention and early intervention are key mental health priorities for the Government. The strategy also recognises the critical interdependencies between physical and mental health. The bulk of the strategy will have to be delivered by experts on the ground working with service users and their families and carers, but the Government are absolutely committed to integrated services. On the day on which I have launched the consultation on our new suicide prevention strategy, I should make clear the need for us to ensure that we no longer have a health service that patches people up physically while leaving them struggling mentally.
We must tackle stigma. Given that one in four of us in this country suffer from mental health problems, this is not about “them and us”; it is about all of us. We need parity of esteem between physical and mental health services, and that is a task for commissioners as well as those who provide services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) raised the subject of the independent treatment centre in his constituency, and the consultation that is currently under way. I will certainly undertake to look at the report of that consultation. My hon. Friend rightly raised some of the downsides of “one size fits all” contracting, which cost the taxpayer large sums under the last Administration without delivering any benefit for patients.
This has been a good debate. I will look again at the contributions made by all Members, and if I have not responded to all their points, I will write to individual Members about those points. Let me end by wishing all Members and Officers of the House a healthy, productive and refreshing recess.
Barbara Keeley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just replied to the debate very fully, and I thank him for responding to my points and those raised by other Members. A while ago, however, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), was answering a debate in Westminster Hall, ran out of time, and said what Ministers frequently say: “I will respond later to the points with which I have not managed to deal today.” I have received no replies to the questions that I raised on that occasion, and I wonder if you can advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what we can do when Ministers make pledges of that kind and do not follow them up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to make the point directly to the Minister. I am sure that he has heard what she has said, and that he fully intends to reply to the points that have not been dealt with today.
Paul Burstow
I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point. I will certainly ensure that I respond to the questions that I did not cover in the debate, and I will ask colleagues in the Department what has happened to the replies to the hon. Lady’s earlier questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the Minister’s assistance.
Communitites and local government
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I have chosen to speak about an issue that, although it is of great importance in my constituency, is not just a local, parochial issue. Rather, it should concern all of us, because if we do nothing about it, we risk losing a large part of what makes the places we represent unique.
The health and diversity of our town centres and high streets are at risk. They are increasingly dominated by chain stores and businesses that have a national profile. This is now so much the case that it is often difficult to tell different places apart when we go shopping. The phenomenon has been dubbed the “clone town” by the New Economics Foundation.
We are fortunate in Cambridge to have several streets that buck the trend of the “clone town”. One road in particular, Mill road, has been renowned for decades for its vibrant mix of independent shops and restaurants from all around the world, yet not even Mill road is immune to the danger of slowly becoming another “clone street”. A couple of years ago there was a major campaign to prevent Tesco from having one of its express stores there which, sadly, failed. It became Tesco’s 14th store in Cambridge—there are now 15 in Cambridge—and now Sainsbury’s wants to open one of its express stores further down the road.
I do not want to criticise these businesses. They are successful British companies that employ a large number of people, and they did not get where they are by missing opportunities to expand. It is entirely reasonable for them to want to acquire new locations, sell more products and make more profit, but they do cause harm. They drive other shops out of business, employing a range of tactics.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? The clock is not ticking down. When he resumes his speech, he will have two more minutes, which will mean he has had his four, without my intervention being counted, of course.
Dr Huppert
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best to comply.
Such chain stores drive other shops out of business, and we need to have some tools available to limit their growth. Local people should be able to find an appropriate balance between the convenience of the familiar and the excitement of the eclectic.
This has been a live issue for a number of years, and Cambridge city council has worked with the Local Government Association and Lord Greaves to table an amendment to the Localism Bill in the other place. This amendment—153AKC, according to the other place’s rather opaque numbering and lettering system—has become known in some circles as “the Cambridge amendment” because of the key work done by Sian Reid, leader of Cambridge city council. It sets out in simple steps how we can give local communities the tools they need. Put simply, the amendment adds to the duties of a local planning authority the requirement to assess the vitality and diversity of local shopping areas. It does not bar specific companies; it does not set targets for the number of independent retailers; it would not, in itself, have any bearing on the current make-up of our high streets; but it would give local communities such as Cambridge the freedom to decide whether a planning application will add to, or detract from, the vitality and diversity of the area. In some areas of the country a Tesco store may increase the viability of the high street, whereas in others, such as Cambridge, it would decrease it. Communities will get the decision they want.
It was clear in the debate on the amendment in the other place that many people shared the concerns I have set out. The question is: what can, or should, be done about it? This does, of course, require people to vote with their feet as well, but I hope that Members on both sides of the House will agree that giving local authorities the right tools to strike the right balance is desirable, and I also hope that the Government will support the Cambridge amendment and allow communities around the country to have more say on their high streets, such as Mill road.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
On 14 June I led a Westminster Hall debate on the effect of property regulations on holiday lettings. In that debate, I urged the Department for Communities and Local Government to look again at the effect that changes to property regulations would have on holiday lettings and domestic tourism. The key regulation I talked about relates to the fact that as of 30 June new rules, introduced by DCLG, came into force requiring the owners of holiday lettings to obtain an energy performance certificate, or EPC. That is being defended as a European Union requirement when it is not being adopted by any other European country. This will force an unnecessary, costly, pointless and, I believe, legally questionable burden on holiday lettings, doing damage to British tourism in my constituency and many others.
In my Westminster Hall debate, I examined a range of possible reasons for this change and discounted each in turn, concluding that the only possible justification could be that this is being demanded by Europe. However, as I pointed out, it is not being implemented by any other European Union country. In response to my concerns, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), made a number of points. In reply to my assertion that England and Wales would be the only countries enforcing this, I was told that it was already a requirement in Scotland. However, I would like to make him aware that the regulations in Scotland are somewhat different from those being imposed by his Department in England and Wales.
An answer from the Directorate for The Built Environment in Scotland states that EPCs are not required for holiday lettings unless the property is let to the same person for more than 12 weeks. The advice is clarified by the Building Standards Agency in Scotland, which also says:
“An EPC is not required for a property sold for the purpose of a holiday”,
so the regulations in Scotland are very different from those in England and Wales. Very few people rent a holiday property for 12 weeks of the year and if this rule was applied to England and Wales, the number of holiday lets requiring an EPC would fall dramatically.
On the way in which other European countries are implementing the directive, the Minister went on to say:
“My hon. Friend produced some information about what France had done, and referred to the fact that a provider of holiday lets in his constituency had evidence from a much wider field around Europe. I hope that he will accept, as a glimmer of light, that the very first thing I shall do after the debate is seek whatever validation we can for those two pieces of evidence. We do not want providers in England to be at a disadvantage to other European countries simply because we have taken too robust a view of how the directive should be interpreted.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 236WH.]
I welcomed that commitment from my hon. Friend. I know that he is not due to give the response today, but I wonder whether the Minister who is present has received validation on the two points. I ask because in addition to the much more sensible interpretation in Scotland, my research still indicates that EPCs are not required for holiday lets in France, Denmark, Sweden or Germany. Given that, it seems likely that they are not required in other European countries.
That brings me on to the question of who we class as a “tenant”. During the debate on 14 June, the Under-Secretary made the point that the way in which the DCLG was interpreting the European directive was that people renting the cottages in this country were “tenants”. That view has been robustly rejected by the English Association of Self Catering Operators, which has obtained a 16-page Queen’s counsel’s opinion on this matter.
In conclusion, my intention all along has been to help Ministers to reduce the burden of red tape on small business. I feel that they have done a good job so far, but with these new regulations they are going in the wrong direction. I ask the Minister to reconsider them.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I am most fortunate to live in a beautiful part of the country and to represent my neighbours, as they are my constituents. They enjoy communities with access to the countryside, from which so many of them benefit. Although I am sure that there is much to commend in other places such as Swindon—I am sure that other Members have commended them in this debate—the fact is that my constituents chose not to live in Swindon but to live in the market towns, villages and countryside of Wiltshire and they wish to keep them that way. It is therefore with some alarm that they hear of the Government’s determination to assume a presumption in favour of sustainable development. That is not because my constituents do not believe in sustainable development—far from it; it is because they do not have confidence that the Government will be sufficiently rigorous in imposing the test of sustainability in respect of development which may be permitted.
It was thus with some relief that I read in the natural environment White Paper of the Government’s enthusiasm for a new designation of “green areas” in the planning system. In addition, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), gave me a commitment on 20 June that they would seize on that definition in the planning system through the use of neighbourhood plans, and I wish to focus my remarks on them this afternoon.
It seems to me that the way that neighbourhood plans work in the planning process is essential to their effectiveness. In Wiltshire, we are watching our council embark on consultation for a 15-year core strategy on a local development framework. In many cases, it is consulting on proposals that my constituents do not consider to be sustainable development. Ultimately, the decision about that plan will be made by just under 100 councillors from across the county—yet the Government believe in empowering communities through neighbourhood plans, adopted with the support of local referendums, to set the direction for the future of where they live.
I want the Department to address some important questions and I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the Whip answering the debate, will be able to speak about them this afternoon. The requirement is that a neighbourhood plan should be in general conformity with the local development framework and it is important that we understand exactly what the Government mean by that. In the old planning policy statement 12, the definition of general conformity began:
“The test is of general conformity and not conformity.”
The key to that definition is that it should be possible for a neighbourhood plan to conflict in some way with land allocations that have already been set aside in a core strategy or local plan, so long as the general thrust of development can be achieved, perhaps by bringing other land into use.
Who is to judge whether a neighbourhood plan is in “general conformity” with the local plan? I hope it is not the local authority, because if such bodies are the ones to judge they will effectively exercise a veto over neighbourhood plans. I hope that the Department will issue some guidance on this point. Once land is allocated in a core strategy, is it then unassailable for development?
In conclusion, giving local people a meaningful say in the development of their communities is, I believe, an excellent idea. I am keen to ensure that the details are thought through so that not only are their voices, including those of “Save Lacock” and of Chippenham’s community, heard but they are truly empowered.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am delighted to participate in today’s debate. I want to talk about the recent National Audit Office report on fire control centres and the lessons learned. The FiReControl project was introduced to replace 46 local control rooms around the country with a network of nine purpose-built regional control centres using a national computer system. In many ways, on the face of it, Members might have thought that that was a good idea, but the NAO’s report describes the plan as “flawed from the outset”, with “unrealistic estimates of costs”, an under-appreciation of the complexity of IT involved, hurriedly implemented and “poorly managed”, and concluded that at least £469 million will have been wasted.
As many Members will know, the project was doomed to failure but was sadly continued with for a very long time. It is of particular sadness to the people of Gloucester, my constituency, that the tri-service centre—a centre combining police, fire and rescue and ambulance services, which was a model of its kind when it was created only a few years ago and which performed strikingly well during the 2007 floods—was to be replaced by a regionalised fire control centre at Taunton. Despite that sadness and the irony of the then Minister with responsibility for fire services having been my predecessor, I want to discuss the lessons that can be learned from that botched project. There are four particular aspects that I would like the Minister to consider.
The first lesson concerns the plan for regionalisation. Over the past 13 years, we have seen a series of attempts to regionalise our country. That was particularly the case in my constituency with the attempt to regionalise the Gloucestershire constabulary and then the fire control centres. I hope this Government will never again try to regionalise services that are best delivered locally through the long-established shires, cities and districts of our nation.
The second lesson concerns large IT projects, a lesson that has surely been learned time and again by Governments, at least over the past quarter of a century. When IT projects are large and complex, they tend to be beyond the hopes and expectations of Ministers, Departments and the companies implementing them. I hope that our Government will look closely at the issue as we take forward important new projects, such as the single universal benefit.
The third lesson that the Government will want to study concerns project management, which bedevilled the previous Government in relation to Building Schools for the Future, the rising costs of architects’ and consultants’ fees, and the unnecessarily complex procurement mechanisms and processes. In the case of the regional fire control centres, project management was a skill sadly lacking at the top of Government. Again, as this Government look at reducing costs, taking out waste and making government more efficient, I hope we will focus on the most effective project management skills available.
The final lesson in this unhappy saga comes from the role of the Select Committees. It is still not clear to me whether the Communities and Local Government Committee of that time, over the 10 years of the project, firmly identified to Government the error of their ways by pointing out the likely problems at the beginning, where—
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I was privileged to be here earlier, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on his maiden speech.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who was due to speak, has not managed to get here, which is a great shame.
I shall deal with the speeches in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) withdrew and is not required to explain why.
Bill Wiggin
It is a great shame none the less, but thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the National Audit Office report on FiReControl and the lessons learned from that disastrous project. I can assure him that the Government will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Administration—mistakes that led, as he rightly pointed out, to £469 million of taxpayers’ money being wasted on an over-complex, centrally imposed solution that was not proportionate to the risks faced and failed to engage with the fire and rescue services. When it was clear that the main contractor, Cassidian, could not deliver the IT system within an acceptable time frame, we had no option but to close the project down last December. We were not going to commit any more resources with no certainty of delivery.
Following the closure we made it clear immediately that we would not impose a central solution. There would be no large-scale national IT systems with such a long lead-in time that the pace of change overtook the promised advantages. Last week the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a new £83 million scheme that builds on locally determined solutions and encourages collaboration and innovation. Every fire and rescue authority can apply—for up to £1.8 million, as a guide—to improve the efficiency of its fire and rescue control services. This will cover the installation of Firelink interfaces to give enhanced voice and data services, which is the priority for most in the sector, according to the Department’s recent consultation.
Through sharing these interfaces, fire and rescue authorities can use the funding for further enhancements that improve the service that they provide for their communities and for firefighters. In addition, we have put aside a further £1.8 million for sector-led initiatives that will deliver benefits to all fire and rescue services. For example, in the recent consultation many responses from the sector emphasised the need for common standards. These would underpin collaboration and interoperability between fire and rescue services, facilitating improved overload and fall-back arrangements. The Chief Fire Officers Association has already indicated its intention to apply.
That brings me to another lesson learned. We have taken careful account of the consultation responses and we are working closely on both the political and the operational sides of the fire and rescue sector. The Department is grateful to the Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Group for their help in developing the new scheme and agreeing to be part of the oversight measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) spoke about the effect of property regulation on holiday lettings. This Government are committed to being the greenest Government ever and improving energy performance by encouraging energy performance certificates, like those that one sees on white goods, showing an A to G range, depending on how energy-efficient they are. We want that process to take place for every building; in this case an EPC is required for the construction, sale or rent of a building. The EPC shows how energy-efficient the property is and includes recommendations about how to improve energy efficiency.
The Government recognise that this issue is important to holiday home owners and creates a problem for that industry. We do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on the industry or to gold-plate this directive, and we are seeking to establish why it has been interpreted in the way it has. We are also prepared to seek further legal advice to ensure that we are not going beyond the minimum requirements imposed by the directive. I have investigated this and it seems to be a classic case of gold-plating. We have made inquiries to establish the position in other European Union countries and it seems that, as my hon. Friend said, EPCs are not required for holiday lets in a number of other member states, including Germany, Sweden and Denmark—he also mentioned France and Scotland. It gives me great pleasure to tell the House that we should have a clearly defined position on this within the next few weeks.
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we all agree that there is tremendous value in having a prosperous and diverse high street for all the community. Mill road is undoubtedly an area of local importance and value, and reads extremely well on the internet. Town centres are key to sustainable growth and local prosperity and are at the heart of our neighbourhoods, giving communities easier access to shops and services. The Government gave a clear commitment in the debates on the Localism Bill, most recently on 12 July, and as part of the Budget, that we will put town centres first for new retail development. We will set out planning policies on retail to support competitive town centres through the new national planning policy framework and we are determined to give local communities greater power to shape their areas and to be clear about the balance of uses they want in town centres. We are legislating to introduce new local level neighbourhood plans to give local people greater control over the future of places that are important to them.
Neighbourhood plans are a positive planning tool that will have real weight in the planning process, but we must be clear about what planning can and cannot do. Planning policy on town centres is not pro or anti-supermarkets and it cannot seek to restrict lawful competition between retailers. It is and always has been blind to the issue of who the operator of a retail proposal would be—whether a supermarket or an independent. We want the right scale and type of development in the right location to meet people’s shopping needs. That is what planning policy can support local councils in achieving in a more practical manner than by legislation. Local neighbourhood plans and low rates for small businesses should help in encouraging new shops and businesses so that we do not lack variety—the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to clone towns—in our high streets.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) also raised this issue. The Government believe that planning is most effective when local residents, businesses and civic leaders are in the driving seat of planning for their areas and when they can deliver the development they want to see. Neighbourhood planning is a radical new right being introduced by the Localism Bill. It enables communities to shape their local areas in a manner that can respond to local needs and ambitions and is part of our reforms to ensure that the planning system delivers sustainable economic growth and should be used to shape, rather than prevent, development.
Neighbourhood plans and orders are prepared by the local community and can be used in a flexible manner to suit local circumstances. They will result in better, more effective and more locally responsive decisions that will deliver an overall increase in sustainable growth and will change people’s attitudes to development. They will become an important part of the planning toolbox, while existing planning tools will remain entirely open to communities and local authorities working in partnership. The hon. Member for Chippenham asked who will decide. Local councils will have an important role in helping communities to produce plans or orders through a duty to support, and an independent qualified person and the local planning authority will check plans and orders to make sure that they are legally compliant and take account of wider policy considerations.
I shall touch briefly on the national planning policy framework, which will consolidate more than 1,000 pages of planning policy documents into a single, streamlined document. The framework will be strong where it needs to be, and it will include policies that support the Government’s priorities for economic growth and infrastructure. It will also set out the Government’s priorities for environmentally and socially sustainable development. The policies will provide local communities with the tools that they need to protect the environmental and cultural landscapes that people value so much. It will make a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and a working draft was released in June. We have made a commitment to publishing the framework for full public consideration and consultation in July. It is a privilege to answer hon. Members’ questions, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wanting to wish Daphne Neill a speedy recovery.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Approximately 7.5 million to 8 million tonnes of waste wood is produced every year. It is mostly construction waste, and the greater part—some 80%—is landfilled, which is a far higher proportion than for other waste items. About 1.2 million tonnes is recycled and reused for animal bedding, plywood, fibreboard and so on, but energy is recovered from only about 0.3 million tonnes or 4% of the total. However, according to Eunomia Research & Consulting, a net estimated saving of 1,400 kg of CO2 per tonne of wood can be made where waste wood is used as fuel for biomass energy. If waste food in landfill was sent to digestion with wood to energy recovery, the joint product would be about 42 TW of energy a year, or getting on for a fifth of our renewable energy target, by 2020.
The benefits of diverting wood and indeed other categories of waste from landfill are clear and straightforward. Despite the strides that have been taken to reduce landfill as a destination for our waste, we still have a long way to go, and for some waste streams, as I have illustrated, almost the whole distance. So how might we get moving on this diversion? There have been suggestions that such wastes should simply be banned from landfill. That is what a number of countries do, and that in itself stimulates substantially the sort of use that I have outlined. That appears to be the Government’s intention, because in the waste review 2011 they stated:
“As a starting point, in 2012 we will consult on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste…Building on this we will review the case for restrictions on sending other materials to landfill over the course of the Parliament”.
That is encouraging until we recognise that that is exactly where we were in 2009. The 2009 renewable energy strategy stated that the Government would consult later that year on banning certain kinds of material from landfill. In March 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did indeed produce such a consultation with a view to banning a number of wastes from landfill. That consultation set out an EU target that by 2020 a minimum of 70% by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste should be prepared for reuse, or should be recycled or recovered. We have a long way to go on that target.
The results of the consultation were “published”—I say that advisedly—in September of last year. Hon. Members will have to work very hard to find them because, astonishingly, they were published straight to DEFRA’s archive, and I am not sure that that counts as publication at all. Fortunately, the Welsh Assembly Government published the responses to their part of the consultation on their website, and hon. Members can access the results there. I suppose that it is not surprising that the consultation responses were smuggled out and filed away so abruptly, because a landfill ban was supported by over two thirds of consultees. However, the Government’s response was that they were
“not minded to introduce landfill bans in England at the present time”
but would reach a view on the best way to ensure waste was dealt with in the most appropriate way as part of the waste policy review that was announced by Secretary of State earlier this year.
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste review was under way at the same time as the consultation, following which the Government decided to consult on a landfill ban of wood followed by other waste, with a view to banning them between 2012 and 2015.
If a consultation had taken place, why have another one? And why did the Government say that they were not minded to introduce a landfill ban if they might do so just a few months later? Why hide the results of such a consultation from public view at a time when they were consulting on something very similar? If we really wanted to make progress on such a ban—and I think the case for doing so is overwhelming—would it not be easier to note the consultation results and get on with it? I fear that I am missing something, but I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will be able to put me right. At the very least, I hope that he can restore the results of the consultation to the DEFRA website so that we can all see what has transpired, then perhaps get on with it substantially before 2015.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Chris Kelly—as long as you do not call me Madam Deputy Speaker.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this pre-recess Adjournment debate. We have a problem in Dudley borough: the number of roaming horses that residents have to put up with, particularly in the Brierley Hill, Brockmore and Pensnett, and Wordsley wards in my constituency. The problem of roaming horses is now so widespread that residents have set up an action group, Dudley Borough Against Roaming Horses, with nearly 600 people having signed up to the group’s Facebook page—not quite as many as the 1,500 members of my Facebook group.
The problem of roaming horses has been widely reported elsewhere in the country. Indeed, the Highways Agency reported in 2009 that more than 200 stray horses are removed from its roads across the country every year. It might be helpful to highlight the fact that the methods used to address the problem vary by type of land, depending on whether it is highway, public land or private property. Public authorities appear to interpret the rules differently, as do third-party organisations. I will concentrate on the actions of my local authority, Dudley metropolitan borough council, later in my remarks.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cites three pieces of legislation that can be used to remove roaming horses: the Animals Act 1971, the Highways Act 1980 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Other organisations advocate the use of other legislation or regulations to address the problem, including section 24 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
Having researched the problem on behalf of my residents, it quickly became clear to me that different councils appear to be deploying different legal approaches. For example, Cardiff council has used antisocial behaviour orders to punish the owners of stray horses, and my own local authority has used section 24 of the 1847 Act, which states that officers are permitted to seize cattle, including horses, found on the highways. I commend Dudley metropolitan borough council for the innovative way it is trying to tackle this costly and worrying problem. I support the council, West Midlands police and the Highways Agency in using any of the methods at their disposal to protect the taxpayers of my borough and safeguard the welfare of these poor creatures, which is an issue I will return to.
There is a long tradition of horse ownership in the black country, and there are many responsible owners who legitimately graze animals and whose horses are legally insured, passported and chipped. There is also a long history of less responsible horse owners, who often tether their horses on council land so as to avoid grazing charges and food costs. Their horses are normally secured with chains and moved from site to site to feed, which is known as “fly-grazing”. I do not think that any of the owners of these tethered horses in my constituency have received or read DEFRA’s code on tethering, which has been available on its website since March.
The amount of grazing land in the borough is limited, and I am told that the council’s current waiting list exceeds 200, with little likelihood of many on the list ever obtaining grazing space. The council does have the opportunity to develop more grazing fields, but horses can be powerful animals and there would need to be significant investment in new fencing and infrastructure to release the fields for use.
The problem of stray horses and illegal grazing has been a long-standing problem in the borough. In the latter part of 2010 and early 2011 the number of stray and illegally grazing horses reported to the council increased, which in turn raised considerable concern within local communities. The cause of the problem was irresponsible horse owners abandoning their horses on open land with no regard to the potential danger to their animals or the public. Inevitably, these animals strayed while looking for food and water and got on to the local road network, causing significant upheaval.
Today I call for clear guidance to be placed on the LocalGov.co.uk website, based on best practice from across the country on how to tackle the issue, and for advice to be placed on Direct.gov.uk to advise people in my borough and across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to speak about something that is a great boost for the countryside—rural country sports and the benefits that they bring to the countryside and to the economy. In the time it takes me to load two cartridges into my over and under shotgun and shoot the pheasant on the far side of the Chamber, my time will be up because I have only four minutes.
Eighty thousand people participate in country sports in Northern Ireland, contributing £45 million to the local economy in the past year. Some 480,000 people are involved in country sports across the whole of the United Kingdom, with the equivalent of some 70,000 jobs in primary and secondary roles. They contribute some £2 billion each year in goods and services and some £6 billion in the whole UK economy. The role of country sports is critical. Shooting, in particular, is important to the management of two thirds of the rural land area. Two million hectares are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting. It is recorded that shoot providers spend some £250 million a year on conservation. Indeed, shooters spend some 2.7 million days on conservation—the equivalent of 12,000 full-time jobs.
There are 17 hunting packs in Northern Ireland and some 325 registered hunts across the whole of the United Kingdom. Eight hundred people in Northern Ireland are involved in hunts, and some 45,000 people are so involved in the rest of the UK. The benefits are clear—they come from the farriers, the veterinary surgeons, the feed merchants, the insurance companies, the saddleries, the horse box people and horse lorry suppliers.
Point-to-points have been described as
“the lifeblood of the racing industry in Ireland”,
and they clearly are. They contribute some £5.3 million to the economy, and on the UK mainland they do even better than that. Point-to-points are a good opportunity for horses to graduate to national hunt racing—ultimately, to the Cheltenham gold cup. One example of that would be the aptly named Looks Like Trouble, who was born and bred in Northern Ireland. This is clearly how champions are created. The overseas interest in the horse industry is also of great importance, and a great many people can see the benefits of that.
Shooting takes care of almost 1 million hectares in Northern Ireland, with £10 million spent on habitat improvement and wildlife management, and some 640 jobs created in Northern Ireland and some 12,000 jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and England. It can do better, and I believe it will. Some 150,000 people regularly shoot clay pigeons. There are about 1,000 shooting clubs in the United Kingdom, and the benefits and spin-offs that they bring are very important for the industry and the sector.
Angling in Northern Ireland is worth about £40 million. Some 420 angling destinations in Northern Ireland are open to tourists, and Northern Ireland is one of the best places in Europe to fish. We have some 800 jobs in angling in Northern Ireland, and by 2015 there will be 2,000. In relation to antisocial behaviour, of 660 youths in England who took part in a police angling scheme, 98% are still fishing and not one has reoffended. There is clearly a lesson to be learned from that. Casting for Recovery, a unique charity specially designed for women who have or have had breast cancer, uses angling to promote mental and physical healing.
Time has not permitted me fully to express the benefits of country sports to the economy, but I hope that I have managed to highlight the great spin-offs that come from this thriving industry. Perhaps Members have seen it as being more than what they thought earlier on. Now I will go and collect that pheasant on the far side of the Chamber.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, about the TB situation in my constituency. I very much welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier today, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister here this afternoon. He, too, has put a lot of work into putting proper controls in place to try to eradicate TB eventually.
Many people do not realise the emotional effect that this disease has had on farming. Someone who has TB in their cattle is unable to trade, especially in young stock, and it affects their business extremely badly. Where testing of cattle is taking place, someone’s cattle might be grazing in the summer, they bring them inside for the winter, they are tested, some of them prove positive for TB, and they are then culled to take the disease out of their herd. The farmer then puts the rest of the cattle back out in the field the following summer, only for them to be infected by the wildlife, such as badgers, roaming around in the fields. If we are going to test cattle successfully and take out the infected animals, it is absolute nonsense if we do not tackle the problem in wildlife.
What I like about what the Secretary of State said this afternoon is that she had consulted everybody properly to get a scientifically backed way of culling badgers, to reduce the reservoir of disease. In the long run the farming industry is losing. Devon alone is losing nearly 2,000 cattle this year. It is terrible because not only are those cattle being lost, but it is very much the heifers, the young stock that are the seedcorn of the dairy industry for the future, that are affected. We want to see excellent milk production and good-quality milk in this country. That can happen only if we have the necessary stock to carry on the dairy industry. Across the country, 10 times as many cattle are now taken with the disease as was the case 10 or 12 years ago. We cannot go on like that, because eventually the industry will be destroyed. This country has such great grass-growing potential, particularly in the west country. The Blackdown hills in Tiverton and Honiton are probably one of the best dairy areas in the country.
We must be sure that cattle can be out grazing without being infected with TB. Everybody wants to see cattle out in the fields. That is what people come to Devon to see. This issue affects not only good agricultural production, but the tourism that benefits from the cattle. The last thing we want to do is to shut them up in sheds all summer to keep the badgers out. It is right to tackle the pool of disease, and I welcome the Government proposals. I look forward to the pilot schemes. I suspect that pilots will take place in the west country, possibly in Devon, which is one of the great hot spots. Let us consider how the controlled shooting will work and ensure that we do it humanely, and then we can go forward to an even greater cull.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I am not interested in media-driven lynch mobs. I am not interested in the politically motivated settling of personal vendettas. The big issue in my Colne Valley constituency is the wanton destruction of beautiful and historic countryside.
Thousands of concerned local residents have attended public meetings, registered their objections via e-mail and on the council website, written letters and contacted their local representatives to oppose plans to bulldoze the countryside for hundreds of new homes and industrial developments. I called one such public meeting in Lindley in north Huddersfield to oppose plans for 300 new homes and a data campus on Lindley moor. The church hall was packed on a Friday evening with hundreds of concerned local residents. There have been other recent meetings in Slaithwaite and Meltham.
These plans are being forced through with little meaningful consultation and little regard for the already creaking local infrastructure. Roads are clogged, schools are oversubscribed and people are extremely lucky if they can get an NHS dentist. That all stems from the previous Government’s regional special strategies and top-down housing targets, which were imposed on local communities. My local Kirklees council was given a figure of 28,000 new homes. It is still pursuing that figure via a blueprint for development called the local development framework, which has been widely lambasted—rightly so.
The consultation has been flawed, with thousands of homes failing to receive the consultation leaflet that had supposedly been delivered to all homes in the area. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and I called for the LDF consultation to be suspended. That was because the LDF in our area was not
“reflecting local people’s aspirations and decisions on important issues such as...housing and economic development.”
A High Court judgment on 7 February this year stated that councils should make the intended abolition of the regional strategies, otherwise known as the top-down targets, a “material consideration” pending enactment of the Localism Bill. However, the housing target numbers remain at Kirklees council.
I warmly welcome the Government’s promise to reform the planning system radically and to give neighbourhoods much more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live. The Localism Bill will give local people a real say in what developments go on in their area. Community groups, parish councils and local business organisations will be involved in developing neighbourhood plans. However, we have to wait for the autumn for that to happen.
Another change that I would like to see is related to the new homes bonus. I have proposed in the Chamber a higher rate of bonus for homes built on brownfield sites, to incentivise developers to go for those sites over and above greenfield sites. I really believe that developers and my local council need to engage better with local communities. That will happen after the Localism Bill becomes law later this year, but planning applications also need to demonstrate clear improvements to local infrastructure. The plans for housing at Lindley moor, for example, show little regard for the heavily oversubscribed schools and clogged roads.
Finally, I stand side by side with the many people in my constituency who are deeply worried and angered by the way in which plans for homes and the data campus are being railroaded through with little genuine consultation, no regard for infrastructure and little explanation of the need. We are not anti-development, we just want better, sustainable developments that involve the whole community.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I want to talk about bioethanol. As Members may have heard in other debates, there is a strong vision, both cross-Humber and cross-party, in our area, in that we want to see the Humber being developed into a renewables centre hub. Indeed, we have Siemens coming to the area, and we have huge progress on carbon capture and storage. A key part of our vision for the area involves bioethanol, for which we will have two plants in the Humber—one is in Hull and one is proposed on the south bank.
There are concerns about the future of UK bioethanol because of what seems to be some confusion in policy and the legislative framework, emanating from both the European Union and the UK. The UK bioethanol industry has invested more than £550 million in the past five years, with a further £200 million to be invested imminently. It has created thousands of highly skilled jobs and reinvigorated manufacturing communities in the north and north-east of England, where we especially need those jobs.
In my own area, northern Lincolnshire, the proposed Vireol plant would provide 750 jobs in construction and a further 70 directly at the plant, plus those in the supply chain once it was up and running. However, there is concern that because of policy uncertainty and the tough financial climate in which we find ourselves, bioethanol projects in the UK may have stalled. Recently, the Ensus plant in Teesside had to shut down temporarily.
Biofuels have been controversial in the past, and I am certainly not talking about biodiesel. I am talking about bioethanol production that would also produce a high-quality feed product, so we would get two uses from the crop. It is an entirely sustainable process, which is why the Conservative party’s policy Green Paper on a low-carbon economy signals support for sustainable biofuels.
However, there is a problem at the moment with biofuels in the UK, particularly bioethanol, because of the domination of US imports. I am pro-free trade, pro-United States and pro-transatlantic agreements, but we have to accept that those US imports are supported by a domestic subsidy in the United States that is designed to support the industry and blending over there. It is not aimed at undercutting UK bioethanol production. A number of countries in the European Union, such as France and Germany, have already categorised those imports differently, and I ask the Minister whether the UK will consider doing that.
I am conscious of the time, so it is difficult to go into all the details of this important issue—[Interruption.] An extension would be nice, but that is not going to happen.
There are four things that we seek from the Government: a commitment that the UK is committed to bioethanol; a confirmation that we will make it part of our carbon reduction target; a clear signal that bioethanol is part of the 10% target for renewable transport; and action to ensure that the problem of bioethanol imports from the US, which seem to undercut the UK with the domestic subsidy that I mentioned, will be addressed. I apologise to the Minister because this issue cuts across, by my count, five different Departments, and I am sorry that it has landed in his lap today, but perhaps that demonstrates why we need more clarity and direction from one Department on this. Any assurance that the Minister can give us will be greatly appreciated by my constituents.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggests, I am surprised by some of the issues about which it has fallen to me to respond, and which have—at least for today—fallen under the DEFRA umbrella. I will do my utmost to respond to the points that have been made, in the order in which hon. Members spoke.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whom I have always respected for his knowledge of waste and renewables policies, rightly raised the issue of landfill bans. I hope that he will understand that I answer on behalf of Lord Henley, who leads on this issue and is therefore far more acquainted with it than I am. We have immense sympathy with the hon. Gentleman—and in fact there is very little difference in what we are trying to achieve. I know that he chided us a little, and I will try to answer him, but we are trying to prioritise efforts to manage all our waste—not just domestic waste, but also industrial waste. We tend to concentrate on worrying about what councils do with domestic waste and ignore the wider issues of industrial waste, but we are trying to prioritise our efforts in line with the waste hierarchy and reduce the carbon impact of our waste, as well as considering what sort of inheritance we are leaving for future generations in terms of the contents of holes in the ground.
We are rightly concentrating on the higher levels of the hierarchy, including reducing waste in the first place, and then working through reuse, recycling and energy recovery before we end up at landfill. Clearly we want to move to a zero-waste economy in which all our material resources are fully valued or used in one way or another. The hon. Gentleman talked particularly about landfill, and I am sure the House will agree that landfill should be the option of last resort for most waste, especially for biodegradable waste.
We need to move towards eliminating landfill, and landfill volumes have fallen by a third in the last three years. That must be good news and the waste review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will play a substantial role in pushing wastes up the hierarchy and away from landfill. We are going further, and that is why we are maintaining landfill tax increases towards a floor of £80 per tonne in 2014-15.
On the specific issue of the consultation on restricting wood waste being sent to landfill, I can say from a personal perspective that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a huge waste of a valuable resource. There have been times when I have been known to fumble around some skips to fetch decent bits of timber out for a bit of DIY at home. I commend that approach to other hon. Members—if we all did our bit, perhaps we would not need to ban landfill.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultation that was begun under the previous Government—one of a number that they set in train in the last few weeks of their life and left to the new Government to resolve.
The Government were committed to a waste review, which is why we had to respond to the earlier consultation, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That consultation—on banning individual items from landfill—was very general, unlike the specific and more targeted consultation on wood waste, which we are talking about now. That consultation allows us to explore in much greater detail the practical implications of dealing with different types of wood. For instance, some wood waste might be treated with toxic materials that we cannot burn. There is a raft of issues. However, he raised a specific point about the previous consultation and criticised us for putting it in the archive. This is not an issue of secrecy; it is just where these things eventually belong. The DEFRA website has been refreshed over the past year under the new Government. The material has not been buried—or even put in landfill—but is freely available in the archive. I can assure him that we take this seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) referred to the problem of roaming horses. I am sure that that is an issue of which most of us, whether we have urban or rural constituencies, have some understanding, although perhaps not in the fine detail to which he referred. He referred to fly-grazing—horses being chained on the verge. I suspect that virtually every Member has witnessed that and, if nothing else, questioned the welfare of those horses. He rightly listed the three pieces of legislation to which DEFRA Ministers usually refer—in fact, he virtually delivered my speech. I am not going to waste time, or insult him, by repeating them. He also rightly referred to the innovative use of other legislation, particularly by Dudley metropolitan borough council. I congratulate it on that sort of innovation; it is what we expect from local government. However, if he can think of other areas, we would be happy to consider them. He specifically referred to putting guidance online, and I am happy to consider that and respond to him when we have had time to reflect further.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was not on my list of speakers—so, not for the first time, I will have to wing it. Fortunately, he spoke about a subject extremely close to my heart, and I could not disagree with any of his points about the value of country sports, not just to the country’s heritage, but to the economy and job creation. There was one important point that he did not make but which I feel strongly about: although country sports might provide only a handful of jobs in a particular area, in a rural area a handful of jobs can be very important. We need to understand that point. He referred to the racing industry. As he knows, I represent the area surrounding Newmarket, where about 7,000 jobs are dependent on the racing industry. I can assure him that the Government strongly support the continuity of country sports and recognise their economic contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) had the good fortune to raise an issue that we have largely answered today already, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not wax too lyrical about bovine TB, as it was discussed earlier in the Chamber. I would make one critical point, however. He spoke about the trauma to families of disease breakdown. For the past four years, more than a quarter of the herds in Devon have been under restriction at some time during the year. That is a huge proportion, and demonstrates just how bad the problem is in Devon. Unusually, he underestimated the seriousness of the situation. I think that he said that about 2,000 cattle were slaughtered in Devon, but the actual figure is 5,700. That, too, demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. I cannot tell him the location of the pilots because we have not got to that stage yet. We expect applications for licences to be made, but as I have said in the media today, I would be astonished if one of them was not in the south-west somewhere.
Mr Paice
Even I do not think that Shropshire is in the south-west. Two suitable sites will be selected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) referred to the green belt. Let me make it absolutely clear that this Government will maintain the green belt, despite some spurious reports about how the national policy planning framework will weaken it. It will not. The Government have no intention of weakening the key protections for the green belt. Inappropriate development should not be approved in the green belt except in very special circumstances. This is a matter for local planning authorities, through the planning process. Clearly my hon. Friend has differences of opinion—on the face of it, it sounds as if I would entirely agree—with his local council about the number of houses. I need to stress, as he did, that our commitment to abolish regional spatial strategies means that there is absolutely no obligation for local authorities to pursue the planning policies that they may have been forced into by the previous Government. Local authorities can stop, as mine has, and start again if they so wish. I wish him success in persuading his local authority to do that.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke about the bioethanol industry. In answer to his final point, the Department that is primarily responsible is the Department for Transport, as he probably knows. The Government strongly support the use of biofuels, as long as they are sustainable. The industry—particularly the ethanol sector, to which he referred—has done a considerable amount to improve its greenhouse gas savings. The latest data suggest that bioethanol from home-grown wheat and sugar beet achieved direct emissions savings of 60% and 77% respectively, compared with fossil fuels, which is a significant gain. However, there are concerns, particularly about the indirect effects of displacing food production, which is why sustainability is so important.
I can also assure my hon. Friend that we are looking carefully at the issue of tariffs, to which he referred. I fully understand what he was saying; it always amazes me that although the United States is very good at telling others to practise free trade, it then introduces its own domestic support—in this case for the ethanol sector, taking something like a third of the corn production in the United States for that purpose. As he said, other countries in the EU have not allowed the use of the chemical tariff for fuel ethanol, which attracts lower duty than the other categories. At present the British Government are examining the legality of that and looking into whether we can learn lessons from the approach taken by other EU countries. Let me conclude by assuring my hon. Friend that we support the domestic bioethanol industry, which has shown the way forward. Clearly sustainability is at the heart of it, but so too is fair and free trade. We must ensure that that does not work against our own domestic industry.
I thank you for the opportunity to respond on DEFRA issues, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish you and all Members of the House present a very pleasant summer recess.
Home Department
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You may not have heard of the drug khat—indeed, many people in the United Kingdom have not—but it is a plant that is grown in the middle east and Africa whose leaves are chewed among Somali, Ethiopian and Yemeni communities here. Its effects are similar to those of better known substances, such as amphetamines. Khat is a stimulant, creating euphoria. Like nicotine, it is highly addictive; like cannabis, it is linked to mental health conditions; yet unlike those drugs, khat is not controlled in this country. Despite its physical effects, including liver and kidney problems and mouth lesions, it is neither classified nor regulated. Yet khat’s main component, cathinone, is a class C drug —the same cathinone that is found in mephedrone, the drug that this House was so quick to act on last year. Khat is illegal in 16 European countries, as well as in the United States and Canada. It is legal in Holland, but regulated.
However, rather than the physical effects, it is the social impact that many ethnic communities in the UK are railing against. Khat can easily become a way of life. One former addict in my constituency described his routine: waking at 3pm, buying the leaves from a local house or car boot, and assembling in a local living room, or “khat house”, with around 20 others to begin an eight-hour session of chatting and chewing—a bit like the House of Commons. The inevitable come-down involves many users sleeping all day after a session before resuming the routine. Unsurprisingly, unemployment is rife in such communities. The habit perpetuates a lack of integration on those diverse estates and creates tensions. I have had complaints from residents about the obstruction caused by people queuing for khat, about night-time disruption and about intimidation from nocturnally high neighbours.
Meanwhile, family breakdown is often fuelled by khat. The financial strain increases the problem in deprived areas. Although khat costs only £3.50 a bunch, up to four are required per session, so the habit can cost £98 a week. Abandoned mothers and community leaders, and even users themselves, are crying out for something to be done.
The problem might come as news to many people, but it is certainly not new to Parliament. It was first raised in 1996, when the then Government said that they were monitoring the issue. In 2011, we are still monitoring it. Meanwhile, the problem continues to grow. Usage has risen with immigration, with the UK Somali population doubling in a decade. The way in which khat is used is also shifting. In its countries of origin, elders chew it on special occasions, but in Europe, contemporary patterns of consumption are excessive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that consumption is spreading to women, teenagers and even indigenous residents on our diverse estates.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered classifying khat in 2005, but declined to do so because its prevalence in the UK was relatively low. Therefore, while the plight of those addicted to cocaine, cannabis or alcohol is well documented, the fate of those who are under the spell of khat rarely comes to light. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has stated that
“khat use is both common and commonly overlooked”.
It has 20 million users worldwide. It is thought that about 7 tonnes of khat are imported into the UK each week, but we do not have a full picture of its effects, as the police do not collect data on khat, and hospitals do not collect admissions statistics related to the drug.
Those omissions need to be rectified. While that is being done, with a view to possible classification of the drug in future, will the Minister tell us whether he believes that, after 16 years of inaction, the time has come to regulate khat as a first step? If sellers required a licence, antisocial behaviour problems would be reduced. A minimum age for purchase would stop the drug’s popularity spreading to youngsters, and it would at last register on the Government’s radar.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
One of my priorities as MP for Brighton, Pavilion is to tackle our city’s sad reputation as the drugs death capital of the UK. Since being elected, I have met many of those in my constituency who are most affected by drugs to explore ways of reducing the harms associated with drug use. Based on those meetings, I have two proposals for the Minister today. The first is that future drugs policy be based on evidence. The second is that responsibility for drugs policy be moved from the Home Office to the Department of Health, and I hope to demonstrate why such a move would be commensurate with an evidence-based approach.
Drug-related harms and the cost to society remain extraordinarily high in Britain despite decades of prohibition, yet successive British Governments have put their faith in the illegality of drugs being a deterrent in itself. Just last weekend, however, new research published in the Journal of Substance Use corroborated previous studies that suggested that whether a drug was illegal had very little bearing on people’s decision to use it. Why do we not look at the evidence?
In Portugal, the number of people taking heroin has halved since its use was decriminalised. In Switzerland, a series of new policies based on public health rather than on legality has led to a sharp decline in heroin demand and crime. A comparison between Norway, which has a very liberal regime but similar levels of drug use to Sweden, where strict controls are in place, shows very little correlation between levels of punishment and levels of drug taking.
In other words, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that prohibition is not the most successful way to reduce drug-related harms, and that there are other approaches. As the chair of the UK Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, has said:
“A growing body of comparative evidence suggests that decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences. It can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health. All this can be achieved without any overall increase in drug usage.”
The Government, however, appear to be unwilling to countenance any approach other than prohibition. Their 2010 strategy makes a firm commitment to evidence-based policy making, yet in the very same document, the Home Secretary completely dismisses alternatives such as the decriminalisation of personal use.
There has never been an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; nor has there been a cost-benefit assessment, or any attempt to compare its effectiveness in reducing the societal, economic or health costs of drugs misuse with the alternatives. Yet we surely owe it to those affected to ensure that the overall policy framework—as well as spending decisions about particular treatments, for example—is informed by the evidence. Evidence-based prevention needs to be considered as well. If we want fewer young people to use drugs, we must craft messages that work, and we must do so in the context of the Equality Trust research that shows a clear and demonstrable correlation between high drug use and high levels of inequality.
The message I am hearing loud and clear from those I have met in my constituency is that rather than criminalising drug addiction we need to give people treatment and support. That view is echoed by Chief Superintendent Graham Bartlett of Brighton and Hove police, whose personal view is that
“the use of drugs is not well addressed through punitive measures.”
As he goes on to say,
“Providing people with treatment not only resolves their addiction—thereby minimising risk of overdose, drug related health issues, anti social behaviour and dependence on the state, for example—but cuts the costs to the community by reduced offending.”
That is why my second recommendation is that we decriminalise personal drug use and remove responsibility for drugs policy to the Department of Health. I am hosting a round table in Brighton in September to discuss how we might move forward as a city on this issue. It is clear that any changes need to be brought in slowly and carefully, but if the Government were to lend their support to such an approach, committing to a drugs policy that is evidence based and treatment led, I am confident that we could save lives locally.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I want to speak about an issue that affects a growing number of women and girls right across our country—female genital mutilation. It is the third time that I have raised the issue in the Chamber over the last year, and it has been raised by Members in both Houses in recent weeks, with a thoughtful debate taking place in the other place on 30 June.
FGM is not a religious issue; nor is it restricted to one ethnic group. It is a cultural practice prevalent in Africa, the middle east and parts of the far east. But behind the acronym FGM is a crime—a brutal crime perpetrated against those who are least able to protect themselves: little girls and young women.
FGM is the full or partial removal of, or injury to, the external female genitalia for non-therapeutic reasons, which means that there is no beneficial medical basis for the practice. In every case, the health of the girl or woman is damaged, often irreparably. What is most shocking of all is that a great many of these criminal acts are perpetrated against girls aged 10 and under, right down to infants. It is “the unkindest cut of all”, as FGM is carried out in the full knowledge of those who are supposed to protect their children—their families.
FGM causes all kinds of severe problems for girls and women’s sexual and reproductive health and general well-being throughout their lives. The Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development, FORWARD, estimated that around 66,000 women and girls in England and Wales have already been subject to FGM and that well over 22,000 should be considered as “at risk”. In some areas of London, about 5% of women giving birth present with signs of FGM. Those grim figures are based on the 2001 census. Given migration patterns over the last decade, these figures are likely to be much higher today.
In a recent article in The Guardian, Hugh Muir stated that some 6,000 girls in London were taken abroad and subjected to genital mutilation. Head teachers have described to me happy and outgoing young girls who have returned from their summer holidays withdrawn and distressed. I struggle to understand why the systematic and brutal wounding of young girls is not considered a national scandal. I know that right hon. and hon. Members would not tolerate a situation in which little British girls were taken abroad and returned missing their fingers. Likewise, we should not tolerate FGM. It is a child protection issue. FGM in the UK is child abuse; it is that simple—yet FGM continues to grow, largely unchallenged, in British society.
Since 2008, there have been more than 100 metropolitan police investigations into cases of FGM, but despite that, and even though FGM has been illegal since 1985, there have been no convictions to date. France has made more than 100 successful prosecutions. Ms Efua Dorkenoo, a leading expert in the field, believes that we must make it clear to communities where FGM is prevalent that the Government, police and courts take this issue very seriously and that it is completely unacceptable. Prosecutions would make that clear. We need to understand the barriers to prosecution. Have Ministers discussed with their counterparts in France how that country’s successful prosecutions were secured?
Prevention is even more important. Are we focusing on children aged under 10? Are Departments such as Health, Education and the Home Office working together to make the existing framework of child protection even more effective? Are we urgently addressing the need to update the evidence base on FGM? Figures that are now more than 10 years old suggest that the practice affects more women, in the number of new cases, than ovarian or cervical cancers—yet female genital mutilation can be eliminated, and I would like to see it given the emphasis it deserves.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I want to talk about the innovative and excellent work done by Fortalice house in my constituency. Before I explain why I believe that its work should interest Back Benchers as well as Ministers, let me give some statistics for domestic violence.
Domestic abuse accounts for almost 25% of recorded violent crime. An average of two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner, 30% of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, women are assaulted an average of 35 times before seeking help, and every six seconds a woman is assaulted in her home. Those are staggering statistics in a modern, advanced, civilised society such as ours.
Fortalice house, which has existed for three years, accommodates up to 22 women and up to 70 children in fully furnished, self-contained flats with 24-hour supervision. Its ethos involves not just providing physical shelter, but re-educating women and children so that they can change their own patterns of behaviour. Its staff work with women to deal with issues such as alcohol, drugs, living skills, relationships, money and physical health, and to motivate them to take responsibility for their own mental and emotional health. The skills that they teach include managing money and using IT, sewing, and cooking healthy food. As a result of their work, in the last year only 5% of women who went into Fortalice house went back to the perpetrators of violence: it had a 95% success rate. Staff also provide practical help, filling in forms and liaising with different agencies to ensure that the ladies receive the benefits to which they are entitled, which helps them to look after themselves and their children.
The work of Fortalice house is, by nature, people-intensive, and funding cuts of more than 18% will have a severe impact on its ability to deliver the excellent services that it currently provides. Domestic violence is an issue in Bolton, where, between April 2010 and March 2011, there were 8,160 incidents of domestic violence, more than in any other area in Greater Manchester. Twenty per cent. of recorded crime in Bolton is domestic violence, and 50% is alcohol-related. I know that there are budgetary constraints, but I urge Home Office Ministers to recognise that some of the work that is being done is so vital and crucial that it must be supported. I ask the Home Office to consider not just funding Fortalice house so that it can continue its work, but enabling that work to be extended to other domestic violence refuge centres throughout the country. Ultimately more money will be saved, because prevention is always better than cure.
Finally, I invite Ministers to come and see for themselves the excellent work being done at Fortalice house, and ask them again to consider providing resources so that domestic violence refuges—
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I want to draw the House’s attention to increasing concern in my constituency about gang-related crime.
Let me begin by saying that the London borough of Harrow is the second safest borough in London in terms of crime. The police do a brilliant job in apprehending criminals and ensuring that they are processed through the courts and punished accordingly, and they have my huge support. The Mayor of London has increased the number of police officers available to the borough, as well as the number of police community support officers. However, there is a great fear of crime in the area, which has been exacerbated by recent events. It stems from what happened two or three years ago, when Wealdstone was essentially a no-go area after dark because of the gangs in the area. The situation culminated in the stabbing of a young man at a petrol station. I am delighted to say that the police apprehended those responsible and broke the gang, and that those responsible are now in prison, but, of course, gang membership starts at different ages.
The police cracked down in Wealdstone, and that was a tremendous success, but the gangs then moved north into Harrow Weald. A gang has terrorised the local neighbourhood there. There are recorded crimes. On Friday 24 June, nine of the gang’s members were arrested after a young man was stabbed in the street at night. Happily, the young man was not severely injured, but he was badly injured. On Sunday 3 July, there was another incident in which a young man was stabbed. The criminal involved has, we believe, been apprehended, and will be processed.
This is the tip of the iceberg, however. The gang is causing mayhem in the area. Young people on their way to and from school are frequently mugged—relieved of their money and their mobile phones—and are in fear of going about their normal business in daylight hours. We must combat that.
I ask the Minister for one simple action that we promised before the general election, and which I hope will happen. Those who are apprehended carrying knives should face a custodial sentence, regardless of their age. Even if they are under 18, we need to challenge young people and say, “Do not carry knives, because if you do so and you’re apprehended, you’ll face a custodial sentence.”
We must go further, too. We must encourage parents to make sure that young people do not join gangs in the first place, and we must offer alternatives for young people. Just yards away from where this gang is operating, there is a tremendous initiative in Harrow: a joint arrangement between Watford football club, the lottery and Harrow council to open a state-of-the-art youth centre, which will offer an excellent set of facilities for young people. My fear is that parents across Harrow may be discouraged from allowing their children to go to the youth centre because of the activities of this gang. We must take strong action to remove the gang from the streets, so that young people are given positive outcomes for their future development and positive things to do. Over the summer, I hope to see this youth centre, which I shall visit this week, start to come into operation so that we can see a more positive future.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Jeremy Wright)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this short but varied debate. I should apologise to all Members who have taken part, however, as I will not be able to give them the detailed answers their contributions deserve in the time available, but I do want to respond to some of the points they raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) expressed concerns about the drug khat. The Government share his concerns. He rightly pointed out that we do not have a great deal of information about the extent of the use of khat. What we know at present is based on a 2010 estimate that about 0.2% of the population reported using it. My hon. Friend asked about acquiring more information. I can tell him that there are now—since, I think, October 2009—questions in the British crime survey about the use of khat, and I hope that will lead to the Government having more information in making appropriate decisions.
In 2006, the previous Government decided to accept the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs not to ban khat at that point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the ACMD in February of this year asking it to review the available evidence now, and to reconsider the question of controlling khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I can tell my hon. Friend that that work will begin in the autumn, and that we therefore expect in the fullness of time to have a good deal of information available from the ACMD and conclusions the Government can consider in deciding what to do next.
My hon. Friend would not expect me to prejudge the outcome of that ACMD review, and I will not do so. However, I can tell him that it will be thorough, and I am also sure that the ACMD will be interested in any evidence he and others can bring forward for its consideration. As I say, the decision that it takes and the decision that the Government then take will be based on evidence.
That brings me neatly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She made two proposals to the Government, the first of which was that drugs policy should be evidence-based and the second that we should move away from the criminalisation of drug use towards a more health-based model. I shall deal with both of those in turn.
The first point to make is that we already have a balanced drugs policy. It is right that drugs policy should be based on evidence and that it should be balanced, not just on criminalisation but on other issues. The title of last December’s drugs strategy, to which the hon. Lady referred, starts with the words “Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery”. All those elements are important, and we will continue to evaluate the strategy to make sure that it is delivering what it should. The strategy set out, for example, that the commissioning of drug and alcohol treatment services will be a core responsibility of local directors of public health, so there will continue to be a health-related element to the Government’s drugs strategy, and that is as it should be. There will also be an education element to the strategy. It is right to say also that young people need to understand exactly what they are dealing with when faced with a variety of illegal drugs and they need to be discouraged from taking them.
That brings me on to the second area. I understand that the hon. Lady had a very limited time in which to make her case on this important issue. I have an even more limited time in which to reply, so I understand that we are restricted in what we say. However, I disagree with her view that the right answer is to decriminalise the drugs that we are discussing. The simple reason for that is that legalising something that was previously illegal sends out a very clear message, and that message is that society no longer disapproves of this item in the way that it previously did. That would be acceptable only if the effect of these drugs was not as damaging as it is. The hon. Lady says that she is interested in evidence when it comes to drugs policy, so she must accept that the evidence clearly shows that illegal drugs of the type we are discussing are extremely damaging. They are damaging to the individual who takes them and to their family, and to the wider community. Therefore society should not take a neutral view on whether these drugs are a good or bad thing; society should take a strong view that they are a bad thing. The Government’s view is therefore that those drugs should remain illegal.
I will certainly pass to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the invitation from the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) to visit the Fortalice refuge, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will consider it. The hon. Lady was right to say that the people who work there do a remarkably good job and offer a service that many people find extremely valuable. However, I do not think it is right to conclude that the funding difficulties with which the Government certainly have to contend on a range of fronts mean that these types of services cannot be provided.
The hon. Lady will know that a substantial part of the local funding to refuges such as the one in her constituency comes from the Supporting People programme. In relation to that programme, £6.5 billion-worth of funding has been secured for the current spending review period. Admittedly, that represents a reduction, but the average annual reduction over the four-year period is less than 1% in cash terms. Central funding is also available and the Government are making available £28 million of stable Home Office funding over that period for specialist services, including independent domestic violence advisers, independent sexual violence advisers and co-ordinators for multi-agency risk assessment conferences. Those are all important services that she will recognise, and they co-ordinate with the types of services at the refuge in her constituency that she is describing.
I was discussing the Government’s commitment to preventing violence and abuse against women and girls, not just in the UK but more broadly so I shall move on to deal with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). As she said, she has spoken in this House before—and powerfully—on female genital mutilation. She has done so again today and she is right to say that this practice constitutes horrific abuse of often very young children. It remains a crime, as she says, and it has been a crime since 1985. More specifically, under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 the maximum sentence for this offence has been increased to 14 years’ imprisonment. Crucially, as she said, this Act allows the behaviour of British citizens abroad to be punished, whereas previously it could not be. That is an important point for the reason she gave, which is that occasionally such activity was transferred abroad to avoid the effect of the criminal law.
My hon. Friend would probably also agree that there are a number of things we can do. We should look not only to punish those who are responsible for committing these offences but to improve the guidance available to prosecutors so that they can prosecute more often. She is right that there have been no prosecutions, but it is worth noting that there have been some 58 investigations into this offence. If there are difficulties with prosecuting, they might be to do with the types of information and understanding that Crown prosecutors need to have, and later this summer the CPS will therefore be issued with new guidelines to assist, we hope, in taking forward prosecutions where appropriate.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we can do more. We can raise awareness of the issue, which remains in many ways a hidden crime, and we will therefore attempt to get more Government guidelines to teachers, general practitioners and nurses, who need to understand the signs of such offences so that they can identify them. We also need to broaden awareness more generally and we have sent out some 40,000 leaflets and 40,000 posters to schools, health services, charities and community groups, because wider society needs to understand what is happening. We also need to assist victims, which we are doing with 15 specialist NHS clinics offering a range of services, including so-called reversal surgery. Women can go to those centres direct and do not need to be referred. Finally, this is a cross-government issue. It is not simply the Home Office that must act but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Education and the Department of Health.
Let me turn finally to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who spoke, as he has before, about the tragic and worrying events in his constituency. He is right, of course, that the Government should be very clear about the consequences of knife crime not just for the victim but for the offender. Let me make it very clear that so far as this Government are concerned, those who commit a criminal offence using a knife can expect to go to prison. As my hon. Friend knows, a prison sentence is available not just for adult offenders but for young offenders, and in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is making its way through the House, the Government propose a new offence of having an offensive weapon in a public place and threatening someone with it. That offence will receive a mandatory six-month prison sentence, unless that would be unjust in all the circumstances.
My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we need to ensure that resources find their way to the problem. On that front, he might know that the Home Office has committed £18 million over the next two years, up to 2013, to support police, local agencies and the voluntary sector in tackling crime involving weapons and youth crime more generally. That includes £3.75 million for the three police forces where most knife crime occurs, and, as he would expect, that includes London.
It is also important, as my hon. Friend said, that we support those community projects that help to deter young people from involvement in knife crime. On that front, he will be interested to know that the Government have committed £400,000 to an organisation known as Kids Taskforce, which helps to educate school pupils about knife crime. He may have come across the organisation, because its materials are used by schools in Harrow.
My final point—I know my hon. Friend would support this—is that we must make those who are tempted to carry a knife understand that doing so does not, as they might believe, make them safer but makes them less safe. That is part of our education task when we deal with knife crime. I know that he would wish us to pursue that and that he would hope that it would be pursued in his constituency.
My speech has not covered all the contributions that have been made in the detail that would be justified, but I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond to the extent that I have. I wish you and all those who work in this building a very prosperous and happy recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The final debate is the general debate and, as Members can see, it is well over-subscribed and we will finish at 7 pm. Although there is a four-minute limit, if Members have only one point and can make it within those four minutes, they will help other colleagues.
general matters
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I shall be as brief as I can. It would be an understatement to say that there has been a great deal of interest in the national media and, in particular, in newspapers in recent weeks. Indeed, that interest continues today. Whatever we think, a free and thriving press is undoubtedly important to us all. In any vibrant democracy there are two important ingredients—the first is competitive politics. We need parties competing with each other, and of course the battle of ideas. Secondly, we need diverse, challenging and inquisitive media, which legitimately hold to account politicians and others in positions of power and responsibility. Those media should be diverse, with a variety of radio stations, newspapers, television channels and the new media.
We often underestimate the importance of the media at the local level. That is the subject of my short speech today. Strong local media are equally important to hold people to account, whether they are politicians or others in local communities or regions who have positions of influence and power. In my area I am fortunate to have a diverse range of media. We have a daily newspaper, a weekly newspaper, two radio stations and two TV channels, all covering local issues in and around the Carlisle area, north Cumbria and south-west Scotland. However, if we scratch beneath the surface of those media, we discover that all is not necessarily as good as we would hope.
The papers are struggling because the recession has affected advertising and the income that that generates for them. The purchase of papers has fallen in recent years, which is worrying for the sustainability of the local newspaper. One of the TV channels is, in effect, a north-east channel and only occasionally covers Cumbria. The second channel has been greatly reduced. It was once known as Border TV. Now it is, to a certain extent, an outpost of the north-east. As for radio, we have CFM, which functions well on limited resources. The real strength is in Radio Cumbria, but that is under potential threat from BBC cuts. I shall concentrate on that.
We cannot underestimate the importance of Radio Cumbria and its contribution to local community. Back in 2001 we had the foot and mouth crisis, and in 2005 the Carlisle floods. In many respects it was the only source of information during that period. Then in 2009 there were the west Cumbrian floods. More recently Radio Cumbria provided information and reassurance to many people when Derrick Bird was murdering people in west Cumbria. Radio Cumbria is also a source of local news, information about community events, coverage of the local football team and coverage of politics. It is one of the most listened-to radio stations in the country.
I support other radio stations up and down the country, as I believe that local radio is extremely important for local communities. The danger is that with the proposed cuts by the BBC, that will be a much diminished service. I therefore call upon the Minister to put as much pressure as he can on the BBC to ensure that local radio is taken care of and is supported properly. I would rather see local radio survive than channels such as BBC 4. There is enough national coverage already. What we need is more local support.
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
According to a European comparative study of children’s exposure to accidents conducted in 2005, the fatality rate for child cyclists in the most vulnerable group—10 to 14-year-olds—was found to be around five times worse in the UK than in the Netherlands and Sweden. Every year about 50 cyclists are killed in collisions with cars. Many more are badly injured.
For health and environmental reasons, there is a consensus across the House and the country that we need to encourage more people, including children, to take up cycling. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to consider how we can improve the cyclist safety record in this country, hopefully bringing it into line with other European countries. A good starting point is to look at the difference between our country and countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. I am sure there are several differences, but one thing stands out. Here in the UK, if a cyclist or pedestrian is injured or killed in an accident with a motor vehicle, it is for the victim or the victim’s family to prove that the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent. In Europe, we share that approach only with Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.
In every other European country, stricter liability applies for insurance purposes. Under stricter liability, which reverses the burden-of-proof balance, it is for the driver to prove that the cyclist or pedestrian was negligent and therefore caused or contributed to the accident. As Lord Denning said, as long ago as 1982:
“There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.”
I believe that adopting stricter liability in this country for road accidents would be an important step forward for justice and, more importantly, would save considerable numbers of vulnerable people from injury and even death.
A report produced for the Department for Transport in 2004, “Children’s traffic safety: international lessons for the UK”, attributed at least some of the differences in the safety record here, as compared with other European countries, to the law of stricter liability in those countries. The evidence points to the fact that stricter liability has the psychological effect of making drivers more aware of the vulnerability of children, cyclists and pedestrians. That is what the 2004 study concluded and it is also the conclusion of many cyclists who have experience of cycling in this country and on the continent. My constituent, David Naylor of the Swansea Wheelwrights cycling group, who first raised this issue with me, is one such person. He wrote informing me that he has toured in the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. He went on to say:
“This has made me aware of how much safer one is over there. Motorists treat cyclists and pedestrians with respect. The better infrastructure helps but my judgement is that the existence of stricter liability is more important”.
When I took that up with the Department for Transport earlier this year, the Minister replied: “Even if there were some benefit for road safety such benefit would need to be weighed against the disbenefit which might result from overturning the well established and effective law that applies in civil liability.” Personally, I think that road safety should trump legal tradition every time.
We would not be revolutionising British law if we applied stricter liability in these cases because it is already part of our civil law on workplace health and safety incidents and on product liability. It is even in the field of motor insurance already, as it applies to car passengers. Extending it to protect cyclists and pedestrians makes sense and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to making the necessary changes even if the insurance industry does not happen to like the idea.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I would like to make the case for including body image classes in schools. We already recognise the need for our schools to inform young people about a wide range of issues such as the dangers of drugs and alcohol misuse, how to have a healthy lifestyle, and basic financial literacy in relation to mortgages, interest rates and debt. I believe that these personal, social and health education classes should now include body image.
We live in a looks-obsessed society and huge commercial and social pressure is placed on young people to aspire to unachievable body “ideals”—so much so that half of young women aged between 16 and 21 say that they would consider cosmetic surgery to change the way they look, and half of young men feel bad about their body after reading men’s magazines. Eating disorders now affect 1.6 million people in this country. Most worryingly perhaps, the prevalence of eating disorders doubled between 1995 and 2005. Even when the situation is not as serious as a full-blown eating disorder, negative body image can have a real impact on educational achievement. A study in 2005 by Lovegrove and Rumsey found that 31% of teenagers—almost a third—say they do not engage in classroom debate for fear of drawing attention to their appearance and that one in five pupils reported staying away from school on days when they lacked confidence in their appearance.
Channel 4’s “How to Look Good Naked” is a fabulous example of what the media can do to play a positive role in developing body confidence. Its presenter, Gok Wan, has also championed the cause of body image classes in schools. In May, he brought a massive body confidence lesson to Parliament. There are lots of great examples up and down the country. Y Touring, the theatre arm of YMCA, has taken its discussion-provoking play “Beautiful” into schools, and the campaign group Body Gossip has developed “gossip school”, in which individuals who have recovered from eating disorders go into schools and lead discussions about body confidence. In the US, the body project, which got young people to critique the “thin ideal” in essays and role plays, was shown to reduce the risk of participants’ developing eating disorders by 61%.
The university of the West of England’s centre for appearance research will soon publish its evaluation of different types of body image lessons. It suggests that the technique of cognitive dissonance—putting young people in a position in which they challenge the stereotypical, ideal body themselves—is the most successful in changing attitudes, and can reduce body dissatisfaction and the likelihood of developing eating disorders.
What should the Government do? First, the issue needs to be examined in the context of the forthcoming review of personal, social and health education, and I hope that the Government will conclude that body image should be taught in all schools, just like education on drug abuse and safer sex. Secondly, the Government should work with various partners to develop a range of resources that teachers can use for those lessons. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has entered into discussions with Media Smart to develop a media resilience and body image toolkit that can be offered to schools. It is a great start, and we should undertake more initiatives like that.
Thirdly, we need to encourage teachers and schools to use those resources by sharing best practice at education conferences, in teacher training colleges and by using the media to highlight successes. Setting time aside in the curriculum to develop teenagers’ body confidence makes sense for the sake of both the academic performance and the long-term health and well-being of our young people.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Defence is the first and most important duty of Government, and it demands particular responsibility when, as now, we face the need for significant reforms. If we do have to cut, we must do so with care. Instead, the Government are making changes that will greatly affect our capabilities and our role in the world without a proper assessment of our needs, without proper consultation, and without proper scrutiny in Parliament. It is unacceptable that the Secretary of State should have appeared in the House yesterday to announce major changes across four critical policy areas with less than an hour for the House to debate them. The British public, and our armed forces, deserve better.
The problems facing our armed forces have grown under successive Governments. Labour’s record included reducing the number of civil servants in the MOD by more than a third and by making reforms to the structure of the armed forces after we came to office. We recognised the need for further reform, which is why we commissioned the Gray report on defence acquisition. We could have done more, and we must take our share of responsibility, but we should not stand by and watch when the coalition Government get it wrong.
I accept that there are genuine challenges facing the Secretary of State, but it is increasingly clear that the strategic defence and security review was a rushed and compromised process, driven by a Treasury agenda and a Treasury timetable. That is not just my view but that of the Defence Secretary himself, who said that
“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR and more like a ‘super CSR’.”
It is no wonder, that nine months on, the incoherence of the review has been exposed.
It is always difficult to second-guess military decisions in opposition. However, is the Prime Minister’s judgment not called into question, given that he argued that there are few circumstances in the short term in which the ability to deploy airpower from the sea is essential? Libya undermined that assertion after just five months, and it could be 2020 before we have full carrier capability again. The Royal Navy as a whole has been cut to the bone, even though it is important to the flexibility and reach set out by the national security strategy. At the same time, our island nation is eliminating our maritime patrol aircraft. We now know that there are more cuts to the Army to come. In reality, as Chatham House put it,
“the cuts are actually far greater than those that were imposed by any previous UK defence review.”
Finally, the SDSR fails to deal with the underlying problems in the way the military is structured and run. That is why more than two thirds of defence experts described it as a missed opportunity. It put in place a number of piecemeal reviews that will not deliver the structural and coherent changes needed to address the organisational problems at the Ministry of Defence. I do not believe that that is good enough, so once again I ask that the Prime Minister do the right thing for our armed forces and our country and order a new chapter to this outdated and inadequate review.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
May I first put on the record my disgust at the fact that this House, having summoned someone to appear before a Committee, has failed to protect them, and that they have been assaulted? Regardless of the politics and the accusations, we have a responsibility to look after them, and we failed.
Over the past year I have spent a long time talking about educational attainment, particularly the need to ensure that young people in my community speak English. If they are to reach their maximum potential and take advantage of all the opportunities life brings them, we must encourage them to speak English and reach the highest possible educational attainment. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Education to go further than the response he has given so far and identify interventions that he will put in place to hold parents to their responsibility to ensure that their children reach their maximum potential. I would like him to respond in writing on how we will do that.
When we return after the recess, I hope that the Localism Bill will go through. There is a long-outstanding call in Keighley for independence, not from the rest of the world, but from Bradford council, and I hope that a referendum conducted under the Localism Bill will offer that opportunity. There is a strong call from the community I represent to break away from Bradford and ensure that they get value for money and local representation. I would like the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to outline clearly when such a referendum can be held and give an associated time line so that we can start to talk to the public about this issue.
I raised during Prime Minister’s questions the VAT that the Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice has to pay and whether we should think about an exemption. There has been a long debate with the Treasury on how this problem could be solved. This is Government, and we need to have a can-do approach and to find a solution. I ask the Chancellor to write to me on the debate that has gone on so far, outlining clearly what is holding this back and how we can find a solution to the issue. I know that there is support from both sides of the House on the matter.
While many people have been damning the big society, the members of the Worth Valley young farmers club in my constituency have been rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it, with 80 young people aged 10 to 26 out there in the parks, working for local groups and really making a difference. I want to celebrate that, as we are extremely proud of what they have done. Lots of people put their hands out and ask for something, but these young people are really making a contribution. I say well done to the leadership of the club, and the young farmers themselves have our support and are proud ambassadors for our town.
Worth Valley railway, Ilkley moor, the Brontë parsonage and the landscape of “Wuthering Heights” are great tourist attractions in my town. I would like to invite the Minister responsible for tourism to come up and talk with businesses in my constituency and listen to them about how we can make their business work better.
There is a large Kashmiri population in Keighley, and one of the big issues for them is independence and self-determination for Kashmir. My final point is to ask the Foreign Secretary to reiterate the Government’s position on self-determination and to write to me to let me know what we have done over the past year in government to address the issue.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
In 2010 more than 234,000 people were claiming employment support allowance for a mental or behavioural disorder, which is 40% of the total and by far the biggest single group. The figures are similar for other sickness benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions is now in the process of migrating all sickness benefit claimants to employment support allowance, which includes reassessing their fitness to work through a work capacity assessment, but there are huge doubts about the fitness of this work capacity assessment for people with mental or behavioural disorders. Over 40% of people who lost their benefit won again at appeal—that is, over 20,000 in 16 months, which is far more than for any other refused benefit. After waiting for many months they had their benefits reinstated, but they should not have had to suffer that wait. This number does not include the people who had a decision reversed at an earlier stage or who gave up their struggle to make a claim.
This is a benefit claim system that is not fit for purpose. I have heard numerous examples of people with very serious and apparent mental illness having been found to be “fit for work” because they do not happen to meet the descriptors used as part of the work capability assessment. I do not need to remind the House that many of these people are highly vulnerable. The heads of a number of leading mental health charities and the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to The Guardian following a poll which showed that over half of those surveyed reported suicidal thoughts as a result of the prospect of a work capability assessment, while 95% said that they did not think they would be believed at their assessment.
In recognition of this failure of the work capability assessment procedure for people with a mental illness, the Government are enacting Professor Harrington's recommendation for mental health “champions” in every assessment centre. Professor Harrington is also, at the request of the Government, working with leading mental health charities to review the mental, intellectual and cognitive descriptors used in the work capability assessment. Despite this, not all assessment centres yet have an assigned mental function champion, and where they do, they have not had the time to bed in and change practice in their centres.
The mental, intellectual and cognitive descriptors are recognised by the Government to be in need of review. In the meantime, tens of thousands of vulnerable people are being forced to undergo an assessment procedure that the Government acknowledge is failing them. I call on the Government to suspend all reassessments of those with a mental or behavioural illness until such time as Professor Harrington’s recommendations are fully implemented. The descriptors of mental, intellectual and cognitive impairment and the mental function champions need time to change working practices within the Department for Work and Pensions. We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people to undergo a process that we know to be flawed, risks suicide, causes huge distress, and is denying benefits to an unacceptably high proportion of those who are, in fact, entitled to them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Returning officers play a very important role in our democracy, notwithstanding some of the difficulties that we saw in 2010. They need the statutory protection of their appointment to make sure that they are not influenced by council groups or Members of Parliament at election time. The costs that they incur in running elections are fully justified, but it is my strong contention that the fees that they are paid personally for their services are not justified, and cannot be justified at this time, and that the continued payment of these massive fees to returning officers is wrong and must be stopped. At a time when there are cuts in mobile libraries, bus subsidies and some leisure services, we continue to pay these enormous fees.
Let me give some examples from seven different authorities. In Liverpool, the returning officer was entitled to £14,000 on top of a salary of £217,000. In Islington, there was an entitlement of £13,800 and the returning officer had a salary of £210,000. In Newcastle city, there was an entitlement of £9,880 on top of a salary of £150,000. In Manchester, there was an entitlement of £19,251 on top of a salary of £199,000. In Leeds, there was an entitlement of £27,654 on top of a £176,000 salary. In Bedford borough, there was an entitlement of £18,241 on top of a £170,000 salary. Lastly and most enormously, in Glasgow city there was an entitlement to a £44,000 fee on top of a salary of £170,000. How can we justify such payments? Those sums are many times the amount earned by many of my constituents.
If the Deputy Leader of the House is asked by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister to do an extra job, he does not say, “I’ll do it for an extra £5,000 or £6,000.” He gets on and does it, because he is a public servant in a leadership position. Why should we have extra payments for returning officers? In my view, we need urgently to amend the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
These fees are a large, undeserved cherry on top of an already very well-iced cake, and it is time that they went. I look to the Deputy Leader of the House to do something about it.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Upon my re-election, I declared that the big issues for my constituency were investment and jobs. Unemployment in my constituency in June 2011 was 3,082, which is far too high—the 132nd highest in the UK. This Friday, I will attend a meeting with Department for Work and Pensions officials and other MPs where we will analyse in some detail the statistics and trends of what has happened in the last year. However, my constituents are not statistics. They are decent people, neighbours, friends and families who are worried about their future. My constituents want action from the coalition Government and the Scottish Government.
One example is the regeneration of Gartcosh. Starting in 1986, a multi-million pound investment of public money was spent on creating this new industrial park. For far too long, there has been a lot of huffing and puffing from the Scottish Government about planned jobs. This is turning into a national scandal. Massive public investment has not yielded one job. The Scottish Government and all the agencies accountable to them are in the dock. My constituents want answers, and they want them now.
Equally, the communities that I represent do not want jobs at any price. For example, the planned incinerator was rejected by North Lanarkshire council. In my view, Councillor Jim Brooks has skilfully exposed the Scottish Government’s role as pathetic and like that of Pontius Pilate.
I invite the First Minister, for the second time, to visit my constituency so that he can listen to the sincere views expressed by decent, hard-working people who value their health and that of their children.
I will make three quick points that are important to my constituents. I believe that the scandalous domestic energy prices should be subject to a full investigation by the Competition Commission, and I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) to order an inquiry.
Credit unions in my constituency perform an outstanding role in helping people with their finances. Because of their differing values, the banks have bombed and the credit unions have boomed.
Financial constraints led North Lanarkshire council to consider parking charges. I have recorded my view with the chief executive and I met the leadership of the council to explain that our economy is too fragile and our town centres too vulnerable, and that above all else our people are being hammered enough without the imposition of such charges.
I will end on a positive note. Jobs can come from superfast broadband in the future. Pauline and Robert Bell, the energetic owners of Skyline Installations, a burgeoning company based in my constituency, have a legitimate interest in the new infrastructure. On their behalf, I wrote to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and in all fairness, I have to say that the Secretary of State replied immediately. However, the response from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was less than satisfactory. As a consequence, and consistent with my support for small businesses, particularly in my constituency, I have decided to request a meeting with the appropriate Minister. As a former Minister in that Department, I do not think that that should be too difficult. My constituents would expect no less.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise. Mrs and Mrs Tweed came to see me at my last surgery. Mr Tweed is 52, and he has terminal cancer of the bowel, liver and lymph nodes. He had disability living allowance turned down. It went to appeal, and that was turned down, and in October he was told, “Wait another year”. He has not got a year, so let the Department for Work and Pensions act now.
My constituent Jean Judge’s daughter suffers from severe dyslexia and Asperger’s. She gained a place at University college London as a mature student. I thought that people with special difficulties would be given extra help, but she has not been. I hope the relevant Department will see what it can do to help.
Brian West is one of the 10,000 people who took out an Equitable Life policy before the September 1992 cut-off date. I hope that the Government will look again at trying to help people in that situation.
Southend West, having the most centenarians in the country, depends on its bus services. Again, I ask the Government to see what they can do with subsidies. I have organised a public meeting for 5 August at 11 o’clock at Iveagh Hall, at which elderly people can tell us how urgently they need support for bus services.
Recently I went with the town clerk of Southend to see local businesses in the town. A number of business premises are empty, and we need to reconsider rate relief for empty business properties.
There was an increase of 3% in the number of animals used in experiments last year compared with 2009, and it is particularly worrying that there has been an increase of 10% in speculative research. As I served on the original Bill Committee on the matter, I am very disappointed with those figures. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will pass that on to the appropriate Department.
There are between 250,000 and 466,000 people in the UK infected with hepatitis C. We could do far better in treating them, and I hope the Department of Health will consider that issue.
The Royal College of Midwives has said that there were 687,000 live births in England in 2010, a rise of 123,000 since 2001. I hope that we will do all we can to recruit more midwives.
Mrs Karen Glassborrow is looking to set up a free school in Southend, and I hope that the appropriate Department will help her.
On Parliament square, it is terribly sad about Brian Haw having died. He was the only person who was given permission to stay there, and I do not understand why on earth we have all those tents in a dangerous roundabout. Let us get on with it and do something about it instead of having the weasel words.
I end with phone hacking. I get on the tube at night listening to endless telephone conversations, which I find very boring indeed. Unfortunately no one has hacked my phone, so I am not entitled to any money. The Labour party raised this issue, but we had a rotten Labour Government from May 1997 until last year. When we have the inquiry, let us start by having the former Prime Minister Tony Blair give evidence. Secondly we should have the noble Lord who was his deputy for 10 years, and then we should have the last Prime Minister.
I hope everyone has a wonderful summer recess.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to raise two issues. The first involves a group of eight banks, particularly the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has lent money to Davenham Trust Ltd. Davenham intends on Thursday to seek the bankruptcy of my constituent Mr Mark White, having lent one of his businesses £1.7 million. He has repaid approximately £2.2 million, so that is Davenham’s capital plus interest, albeit not the full sum that Davenham is demanding.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to raise concerns about other aspects of the case, but there are four questions that the Treasury should demand that the Royal Bank of Scotland answer, in its role as administrator of a £300 million lending facility to Davenham. What knowledge of Davenham’s financial problems has it had; how involved has it been in the effort to keep Davenham afloat; what knowledge has it had of efforts to replace Davenham’s board; and finally, what knowledge and scrutiny of Davenham’s business strategy did it have before granting it extended facilities earlier this year, and does it have now?
Bankruptcy would not only mean my constituent losing his home—a bad enough outcome and traumatic for him and his family—but would put at risk a separate company with 200 employees. At that company’s request I spoke to representatives of the Royal Bank of Scotland on Friday, and they made it clear that it is anything but their normal practice to intervene in such a situation. However, I repeat in the House today the request that I put to them on Friday. The times that we are in are tough enough, and RBS should recognise the opportunity to do the right thing and intervene to try to prevent bankruptcy. I hope the Treasury will encourage it in that view.
The second case that I wish to mention involves my constituent Mr Ashok Chatterjee, who was allowed to submit claims for overnight stays that he made while working at RAF Wyton, first at the Alconbury House hotel and later, after it closed, at the Alconbury motel. The Ministry of Defence for a long time believed that my constituent had falsified claims for the one hotel, long after it closed, when in actual fact he was claiming, as allowed, for a stay at a similarly named but different premises. My constituent’s nightmare began when he was formally interviewed concerning possible abuse of his monthly claims. Over the next two years, he was suspended from duty, then reinstated, and then threatened with criminal charges, which were dropped. He was eventually reprimanded, but at the end of the MOD’s appeal process, when the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry, Sir Kevin Tebbit, revoked the charges against my constituent, he noted significant procedural flaws in how the MOD had handled the case. Sir Kevin also concluded that the personal record of my constituent in his time at the MOD should be restored to one of integrity and honesty.
I feel a deep sympathy for Mr Chatterjee and his family, for whom this has been a terrible experience. He has not been able to put it behind him and move on with his life, suffering considerable stress and illness as a result. I have written to a number of Secretaries of State for Defence, who have not been willing to consider the case for compensation. Mr Chatterjee could not afford to take the financial risk of court action, so I use this debate to ask the MOD to look at all the papers relating to the handling of the original disciplinary charge, in particular, and his appeal, one further time, and consider whether the handling of his case does not in fact merit some out-of-court compensation for the trauma he has gone through, and indeed is still going through.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Before the House rises for the summer recess, there are a number of points that I would like to raise on behalf of my constituents with those on the Treasury Bench, none of which—the House may be pleased to learn—relates to News International.
Many of my constituents write to raise concerns about the Child Support Agency and its manifold failings. It is clear that the CSA is in need of reform, as is the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, or CAFCASS, the dispute resolution mechanism. Parents in Tamworth tell me that communications from CAFCASS are often vague, sometimes complex and are almost always sent only in response to parents’ questions and complaints. CAFCASS, in my own experience of dealing with it, seems to be reactive and unhelpful. Yet day in and day out it is dealing with the some of the most upset, angry and worried parents. It seems clear that we need better dispute resolution procedures between parents so that fewer cases go to court and disputes are resolved more quickly. I would be grateful if the relevant Minister would write to me outlining any proposals that they may have for CAFCASS reform.
Additionally in connection with the CSA, my constituent Mr Paul Doxey, a CSA adviser from Tamworth, has raised a number of cases with me in which local parents, paying child support, are unfairly penalised by a quirk in the system and the whim of their variations officer. Parents who own properties and rent them out for income often find that CSA variation officers capitalise the value of those assets when assessing the child support payments they are required to make. The result of that capitalisation, in many cases, is that the parents are required to pay more in support than the rental income they receive from their properties, forcing them to liquidate their assets, which are their main or only form of income. Then, in logic of which Kafka would be proud, the CSA variations officer has to reduce the payment award because the parent’s income has reduced—because of the original capitalisation decision. I would be grateful if a Minister would look into that anomaly with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions, and let me know of any action that they propose to remedy the situation.
During the next few weeks, scores of landlords of the Southern Cross care home company will be asked to nominate alternative operators who they wish to operate their properties following the failure of Southern Cross to meet its liabilities. In each case, any new operator will need to satisfy local authorities and regulators of their credentials before the transfer of any homes. Haunton Hall care home in my own constituency is one of those homes. I know that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) mentioned this earlier, but I would be grateful if he would write to me outlining any actions or guidance that he proposes to ensure that the transition to new landlords is as orderly and as transparent as possible.
As the fickle finger of time is against me, I shall conclude by reporting to the House that during the recess the magnificent Staffordshire hoard, the cache of beautiful carved gold objects that were buried for more than 1,000 years at Hammerwich on the border of the Tamworth and Lichfield constituencies, will be on show at Lichfield cathedral between 30 July and 21 August, and then at Tamworth castle between 27 August and 18 September. I encourage you, Mr Speaker, all Members and certainly all Ministers to pencil those dates into their diaries so that they can see the haul for themselves, and local trades people in Tamworth can see the colour of their wallets. They can even visit Drayton manor park on the way. It is great for the kids. I assure you, Mr Speaker, that the experience will be, as the young people say, golden.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate, which I consider to be the anchor leg of the relay race that is the Hollobone pattern of pre-Adjournment debates. I shall have to sprint even to recognise all the Members who spoke, let alone to respond to them properly. As usual, however, I shall ensure that those to whom I, inevitably, will not be able to give an adequate answer will receive a substantive reply from colleagues in the relevant Departments.
I normally try to weave a connection between contributions, but that is impossible today—they were all on different subjects and there is no logical connection—so I shall simply deal with them as they came. The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) talked about the importance of local radio stations, local newspapers and regional television. Of course, he is absolutely right. There is a saying that all news is local. It is essential that we maintain the local media that give people a sense of what is happening in their areas, and the issues that are important to them. I know that he has been a strong advocate of Radio Cumbria. He raised the threat that he perceives to its future, but which I do not think the BBC entirely accepts. I know that he will continue to argue for the existence of that station. I think that Members across the House will recognise the importance of BBC local radio.
The hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) raised a matter of particular relevance to myself and the Leader of the House, because we are both more often seen on our bicycles than in a ministerial car. Cycling safety is a crucial issue. I know that the Department for Transport has recently launched the strategic framework for road safety, and that it is particularly conscious of the dangers to cyclists as road users. It strongly encourages a wide range of measures that local authorities and others can take to make the roads safer for cyclists. He has raised a particular issue—that of stricter liability—and he knows that the Department does not currently accept that rationale for a change in the law, but I hope that he will accept that the Government are very aware of the dangers to cyclists and the need to provide better protection. He has raised an important point, which I shall make known to my ministerial colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) talked about something on which she has been campaigning very effectively—body confidence. It seems to me a basic tenet of education that we help young people to feel positive about who they are. That is essentially what she is saying. She knows about Reg Bailey’s review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. It has reported and the Government have accepted the recommendation that children should always be helped to develop their emotional resilience—the word that she, too, used—in the face of the pressures put on them by what are often impossible images propagated by the press and media. We should support those efforts, because it is important for kids to realise that we do not all have to look the same, and that there is not a “good” sort of person and a “bad” sort of person based on appearance. I hope that she will continue with her effective campaign.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has a great deal of experience in defence matters, and I listened carefully to what he said. I have to argue with him, however, when he says that it is a disgrace that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary came to the House to make a statement yesterday. I think that it would have been a disgrace had he not done so, and not made the House aware of the Ministry of Defence’s current thinking. Let us be clear: the strategic defence and security review was a huge challenge, partly because it had not been done by the previous Government. If they had not failed to do what was necessary, perhaps it would have been easier to bring forward sensible planning for our military. However, the decision to take an adaptable posture with flexible forces was right, and has been proved right by subsequent events.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) raised an important point about what happened this afternoon. I am not aware of the circumstances, so I make no judgment. I simply say this: it is absolutely and wholly wrong that a witness before a Select Committee should be assaulted in this House. Let us be in no doubt about that. That is a shameful act, and cannot be acceptable in any circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman then raised a number of other issues, which he asked me to pass on to the relevant Secretaries of State, and of course I shall do so. He talked about the teaching of English, and about independence for Keighley from Bradford. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government knows a thing or two about Bradford, and he may have some opinions on that subject. The hon. Gentleman also talked about tax exemption for charities, and Worth Valley young farmers club. I used to be on the executive of a young farmers club in Somerset, and I know the value of the work done by young farmers. The hon. Gentleman also talked about tourism in his constituency, and about Kashmir. He knows that I cannot respond to all those points adequately, but I will ensure that he receives appropriate answers.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) raised work capacity assessments, with which there has been a continuing problem—I remember raising it under the previous Government—and the inability to deal with mental health issues effectively. She knows about Professor Harrington’s review, because she talked about it. That review is an important step forward on the part of this Government.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about returning officers. He engendered great sympathy from me—as a Minister without salary in this Government—when he talked about having additional responsibilities without any additional salary. He will be aware that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 allows the Electoral Commission to withhold all or part of the fee available to counting officers. The Government are considering whether that should apply to returning officers as well. However, on the other hand, returning officers have considerable responsibilities and they have them—to coin a phrase—all the year round, not just at elections.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) talked about a number of issues in his constituency. Many of them are devolved issues, as he understands, and are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. However, he made a specific request for a meeting with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I will pass that request on, and hopefully that can be arranged.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), as always, put in a wonderful performance, in which he managed to include more subjects than I can possibly respond to: constituents with a number of problems, buses—I am afraid that I cannot guarantee that I will attend his public meeting—rate relief for empty properties, animal testing, hepatitis C, midwives, free schools, Parliament square and phone hacking. He knows—because he has enough experience to know—that I will ensure that he receives replies to his queries from the relevant Departments.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) raised some important points about Davenham Trust Ltd. I do not know the answers to those, but I shall pass them to the Treasury to reply to him directly. He also raised an important issue—on which it sounds as if he has been fighting on behalf of his constituent Mr Chatterjee for some years—concerning the Ministry of Defence. Again, I will pass that on to the MOD.
Last but not least, the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) raised the CSA and CAFCASS. I take careful note of what he said. As for the particular circumstances involving the CSA to which he referred, I will read out the note that I have here: “In short, the situation described can arise only where the income a non-resident parent derives from a property—which must be a second property and not their home—is not declared as part of the non-resident parent’s net income, and if the parent with care of the child believes the non-resident parent has undeclared income and asks the agency to include any such income in the maintenance liability.” I have no idea whether that satisfactorily answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if it does not, I will ensure that he receives a more satisfactory response in due course.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Staffordshire hoard. In return, I shall ask him to come and see the Frome hoard, found in my own village, which is on display in Taunton castle.
Mr Speaker, may I wish you and your colleagues, and all Members of the House, a very positive and valuable recess? I also thank all the Officers of the House for all the hard work that they do on our behalf.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the rather unusual circumstances of the debate tomorrow, we have not yet had notice of the motion or the terms of the debate. However, the 17 Select Committee Chairmen, plus the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 committee, and representatives of the four leaders of the devolved Administrations, have all expressed their concerns about the terms of the inquiry. I simply ask you whether it will be possible for us to table a manuscript amendment tomorrow, in the event that the motion requires amendment to satisfy the terms of early-day motion 2088.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is even further ahead of the game than usual. As he has acknowledged, there is, as yet, no formal recall tomorrow, as the Standing Order does not operate until this sitting is adjourned. I can assure him and the House, however, that shortly thereafter, I shall sign the necessary order. Only after that will we know the form of the motion for tomorrow. So his point is hypothetical at the moment, but I have noted his words, as I invariably do. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
petitions
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Bridgwater,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that EDF Energy should not be granted permission to proceed with the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development without first constructing a northern bypass for Bridgwater from Junction 23 of the M5 to connect with the A39 west of Cannington; that such a bypass would ensure that construction traffic would avoid Bridgwater’s already over-congested roads and leave the whole area a worthwhile legacy after the construction of the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development is complete; and that the Petitioners believe that a bypass would render an EDF facility and the Bridgwater Gateway Development an unnecessary and unjustifiable intrusion on farmland close to the residential area of North Petherton.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that permission for EDF Energy to proceed with the Hinckley Point C Nuclear Development should be conditional on the construction of a northern bypass for Bridgwater from Junction 23 of the M5 to connect with the A39 west of Cannington.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000946]
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by Mark Lever, the chief executive of the National Autistic Society, together with some 10,000 other signatories from across the United Kingdom gathered by the society. They are concerned about the appalling treatment of those with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders, as shown on the “Panorama” programme “Undercover Care: the Abuse Exposed”, which was televised on Tuesday 31 May 2011.
The petition states:
The petition of supporters of The National Autistic Society,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the Secretary of State for Health should take urgent action to prevent abuse in residential care settings and work with commissioners, providers, individuals receiving support and their families to ensure that vulnerable adults are treated in a dignified, safe, enabling and respectful way.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to urgently review the work of the Care Quality Commission and the appropriateness of the inspection regime for protecting vulnerable adults in out-of-area residential accommodation.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000948]
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This petition calls for a living wage to be paid to all those employed by the royal household. It is part of the decade-long campaign by London citizens to ensure that all Londoners are paid the London living wage. The petition, signed by more than 2,000 people, reads as follows:
To the House of Commons.
The Humble Petition of residents of London and others,
Declares that cleaners working for the Royal Households in London are paid £6.45 per hour even though the London Living Wage was set at £7.85 until April 2011—
you will know, Mr Speaker, that it has now been increased to £8.30—
declares that cleaners in the House of Commons and House of Lords are paid at the rate of the London Living wage; further declares that the Petitioners believe that as £30 million of taxpayers’ money is paid to the Royal family annually for the upkeep of the Royal Households it is clear that the London living wage of £7.85—
that should now read £8.30—
is affordable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage the Royal Households to ensure that all cleaners working within the Royal Households are paid the London living wage of £8.30 per hour, a rate that is supported by the Mayor of London.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
[P000947]
Urban Planting
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government visited Colchester, at my invitation, to see for himself the wonderful open setting of fields to the west of Mile End, which have been earmarked for a huge housing development of in excess of 2,200 dwellings. If it goes ahead, it will be a planning and environmental disaster. No amount of green planting in the urban environment to replace this natural area of great beauty could compensate for what mother nature and good agricultural husbandry over the centuries have created.
After visiting the north of the town, I took the Secretary of State to a big brownfield development at the former Colchester garrison on the site of the Victorian Cavalry barracks, a short distance to the south of the town centre. It is an excellent development, but it could have been even better with more green planting and fewer areas of hard paving. I would like to see some of the latter ripped up and replaced with trees, shrubs and flowers. The Minister responding to my debate this evening has also indicated an interest in visiting the development, so I look forward to showing him around in due course. Before referring further to it, I wish to conclude my remarks about the planning disaster that confronts the people of Mile End and to ask the Minister to discuss with his boss and departmental officials how it can be stopped—or, at the very least, greatly reduced so as to minimise the environmental loss of an attractive part of the north Essex countryside. In my opinion, it matches the area of outstanding natural beauty—the designation given to Constable country, Dedham Vale—only a few miles away.
The problem goes back to the policies of the last Labour Government: core strategies, regional spatial strategies, local development frameworks and so forth. Local democracy never had a look in. Although there has been a change of Government, Colchester borough council is proceeding with the policies of the last Government rather than adapting to those of the new coalition Government. There is huge local opposition from the community of Mile End and its elected representatives. That is particularly true of Myland community council, a grass-roots council that represents an area in the north of Colchester whose population is set to quadruple over a very few years.
Mile End, the correct geographic name for this part of my constituency where I grew up, has already experienced huge development in recent years, with another 2,000-plus homes already agreed on the former Severalls hospital site—and that is before another 2,200 on the fields that the Secretary of State viewed last week from the upstairs window of a couple whose home overlooks the national award-winning Cants of Colchester rose gardens, which faces being submerged under a sea of concrete.
If “localism” is to mean what it says, I implore the Minister to do what he can to retrieve the situation. It is a huge mystery to the local community how the developers, Mersea Homes, have managed to get this project so far forward. As I have said in the House previously, it is not just that council officers and the company are singing from the same song sheet; they are the joint composers of the song.
Today's Colchester Daily Gazette reports that the population of the borough grew by 4,000 last year. It is the fourth fastest-growing borough in the country, and the population has now topped 181,000. Last year, an average of nearly two new homes were completed every day. In the last nine years the population of Colchester has grown by 25,000, at a rate twice the national average. It cannot go on like this. We need our green lungs, our green open spaces. Brownfield sites must take precedence over greenfield sites, and our existing urban areas need green planting, not just new developments.
I am grateful to the Horticultural Trades Association—through its backing of the Greening the UK campaign—for helping me with my speech. Further thanks go to Keep Britain Tidy and the Woodland Trust, which also contacted me to make helpful points.
Quite simply, planting and green spaces are not only beneficial but vital for the urban environment where the majority of this country's population live, but there are problems. Evidence shows that over the last 10 years the level of planting and green landscaping proposed for new developments has decreased by up to 50%. Moreover, the amount of planting delivered on new developments is substantially less than that promised during the planning process. It is well documented that a decline in planting leads to increased environmental problems, such as more flooding as rainwater runs off rather than being absorbed and more CO2 emissions. That trend must be reversed.
Research shows that building projects with high levels of planting involve 52% fewer crimes, that hospital recovery rates can improve when planting is visible, and that workplace productivity can increase where there is visible greenery. The former Trebor sweet factory in Colchester was designed to enable members of the work force to look out on greenery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Woodland Trust. In my constituency, the trust has been involved in a project with local schools. Children at the schools planted trees and then became their custodians, looking after them. There had been vandalism in the past, but there was no more after that, because those responsible became part of the community. Does the hon. Gentleman think that something similar could be done in his area?
Bob Russell
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The Woodland Trust does good work throughout the United Kingdom, and it is important for communities, especially young people, to be involved in it.
Planting and soft landscaping help to provide cleaner air for often busy and polluted urban environments, and maintain vital habitats for endangered or rare species. A good example is the Laban dance centre in Greenwich, whose green “rubble” roof has led to the return of the black redstart to the area. Colchester’s new magistrates court should be mentioned in this context. It is an ugly building, but its ugliness will hopefully be masked by plants growing over it.
Plants help to mitigate climate change by absorbing CO2 and PM10 emissions. Planting helps communities to adapt to climate change by directing excess rainwater into the ground rather than diverting it into overworked drainage systems, thus reducing the surface water flooding which is a particular problem for our larger towns and cities. An example is the use of rain gardens advocated by Snohomish County in the state of Washington in the United States, where there is a very high level of rainfall. Acting like a native forest, a rain garden collects, absorbs and filters storm water run-off from roof tops, driveways, streets and other impervious surfaces. Planting helps to prevent river flooding by reducing soil erosion and stabilising river banks.
Many of those facts were recognised in the natural environment White Paper that the Government published last month. The White Paper highlights the benefits of urban green space, which provides links with the national ecological framework, and leads to reductions in crime and to social and health benefits. It states that decision makers neither understand nor take into account the economic and social values of nature in an urban environment because of concerns about management costs and risks, and that a green infrastructure partnership will be established to support the development of green infrastructure in England.
Several local authorities have excellent records on improving planting and protecting green spaces, and are working hard to protect and enhance the extent of green spaces and planting in their towns and cities. One example is the restoration by Devon county council of the main square in Barnstaple, with grassed areas, semi-mature trees and planting, making the most of the local mild micro-climate as part of the scheme. I should remind the House of my wild flower meadows debate on 18 May 2005, and specifically the new wild flower meadows at Cymbeline meadows and High Woods country parks in Colchester. High Woods has been awarded a green flag by Keep Britain Tidy.
Many councils feel powerless to enforce green planting regimes that have been promised by developers. That could be as much a result of lack of resources in the local authority as it is of not being aware of the issues involved in the problem. However, with a valuation of £2.3 billion placed on urban green spaces by the national ecosystem assessment report, it is crucial for developers to be obliged to provide more natural areas in new housing developments. With cuts to spending at local level becoming increasingly obvious, it is feared that planting could fall to the bottom of a local authority’s priorities.
The Local Government Group’s report published earlier this month on health and spatial planning states that planting is important, as good green space helps to improve social interaction, mental health and social behaviours. Planting in the urban environment is important not just because it is nice to look at, however, but because it can help both local authorities and developers achieve Government targets. Research by the Building Research Establishment backs that up. It has shown that in order for developers to reach level 6 of the code for sustainable homes, which is important in reaching the Government’s 2016 target of zero-carbon homes, it will be important to involve landscaping and planting.
The Greening the UK campaign told me that research at the university of Reading’s school of horticulture has demonstrated how plants help keep buildings cool in hot weather and insulate them against cold weather, thereby reducing the need for internal heating. I therefore urge the Government to include planting as part of the code for sustainable homes.
I commend the coalition Government on various programmes they are undertaking, such as the big tree plant. By the way, I grow trees. I have grown several hundred over the years. In 2009, I planted a young oak sapling at the Eden project from an acorn from Gilwell park, the headquarters of Scouting, to mark the centenary of Scouting in 2007.
For all the images of a green and pleasant land, the UK remains one of the least wooded countries in Europe, with only 13% woodland cover compared with the European average of 44%. The Woodland Trust told me:
“We need more native trees and woods in urban areas for a variety of reasons encompassing public health, flood alleviation, reduction of the ‘urban heat island effect’, increased wildlife and the creation of a more attractive environment within which to live, work and spend leisure time, thereby creating an environment which is also attractive for inward investment.”
Urban planting is not just a “nice to have”. We need a more systematic approach to the issue. That was enshrined in Liberal Democrat party policy in 2009, when during the autumn conference I moved an amendment calling for an increase in the provision of urban planting and green spaces in all new developments through better use of the planning system, including increased powers for planning authorities and improved guidance to local authorities. I urge the coalition Government to embrace that policy. This approach would allow systemic measures to be put in place through the planning system. It would also help local authorities monitor the creation of those promised new green spaces and planting that we all value so highly, while ensuring that planning agreements are fully enforced.
I also want new greening to be introduced into existing urban communities. The Greening the UK campaign has been working closely for several years with local authorities to raise the profile of urban planting. About 10 local authorities, including Liverpool, Boston and Lambeth, have adopted a motion to this effect, adapted to the needs of their own area. I hope my own town of Colchester will do so as well. In order to make a real difference around the country, I would like the coalition Government to be even more supportive of urban planting. A tree that I and my two councillor ward colleagues planted outside the Artilleryman public house in Artillery street, Colchester, in 1973-74 is flourishing.
The Minister is very supportive of urban planting. Indeed, he wrote the following in the foreword to the Greening the UK campaign’s report in 2010:
“Urban green spaces provide much needed oases in the midst of developed areas—and can greatly improve the quality of town and city life. When planned and delivered properly, they can enhance biodiversity, reduce overheating, increase energy and help to prevent flooding. But more importantly than that, they can bring people together in a pleasant environment. Good planting and landscaping have the power to transform the way we feel about ourselves, our neighbours and the places in which we live and work.”
I commend him for those wise words. Can he tell the House this evening how planting will be included in the national planning framework? Will he recognise the importance of planting and landscaping when allowing developers to achieve level 6 of the code for sustainable homes? Will planting be included as a requirement in the code?
As a slight diversion I wish to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am opposed to the new generation of nuclear power stations, particularly the one at Bradwell-on-Sea, in Essex.
In conclusion, I hope that this final Adjournment debate before the summer recess will not be ignored and that we will be able to leave the House this evening with a commitment from the Minister to take forward a programme of policies for green planting in the urban environment.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
It is a delight to be able to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and I congratulate him on securing it. He spoke with the characteristic passion that he brings to this subject. I am immensely flattered that he not only reads my forewords, but brings them to the House to quote from them: if I may say so, I could not have put it better myself.
My hon. Friend will know that the issue of greening has been close to my heart for many a long year. When I was a new Back Bencher, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which became a private Member’s Bill, to change the designation of back gardens as brownfield sites in order to allow local authorities to protect them. I did not want local authorities to be obliged to allow their redevelopment because they were in the same planning category as genuinely derelict industrial land, old railway sidings and gas works. That designation was having huge unintended consequences across the country—I say “unintended” but I fear that perhaps it did have a purpose in the minds of the Ministers who introduced it. Local people were certainly mystified that the environment in their local area that they cherish most, and which is greener than many other areas that enjoy green protection, was ripe for development and had no protection. One of the great pleasures for me of coming into government in the coalition Government was being able, as Minister, to change the national planning guidance to reclassify gardens in order to make it clear that they are not brownfield sites. I wanted the determination on gardens to be made by local people, through their local councillors, and I wanted gardens to be protected, if necessary.
The reasons for taking that approach were absolutely the ones that my hon. Friend set out. Green urban spaces, including private gardens, parks and places where trees and other greenery are planted in towns, make a disproportionate contribution to our ecology. The opportunity to preserve and, indeed, enhance bird life in our urban areas is advantaged by the pockets of green space that we have in what otherwise would be concrete deserts for wildlife. It is therefore especially important that we examine our urban environment and, first, stop, as we have, the depressing trend to concrete over back gardens and front gardens—we need to call a halt to that. I completely agree with him that we should seek not only to arrest the decline, but to repopulate our city centres with greenery so that they can, once again, be the areas of delight that have attracted people to live there over the years.
One of our national characteristics is that our towns and cities are greener than most of those in continental countries, which often have a much denser urban design scheme imposed. If one thinks of an English town—or, I dare say, one in any part of the United Kingdom—one thinks of greenery, especially at this time of year. I fully support the purpose of what my hon. Friend is seeking to bring to the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend is right that the planning system is integral. The purpose of planning is to help to achieve sustainable development, and he alluded to the fact that the question of sustainability obviously has not only an environmental aspect but an economic and social aspect. Our cities and towns will not only be more beautiful but are liable to be more prosperous if they are places where people can live comfortably and in which, if they work there, their health, happiness and well-being are enhanced. On the social aspects of sustainability, if people live and work in areas that are beautiful and green and in which there are places where they can take their leisure, the antisocial behaviour that is too often characterised by a hyper-urban un-green environment is less prevalent. The research to which my hon. Friend referred bears that out.
Our ambition is the same and we share the view that our environment can be better than it is. My hon. Friend mentioned the White Paper on the natural environment that the Department produced recently, and it is a groundbreaking paper in the sense that it moves beyond taking simply a defensive view of the natural environment that states that we should try to halt its destruction. The White Paper makes it very clear that this Government’s ambition should be to enhance our environment, because, frankly, it could be better looked after than it is. Paragraph 2 states:
“The Government wants this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited.”
That is a theme that should run through all Government policy and nothing would achieve that more than the points that my hon. Friend makes.
Let me say a little about what can be done to achieve such improvements. The planning system can play a very important role. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the planning system we have inherited has taken us away from sustainability, and we have mentioned the inclusion of gardens in the definition of brownfield sites. In general, however, the top-down approach with tightly imposed housing targets that were not set by local people who have knowledge of the local area but handed down by unelected regional bodies so that democratically elected bodies, such as district councils, had simply either to accommodate them or to have their plans rewritten by inspectors, resulted in people fearing, quite reasonably, that their local environment, which they cherished, was being changed without any involvement on their part and by people with no knowledge of it.
Bob Russell
The views of the people of Mile End, whose area is being ravaged by massive development, are being ignored, in effect. I was hoping that the Minister might be able to address that, because councillors across the borough have ganged up, as one could say, and put all the borough’s housing in one location, which is not fair on that community.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I was going to say that he knows that the Localism Bill, which was debated extensively in this House and is now with their lordships, makes wholesale changes to the planning system, the purpose of which is to give local neighbourhoods the right to have their say and not to be set aside. That is the heart of localism—that local people should be involved from the outset in such decisions, as is common on the continent. In my experience, the best developments and the best authorities are those that take into account the views of the local population.
However, there is a constraint. Until a new law is passed, the old law remains in effect. Tempting though it might be to rule by decree from day one of taking office, we have been advised—and on occasion the courts have required us—to complete the passage through Parliament of the Localism Bill before, for example, we can revoke finally the regional spatial strategies that are part of the problem and which contain the imposed numbers that local communities find alien to them.
We are making all haste with the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, it was one of the earliest Bills that was introduced. It is a substantial Bill. We moved heaven and earth to make sure that it was part of the Government’s early package of legislation. It is making good progress. Its intentions have enjoyed a degree of consensus in the House. Even the official Opposition now recognise that the regional apparatus and the regional strategies are not the way forward, so there is a strong consensus in favour of a more localist approach. Unless and until the Bill is enacted, which I hope will not take too long, the frustrations that my hon. Friend describes will continue for what I hope will be just a few more months.
I hope local people are already preparing for the new world that is about to dawn. The Bill includes neighbourhood planning. On the possibility of projecting a vision for the future in their communities, the Bill gives every neighbourhood the chance to put together a local plan which for the first time will have teeth. It will become part of the development plan if a majority of the local population in that neighbourhood vote for it and it is found to be a sound and reasonable plan. The ability to adopt a neighbourhood plan will come with the Localism Bill and its commencement.
I hope communities such as the one in Mile End described by my hon. Friend are already thinking about the shape of their neighbourhood plan and beginning to do some of the research and the consultations. I am looking forward to my visit to Colchester, and after the debate I will be happy to get in touch with my hon. Friend to see whether some of the communities in his constituency might want to work with my Department and become front runners for some of the neighbourhood planning provisions so that they can have a head start and other communities around the country can learn from that. I hope they will be on the starting grid, ready to move as soon as the powers come in.
As my hon. Friend knows, there was a commitment, which was initially promoted by our hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), to introduce a designation for valued community green space that should be available to communities to protect. There have been some problems with the village green procedures and definitions, but we have made a commitment to consult on a designation that can be part of local and neighbourhood plans, and we will be consulting on that shortly. We know that green spaces are incredibly important to local life. We are committed to protecting them, but the people who can best identify them are not Ministers or officials in central Government but the people living in those communities who know what is needed there.
Given the importance of green spaces to the health and happiness of local communities, I hope my hon. Friend’s communities are already thinking about the green spaces that they may want to avail themselves of the opportunity to list, to give them greater confidence in the future. There are various other rights in the Localism Bill, including the right to identify land that is of community value, so that if it is ever sold and has been in community use, the community will have the chance to make a bid to take it over and keep it in community use.
My hon. Friend mentioned the big tree plant campaign, and I am glad that he personally takes part in it. As ever with these things, he has pre-empted what has become coalition policy by having his own personal commitment to it. Significant progress has been made: 100,000 trees have been planted in the first six months and we know, here in central London, how tree planting softens the urban environment.
Many steps are being taken. Planning is key, but I hope that some of the reforms I have mentioned and some of the approaches that we are taking to protect green space, to empower communities and to make better use of that green space will encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents and show that we have already made some progress. The change regarding gardens is a big step in that direction and the tree planting is another. With the enactment of the Localism Bill will come new rights that cannot be taken away from local communities.
I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak on a subject that I feel as passionately about as my hon. Friend, and I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Officers of the House, as well as our colleagues, a very happy and enjoyable summer break.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Air Force
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Beith
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the risk management strategy prepared by the Environmental Science Group in relation to the proposal to close the RAF ordnance clearance operations at Goswick Sands near Berwick-upon-Tweed; and what revisions to the report took place after the first version was considered by the Royal Air Force.
[Official Report, 26 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 61-62W.]
Letter of correction from Nick Harvey:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on 26 April 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Nick Harvey
A copy of the risk management strategy for the former air weapons range at Goswick Sands will be placed in the Library of the House.
The risk management strategy was written at the request of the RAF by the Ministry of Defence's Environmental Science Group (ESG). RAF subject matter experts and other stakeholders were consulted and a number of corrections were incorporated into the final document within Table 8.3. These downgraded the risk level of an accidental explosion resulting from contact with horses on the beach or deliberate tampering.
The correct answer should have been:
Nick Harvey
A copy of the risk management strategy for the former air weapons range at Goswick Sands will be placed in the Library of the House.
The risk management strategy was written at the request of the RAF by the Ministry of Defence's Environmental Science Group (ESG). RAF subject matter experts and other stakeholders were consulted and a number of corrections were incorporated into the final document within Table 8.3. These downgraded the risk level of an accidental explosion resulting from contact with horses on the beach or deliberate tampering. The risk level was also reduced for other users including walkers and other recreational users, people digging with bucket and spade, bait diggers, fishermen, recreational off roaders, farmers and persons lighting fires and barbeques.
Petitions
Ethiopia (Human Rights)
Bus Service (Little Harrowden, Northamptonshire)
Ian Faletto
Barnett Formula
Westminster Hall
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
School Food
(12 years, 9 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
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin. I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this debate on school meals, because it enables me to highlight some of the more regrettable decisions that the coalition Government have taken over the past year. Of course, our country faces a tough financial situation, but surely there is also a case to be made for the wider provision of and better quality school meals.
If I may, I shall digress at the start of my contribution and refer to a piece of school work that I did back in 1982, when I was in year 4 at Russell Scott primary school. I dug out my old school work because Russell Scott is currently commemorating its future remodelling by having a display of historical artefacts celebrating the school’s history from 1882, when it was founded, through to the present day. Not many primary schools in Tameside can lay claim to an MP having attended the school, but Russell Scott can lay claim to two. The former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Lord, and I are both former pupils of the school. Although we are from different political traditions, Russell Scott must have done something right.
One piece of my work was about people who do important jobs and included short pieces of writing on the importance of bin men, ambulance drivers and nurses. Perhaps in a nod to my future role as a shadow Transport Minister, I also mentioned train drivers and bus drivers. However, I also talked about the school cook, which relates to today’s debate. Here is an extract from what I wrote:
“Our school cook is Mrs Pomfret. She has a very important job. She has to cook a warm and wholesome nutritious meal for hundreds of pupils at the school every day and make sure it is ready for us all in time for dinner time.”
I pay tribute to the Mrs Pomfrets across the country who, day in and day out, make sure that children get a warm, nutritious, wholesome meal. That is the only warm meal many children are likely to get.
There have recently been positive changes in our attitudes to the healthiness of school meals, which is partly thanks to the high-profile campaign involving celebrities such as Jamie Oliver. Indeed, so successful was his campaign on nutritional standards that, in 2007, the Labour Government introduced regulations to ensure that the food and drink served in schools are of high nutritional quality. The changes since then have been very significant for the food served in our schools. The food provided to children who choose school meals is more often than not fresh, nutritious and locally sourced. That is a far cry from the profit-driven mentality that previously dominated school meal provision and that led to children eating some very poor meals indeed. So we did a great deal to improve the provision of school meals.
Let us not forget that investment in our school infrastructure also enabled a number of schools significantly to improve their catering facilities, which meant that the service could increasingly be brought back in house. However, perhaps the previous Labour Government’s most important initiative was the extension of eligibility for free school meals. We had committed to extend the eligibility of free school meals to children from households with an income below £16,190, which is considered to be the poverty line. If such a policy had been introduced, it would have benefited an estimated 500,000 children and lifted at least 50,000 out of child poverty.
We built on the work done in Kingston-upon-Hull as a first step and introduced pilots of universal free school meals in Durham and Newham. We extended eligibility in Wolverhampton and a further five pilots were planned for other local authorities across the country. That was all ended by the coalition Government, who have deprived those children living in poverty of the entitlement to what might be the only hot, healthy meal that they get each day.
From April 2011, the coalition Government also lifted the ring fence on the school lunch grant, rolling the funding into schools’ baseline allocations. The school lunch grant was introduced by Labour as a ring-fenced grant to increase the number of children eating healthy school meals by helping schools and councils keep down the price of a school lunch. Without the ring-fenced grant, prices are expected to increase as schools struggle to subsidise rising ingredient prices. Indeed, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday found that prices have already risen by 10% this year. Worse, research for the School Food Trust shows that a 10% increase in the price of school meals triggers a corresponding fall in the number of children having them of between 7% and 10%. By taking away the ring fence, the coalition Government have made it harder for schools to provide healthy and nutritious meals that take advantage of economies of scale.
It is clearly disappointing that the Government are choosing to limit free school meals, rather than widening their availability to all children. That is surely a step in the wrong direction, not only because of the health and educational benefits to pupils, but because it penalises the least well-off in society. We still have concerns about those most in need getting access to free school meals. What is happening with the Government’s plans to change eligibility for free school meals? We know that the Government have commissioned the Social Security Advisory Committee to review passported benefits such as free school meals under the proposed universal credit system, but the final decision is not expected until next year, which is creating uncertainty for the many families that currently benefit from free school meals.
What assessment have the Government carried out of the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) in the proceedings of the Welfare Reform Bill on Report that free school meals could be included as a separate element of universal credit and tapered off as family income increases? Instead of getting cash, families could receive support via an electronic card, which could be used only to pay for school meals. What assessment have they made of that initiative?
It is worth noting that take-up of free school meals by those who are entitled to them unfortunately remains low, because of stigma, complexity and the constant movement of some families in and out of entitlement. Indeed, it is a shame that one in five children who are eligible for free school meals does not receive them. Entitlement to free school meals usually ends when a family moves off benefits and into low-paid employment. That gives rise to an extra cost of approximately £300 a child per year just when families are trying to make themselves better off through work. It is shocking that the majority of children in poverty have at least one parent in work, so the majority of children who live in poverty do not benefit from free school meals. That is disappointing considering that the coalition’s stated aim is to decrease the number of people on benefits and increase the number of people in work. Yes, that is a worthwhile aim, but it will never be reached with their increasingly bad and ill thought-out policy decisions. How can increasing the number of children living in poverty in 2011 help the Government to meet their 2020 target for eradicating child poverty?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am delighted to be able to speak in my hon. Friend’s debate. He is making some important points about the value of free school meals. Does he agree that free school meals are important not only for the alleviation of poverty, but for dealing with issues surrounding social mobility? If children have a good meal at school, it helps them to concentrate and to improve their social skills and their ability to function in the classroom. They can therefore benefit from the education that they are in school to receive.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that was the previous Labour Government’s conclusion, which was based on schemes such as those piloted in Hull by the former Labour council. That scheme was scrapped by the incoming Liberal Democrat council, which thankfully has been kicked out of office—and rightly so if those are its priorities. Such schemes were also piloted in the city of Durham. The previous Labour Government had also found my hon. Friend’s point to be true, which is why we were going to extend the provision of free school meals.
Yes, the deficit is an issue. I sometimes wish that Government Members would change the stuck record on the deficit. We knew, back when we were in office, that there was a looming deficit, which is why we had a deficit reduction plan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), whom I had the great privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, probably knew better than anyone else the requirements of deficit reduction. The real issue is our priorities in dealing with deficit reduction. Of course, we had a credible plan to halve the deficit in this Parliament. Even with that deficit reduction plan, we were going to extend the entitlement to free school meals beyond the pilots.
At the general election, the Minister also had a plan to halve the deficit. However, her priorities changed when she entered the Government, because she has now signed up to a neo-conservative deficit reduction plan to eliminate the deficit. Of course, that raises issues of priorities in her Department. Eliminating the deficit means that those pilots for free school meals cannot now take place.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech this morning. Are we storing up trouble for the future by not investing in our young people now and making sure that they are eating healthy school meals, by not investing in the free school meals pilots and by not looking at the evidence? The long-term implications are that the health of the nation will not improve and that the educational achievement of some of our children will not improve. The Government have failed to address that issue, because of their narrow focus on deficit reduction.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is correct, which allows me to move neatly on to the next part of my contribution. As she has rightly said, showing and informing children about nutritious and healthy meals will clearly help in the battle against childhood obesity. Education and the health of our children are hugely important. It is estimated that obesity and associated conditions such as diabetes cost the NHS £3.5 billion a year, and that figure is set to rise. This is therefore a cost worth paying to save money in the long run. Even at a time when the deficit needs to be cut, we cannot forget the social implications of the Government’s decisions. If we want to reduce the attainment gap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has said, we must ensure that all children at school are given an equal chance. We know that free school meals contribute enormously to reducing attainment gaps, because they help children from low-income backgrounds, who may not have good nutrition, to concentrate more in the classroom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this subject to the Chamber. He has clearly outlined the issue for those in the poverty trap, which is part of the cycle. Another issue is those of perhaps a different build, who are eating the wrong foods. He has indicated that education can address that issue. How does he see that balance being achieved between those who need that square meal every day and those who are, perhaps, eating the wrong food?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Education is the key here. People need to learn about nutrition, and what is right for one child is not necessarily right for another. I hope that one of the long-term benefits of a scheme such as Sure Start is that those families start to understand the nutritional value of different foods and the need to have a balanced diet, with the need for healthy eating as part of that balanced diet, alongside other factors such as physical education and physical activity. There is no magic wand. There is no answer to one aspect. I am really concerned about some of the cuts to Sure Start that we are starting to see, because some of those very early age healthy eating programmes are now being targeted by local authorities facing the squeeze on their budgets. Some of the work done with very early years, which would benefit through to school age and beyond, is starting to be scaled back, too.
One of the perks of this job, as I am sure that you are aware, Mr Dobbin, and as all hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree, is the chance to visit schools in our constituencies. I have spoken to not one head teacher or teacher in either the Tameside or Stockport part of my constituency who is not tremendously supportive of the free school meals programme, because they know just how much it benefits the children whom they teach.
Lilian Greenwood
I wonder whether my hon. Friend faces a similar situation to the one that I have in my constituency, where schools often introduce breakfast clubs to encourage children to eat a healthy meal not only at lunchtime, but first thing in the morning. We have an excellent scheme in Nottingham, with support from Business in the Community alongside local businesses, that provides free food and delivery services. It is making a real difference in schools and is very much welcomed by teachers and head teachers.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. It is often said that breakfast is the most important meal. For many children, and for a variety of reasons—perhaps the parents are in a rush to get to work, so have to drop them off at school earlier than the starting time; or because of the lack of a family income, they do not necessarily have the money to pay for a breakfast for their child at home—breakfast clubs have been a welcome initiative not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but across the country. Teachers in my constituency tell me that breakfast clubs make a huge difference to concentration—the very thing that my hon. Friend talked about in an earlier intervention. Rather than pupils sitting in a classroom with a rumbling stomach and with their mind on other things, they are now satisfied, have had their first meal of the day and can concentrate on being taught.
The Tameside part of my constituency has taken the free school meals initiative one step further. It is recognised that parents, and often those most in need, feel a real stigma in applying for free school meals. Despite savage Government cuts to Tameside council, providing nutritional and healthy school meals remains an important priority for the council. In fact, given the economic situation and changes to the benefit system, more families in the borough are falling below the recognised poverty line. That often impacts directly on the quality of the meals that children get to eat at home.
More than 8,000 children are currently in receipt of free school meals in Tameside. The council is in the process of radically simplifying how the parents of children entitled to a free school meal can apply for the benefit. Three years ago, the council was the first in the country to introduce a fully online application and eligibility checking system for free schools meals. The system replaced the old paper-based process and led to savings in back office administration and savings in time for the parent. Using the online system, 98% of applications for free school meals made before 11 o’clock in the morning were approved and the child given a free meal the same lunchtime. The old paper process took a week to administer.
Tameside council now wants to improve the system further and, this September, will begin systematically contacting every family in the borough that is eligible but not yet claiming a free school meal and offering them that option for their children. More than 500 families are entitled to a free school meal for their child but are not yet claiming and, in the vast majority of cases, those are families living in the most deprived communities and on the lowest household incomes.
Another improvement to the free school meals process is being introduced. In future, entitlement to free school meals will remain in place for the duration of the time that the child is in school, until they are 16 years old, unless the parents’ circumstances change, in which case the entitlement will cease automatically. That means not having regular renewals, which take time to administer and are inconvenient for the parents. The council will use the information that it already holds to ensure that, when family circumstances change whether someone is entitled to a free school meal, it will automatically respond appropriately and contact the family to let them know.
Tameside free school meals are among the best quality in the country, with the primary school catering service retaining the Hospitality Assured quality award for the eighth successive year. I have to say that school meals were not bad back in 1982, when Mrs Pomfret cooked them. Anyone who knows me well knows my love of food, and I probably owe a great debt to Mrs Pomfret for that as well.
The greatest advocates for the free school meals programme are the children. It encourages children to eat healthily and to develop social skills. Children like being able to sit down with their friends and teachers to have their lunch. We have also heard about the importance of the socialising and behavioural gains in schools when more children eat lunch together. Children learn to converse and to look out for one another, as well as courtesy and table manners. Importantly, children who are having lunch in school are not hanging around the takeaway at the end of the road—something of particular significance for secondary schools.
We can do other things as well. Initiatives such as the breakfast clubs mentioned by my hon. Friend can make a huge difference. They help with children’s concentration and break down some of the barriers in schools.
I have further concerns about nutritional standards in schools. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), a Minister—not the Minister present today—confirmed that the new academies and free schools will not have to abide by the regulations brought in by the previous Labour Government, thus the food that they provide will not need to be of a high standard. I am, frankly, appalled. Another concern is that Ofsted will no longer be required to ensure that nutritional standards in schools still under local authority control are adhered to, which can only have a negative impact on nutritional standards in our schools.
It is also important to consider school lunches in the context of the broader curriculum. The previous Labour Government announced in 2008 that, by the start of 2011, every 11 to 14-year-old would have 12 hours of compulsory practical cookery lessons, with a £2.5 million fund to provide fresh ingredients for free school meals and to support schools to provide appropriate facilities and to recruit and train teachers. However, the commitment to have 12 hours of food and cookery lessons to start in September 2011 was scrapped by the coalition Government, and the future of food education in the key stage 3 curriculum is in doubt, given the Government’s review of the primary and secondary curriculum and the continued lack of commitment from Ministers. Even the Government’s own Back Benchers—some 20 or so Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—have signed early-day motion 1816, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and calls for
“the Department for Education to guarantee provision for every secondary school pupil to receive at least 24 hours of practical cooking lessons at Key Stage 3 in its review of the National Curriculum.”
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate at such an appropriate time. I agree that young people need to be given the skills to prepare food and meals adequately and effectively. Does he agree that one of the effects of the national curriculum, when it was brought in under Mrs Thatcher’s Government, was the destruction of food education to the level of, basically, making pizza boxes, thus fuelling the disposable food culture, which has led to the obesity that we now see? It is time that we got back to giving people good home cooking skills, which can take them through their lives effectively.
Andrew Gwynne
I agree absolutely. When I was a pupil not at Russell Scott primary school but at Egerton Park community high school in Denton—during the Government of the noble Baroness Thatcher—we did indeed make pizza in home economics. Those lessons were probably the only opportunity that a lot of my school colleagues had to cook. I was more fortunate because my mum and my gran, from an early age, taught me a lot of the cooking skills that I have today. I make a superb Victoria sponge cake, thanks to my gran, who was the best baker in the world, and my custard cream biscuits are to die for—perhaps, Mr Dobbin, I shall bring some in after the recess and we can all share them. It is absolutely important that children learn how to cook, not only cakes and biscuits but meals—my Scotch broth isn’t bad either, I have to say.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman is trying to curry favour. [Laughter.]
Diana Johnson
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend talk about his culinary skills, but I wonder whether we should recognise in particular that being able to cook a nutritionally balanced meal is a basic life skill that everyone should have. School and education should instil such basic life skills in young people, as much as the ability to read, write and add up. Basic skills such as cooking should be on the curriculum.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Children should learn not only how to cook but about the nutritional value of the food being cooked and about where it comes from. That is not just from Morrisons in Denton—whether my Denton or the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), which also has a Morrisons. Food comes not only from the supermarket but from the ground. In recent years, some brilliant work in schools has meant that children have learned exactly where the food that they eat comes from. My children know only too well that eggs come from chickens, because we have five chickens at home, so we have an abundance of eggs, which comes in handy for baking.
There is an opportunity to link lunch to education about diet, nutrition and cooking. Many schools have used the extension of the meals programme to bring more parents into school, so that they and their children can learn to enjoy cooking healthy meals together. However, there are concerns about the School Food Trust, which was established in September 2005 as a non-departmental public body—I know such bodies are not fashionable these days—to monitor school food standards, to drive the uptake of free and paid-for meals and to advise local and national Government on food policy. Under the Public Bodies Bill, the trust will be hived off into a charity and community interest company, and local authorities or schools that seek advice will have to buy in its services, as indeed will the Department for Education.
A significant concern is that big cuts to local authority budgets and pressure on individual school budgets will mean that they cannot afford to pay for ongoing guidance and advice, or that they will have to prioritise other schemes. That is another worrying development about the quality of food to be served in our schools.
Before I finish, I have a few questions for the Minister. How will the Government help parents back into work if they do not consider the need for free school meals and other such programmes? What will the Government do to improve health inequalities among children if they do not use free school meals and education to alter the behaviour of children and families? Why have the Government, who said that they are committed to fairness and to alleviating child poverty, started by attacking families on low incomes? Importantly, how do the Government propose to close the attainment gap and reduce inequality without considering nutrition in schools?
It is clear that the coalition Government are undermining the hard work done by the last Labour Government and campaigners to improve the take-up and quality of school meals. That is especially disappointing because they had previously pledged to lift children out of poverty by 2020, and little of what they have done so far has moved us closer to that pledge. I worry that that will result in long-term increases in obesity, and ever-increasing inequality in health and educational outcomes between the richest and poorest in society. Surely, no one wants that.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for securing this debate, and for making a stunningly good speech. I want to concentrate on one aspect of school food: universal free school meals, particularly for primary school children. It is important, as my hon. Friend said, to keep the debate alive in the face of an uncaring Government, which is evidenced this morning by the complete absence of hon. Members on the Government Benches to engage in this debate. That is unfortunate, because the road that the Government are taking is likely to have an adverse impact on children’s health, particularly those from the poorest communities.
The Children’s Food Campaign notes that healthy school meals are vital to help to tackle the UK’s alarmingly high and rising levels of obesity and diet-related illness, and states clearly that good food habits are established in childhood. That is not rocket science. We know how to do that, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the experience of the universal free school meals pilot in Durham. During the two years of the pilot, 235 schools participated and, typically, around 30,000 free school meals were served daily. The average take-up against the roll was about 86%, but because of pupil absences on some days, it was actually much higher. Most schools reported 100% take-up at some stage in the process. The pilot was absolutely and hugely successful in terms of take-up.
It is interesting to consider how the pilot worked, and I want to say at the outset that Durham county council was fantastic in putting the scheme together. It committed £4 million of capital funding to upgrade the kitchens in every school so that meals were produced locally in the school. It also looked at its procurement practices so that it could source food locally, and achieved really high standards of healthy school meals because it could buy in bulk. Such aspects of universality in the provision of free school meals often do not receive much consideration. The county council did an excellent job, but so did the schools, which embraced the scheme wholeheartedly.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was a Minister, she visited Durham, and saw with me the incredible effect that universal free school meals had on schools. It changed the whole culture of the school, not just how they felt about food. The really good schools managed to integrate what was happening with free school meals into the curriculum, and ran that alongside an active sports policy.
Diana Johnson
I remember fondly my visit with my hon. Friend. One thing that struck me was that to engage with parents and to encourage them to embrace free school meals, there were taster evenings and taster sessions when parents could come in and see what their children would be eating. There was a real sense of the whole community being involved and seeing that the idea was a good one. Will my hon. Friend comment on how things are going now, and whether those taster sessions are continuing?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I will say something about how parents have been involved with the process, because obviously it was important initially to get parents signed up, which is why schools had taster sessions. As the pilot progressed, what schools felt was really important. When they sorted out with children how to have a balanced and healthy diet by choosing different things on different days, and ensured that salad or vegetables and a balanced meal were always available, they decided to get the parents to sign up to whatever meals the children were choosing. That was important, because parents across the board—given that the take-up was 100%, that meant all parents—had to engage with what their children were going to eat in school, and to talk to them about the importance of a balanced meal. That required the schools to undertake work with parents.
That is what we mean about changing the culture. We know how to do it, and the evidence exists. My hon. Friend and I were able to see that before our eyes, and indeed the schools managed to develop, probably inadvertently, evangelism in the children, who were able to explain carefully to us how the food system worked in their school.
Jim Shannon
The United Kingdom is a multicultural society where ethnic groups introduce their own food ideas. In the pilot schemes, was the hon. Lady able to introduce some of the benefits of other foods to make food exciting?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is an important point. Schools in Durham managed to do that, but perhaps not as effectively as schools in Newham, and it was an important aspect of the pilots, as the evidence suggests. That is what I mean when I say that schools that embraced the scheme were able to add the subject to the curriculum and use it to talk about other cultures, and so on.
I hope that I have made the point that the pilot was really successful. It had started to change the way in which schools, parents and young people think about food and exercise. I saw with very great sadness that the Government’s priorities meant that the first thing they did on taking office was cancel that pilot programme. The Minister has some questions to answer about that. We know that the Liberal Democrats have form on such matters because when they took over Hull city council, the first thing they did was to cancel the free school meals programme. That showed an extraordinary set of priorities, which I simply do not understand.
If the Minister wishes to find allies in the coalition Government, she might like to ask her fellow Ministers why it is that private schools ensure that their children have a healthy, usually hot, school meal at lunchtime. The coalition Government are good at emulating the private sector across the public sector, so how come that aspect of the private sector, which could easily be transplanted to public sector schools, is not on their list of priorities? Instead of concentrating on the needs of children and families, the Government—really quite staggeringly—lifted the ring fence on the school lunch grant from April this year. That money now has to compete with all the other priorities currently facing hard-pressed schools.
Such concerns lead me to ponder the fact that the Labour party has to make a tough call; we have got to win the argument about the importance not only of healthy school meals, but of universal free school meals at primary school level. There is no point in having healthy school meals if no one takes them up or if they are too expensive for most parents to afford, but unfortunately, that is the route down which the Government are taking us.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a strong argument. In Newcastle upon Tyne North, which is to the north-east of her constituency, figures have shown that the take-up of school meals has fallen over the past 12 months. That bucks the national trend and causes me anxiety about the educational attainment of those children in my constituency who require and depend on a decent hot meal during the day. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government’s policies will help or hinder that concern?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; it is clear that the Government’s policies will hinder any progress that has been made. When contributing to the evaluation, many head teachers in Durham schools made the point that a hot meal at lunch time meant that they saw improved levels of concentration in the afternoon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) pointed out, that is essential for helping to narrow the attainment gap.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the value of a hot meal for all primary school children and how that impacts on their attainment and success, and she draws attention to practices in the independent sector. The Government are fond of making international comparisons, particularly with countries in Scandinavia where there is a long-held tradition of free school meals in the primary sector. Does my hon. Friend believe that that adds further power to her argument?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) decided to embark again on a crusade for free school meals once they had visited Sweden and seen how the system worked. Teachers in Sweden scratched their heads in complete incredulity when we said that children at schools in the UK do not receive a free hot meal in the middle of the day. Those teachers also talked to us about the social skills that their children develop by having a meal in the middle of the day, and by sitting down with their teachers and having a chat about what is going on in their lives. It is an excellent source of information for students and teaches them important social skills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North will know, we saw children in Durham learning in that way and the start of such a process, but alas, because of the policies of the coalition Government, that may not continue.
I will conclude by saying that it is a matter of some anxiety that the issue of school food is not higher up the political agenda. When I open magazines and see the rubbish and tittle-tattle about celebrities on which female journalists—and other journalists—seem to spend their time, I am staggered that they do not understand how important it is for the development of our children and their future to have good quality school meals that are available in primary schools at no cost. In addition to challenging the Minister, I wish to challenge those journalists to start writing about things that are important for families in our communities, and not spend their time on tittle-tattle.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on his tour de force on school food. By the end of his contribution, I felt as if I had been at primary and secondary school with him and knew Mrs Pomfret well. Listening to him talk about Victoria sponges and custard cream biscuits, it is clear that food is an important part of my hon. Friend’s life. We all recognise that a love of good food, and an understanding of how it helps us function well and do our best, is important.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). They have led the way in Parliament over the past few years in ensuring that Ministers, and the Labour party more generally, are made aware of the importance of good school food, and why that fits with our agenda for improving educational attainment and addressing health issues, such as obesity. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their work, and I thank them for coming to Hull a couple of years ago to see what happened there and to talk to head teachers. They also talked to Professor Colquhoun at Hull university, who is the academic who was tasked with evaluating the scheme in Hull. It was useful and helpful for my hon. Friends to have that time in the city. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, and I am pleased that we will soon hear from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West.
I want to say a few words about the Hull experience and about why, from the point of view of a constituency Member of Parliament, what happened there is instructive. One of my big concerns about the coalition Government is their failure to look at evidence and make policy on the back of that. I am also concerned about the renaming of the Department for Education. It used to be called the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which recognised that education does not stand on its own but is part of the whole experience that a baby, child or young person has in their family, their school and with education. The narrow approach to education taken by the Government is shown in their approach to school food. It is almost seen as something that does not have to be considered because all they are really bothered about is English, maths and the introduction of the English baccalaureate, which is a narrow approach to education. We should be concerned about that, because education is much more than just academic subjects. That is where I start from.
The reason why, in 2002-03, Hull started to look carefully at free school meals was that Hull’s children, who are as bright as children anywhere else in the country, were not achieving as much as they should have been at primary and secondary levels. The council took a far-sighted view about the measures that it could introduce to help to deal with some of the educational inequalities in the city and with health inequalities. Unfortunately, my constituents tend to suffer from diseases and medical conditions far earlier than people in other parts of the country. There is a tendency to suffer strokes and to develop obesity and cardiovascular disease much earlier than in other parts of the country. Hull made a real attempt to deal with some of those issues.
We should pay tribute to Councillor Inglis, the leader of the council at the time, who fought hard and used imaginatively the flexibilities that the Labour Government had introduced in relation to education. That allowed the council to introduce a pilot scheme in Hull to provide free school meals in all our primary schools and special schools. It was called the “Eat Well, Do Well” scheme. Young people would go into school and have a healthy breakfast and a healthy lunch. If they stayed for activities after school, healthy snacks were available then as well. The aim was to combine the whole day’s eating within a package of healthy eating and to encourage young people to see food as something positive and enjoyable.
The scheme was in place between 2004 and 2007. Of course, it was important to evaluate the scheme and find out whether it was delivering. Professor Derek Colquhoun of Hull university produced a superb report about what happened in Hull’s schools. We have heard in relation to the experience in Durham what teachers say about the willingness and readiness of young people to learn in the classroom, having had a healthy breakfast or lunch. We hear about parents being pestered when they go to the supermarket by their youngsters saying, “Oh, I tried broccoli at school today. Can we buy some broccoli at the supermarket?” Amazing stuff happened in Hull.
One effect was the development of social skills when children ate together around a table. That was especially the case when there was family service. The food was put in the centre and shared out among all the participants around the table. That facilitated interaction among the children, who talked and listened to one another, which helped them to develop good table manners as well.
Another effect was that gardening clubs were encouraged in schools. Those clubs enabled young people to see food being grown in the playground. Cooking clubs were also encouraged. I went to Thoresby school in my constituency just a few weeks ago. It has an active cooking club. The children like to cook, and they see the value in eating well and in enjoying their food. There have been positive spin-offs from the “Eat Well, Do Well” scheme.
Lilian Greenwood
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned gardening clubs, because I have visited a number of schools in my constituency where there are community gardens or the school has a garden. I am referring to Southwold school, which is in Radford, and to Greenfields school and Riverside school, which are both in The Meadows. The children are involved in growing salads and vegetables, which they incorporate into school meals. That encourages them to try fresh produce. Perhaps they would never normally want to look at it, but because they have grown it themselves, they are excited about it and they are trying new things. I also want to mention the importance of introducing fresh fruit into nurseries, which was another thing that the Labour Government did. I know from going into school with my own daughter that children were trying fresh fruit that they had never tried before, which encouraged them to take a much healthier approach to eating.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend has made an important point. There was a proud history over the past 13 years of what was achieved in relation to food in schools and encouraging our young people to eat well.
I pay tribute to the trade unions. Unison and the GMB worked very hard to ensure that the pilot scheme that we ran in Hull worked well. Their members were involved as dinner ladies and cooks, and they were passionate about what the scheme was doing for children in Hull. The unions really embraced the scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has said, when, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats took control of the council in Hull in 2006, the first thing they did was to say, “Right. We’re not going to wait for the evaluation of the scheme; we’re just going to scrap it. We’re telling you that in 12 months’ time, it will just end.” That was very disappointing, and it was an act of political vandalism that will come back to haunt them. Having read today’s newspapers, I say to the Minister that that was a foretaste of the way in which the Liberal Democrats were to act in government, because we see today that the policy that they introduced on the education maintenance allowance—suddenly saying that they were scrapping EMA without looking properly at evidence and considering their options—is, unfortunately, the way in which the present Government seem to make policy.
That happened in Hull in 2006. It was very disappointing, but what came out of it, which was heartening, was the recognition by the Labour Government that what had happened in Hull was special and that further evidence was needed to see whether it would provide a basis for rolling out free school meals around the country. As a result, we had the pilots.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how decisions are being made by the Liberal Democrats in councils and in government without evidence being taken on board. Does that not show that what is happening is ideologically driven? They did not wait for the evidence in Hull or from the two pilots in Newham and Durham before deciding to scrap the whole scheme.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend has made an important point. The situation is very disappointing. I remember appearing before a Select Committee in the previous Parliament as a Minister and being heavily criticised for decisions having been made on policy development without evidence to back them up. I am passionate about getting the evidence and seeing where it leads us in making our policy. We are talking about what happened in Hull and in Durham and Newham. I was lucky enough to visit both those pilots as well to see what happened in those primary schools and to look at the evidence and the evaluation. It would be criminal not to consider that fully and to take a view about how the Government can best use that information and evidence for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham talked about Durham, and I take my hat off to the people of Durham for the way in which they fully embraced the scheme. The same applies to the people of Newham, the mayor of Newham and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who was a keen advocate of free school meals in her constituency. Also relevant is Wolverhampton, where we were trying something different. As my hon. Friends have said, that was about raising the eligibility level so that more young people were eligible for free school meals.
I want to finish on what is happening in Hull now, because this is a little more positive. Unfortunately, there was the decision by the Lib-Dem council just to scrap the scheme. The Labour council that took control in May this year knew very well that the policy that it had from 2004 to 2006 was working and was delivering for local children. It came in on a manifesto promise that it wanted to reduce the school meal price to 50p. The aim is to get rid of any charge at all, but obviously we are in difficult financial circumstances and Hull has taken a major cut in the money coming from central Government. We have seen the ring-fencing come off the school lunch grant, and we see the coalition’s obsession with schools operating independently and not having a wider connection with the community and the local education authority. The previous Lib-Dem council administration decided to increase the price of school meals to £1.60 from the autumn; the price was £1.30. Labour came in and said that it wanted to reduce the price to 50p, but because of the funding issue that the coalition has introduced, it has not been possible. The council has been able to prioritise and make choices, and it has found some money to enable schools to stick at £1.30 for now, with the aim of reducing the price to £1 by Christmas.
We are, therefore, still taking a positive approach in Hull, because we recognise the scheme’s importance. We also recognise that the long-term aim is to have free school meals not only in Hull, but in other parts of the country where our youngsters could benefit from the offer of universal free school meals. Such an offer would ensure that they achieve as much as they should in school and that the nation’s health improves.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing this important debate and on the clear and concise way in which he addressed a number of issues that are relevant to the wide topic of school food. It is no surprise that he has been so well supported by so many hon. Friends, even though, until yesterday, today was to be the last day of term.
I also congratulate and commend my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on their excellent speeches. They are two of the most knowledgeable Members in the House on this issue, and their contributions should be given the weight that they deserve. I thank them for their contributions.
The consensus among Opposition Members is clear: the Tory-led Government are in real danger of undoing all the good work that has gone into improving the quality and uptake of school meals. Not only do the Government not value children having healthy meals in schools, but they think children should not be given the skills to make healthy choices at home.
The craziest thing is that the Government, who are so clearly focused on dealing with the country’s balance sheet at the expense of almost everything else, do not realise that these policies will, in all likelihood, end up costing the country more in the long run in terms of unfulfilled potential and the treatment of obesity-related illnesses. It is estimated that the cost to the NHS of treating obesity-related conditions could reach £10 billion a year by 2050, when those starting school this year will be in their mid-40s and probably parents of school-age children themselves. It is estimated that the wider social and economic cost will be three or four times that amount. Surely, spending a little now to reduce that bill by even a fraction would be money well spent.
The Government, and the Minister’s Department in particular, are nothing if not consistent in their approach to long-term issues in their “cut now, pay later” approach. For example, the Minister yesterday published her thoughts on the future of early-years provision and early intervention without mentioning the fact that she has taken huge chunks out of the budget for those services.
As with nutritional standards in free schools and academies—let us not forget that that would mean every school if the Education Secretary gets his way—Ministers are taking a “let’s cross our fingers and hope for the best” approach. In a letter to the Local Authority Caterers Association last month, the Minister typified that attitude. When challenged about real concerns in the sector about the lack of a duty on free schools and academies to abide by the standards that other schools strive to work to, which were not always popular in the sector, as many of us know, the Minister said that
“schools converting to Academies will already have been providing healthy, balanced meals that meet the current standards. We have no reason to believe that they will stop doing so on conversion, or that new Free Schools will not do so either.”
Does the Minister have reason to believe that such schools will provide food that is up to standard, or does the Department not really care either way? Is consideration of catering arrangements part of the review process for applications to set up a free school? If not, is that not completely inconsistent with all the warm words that we will undoubtedly hear from the Minister about the value of a nutritious lunch?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making exactly the right point about the Government’s answer in respect of any changes. Is it not a concern that the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), said:
“Free schools and academies, established since September 2010, are not required to comply with the school food standards, and are free to promote healthy eating and good nutrition as they see fit.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 50W.]
Is the concern not the words “as they see fit”, because many schools might not see fit to promote such things?
Mrs Hodgson
That is exactly the point. There are plenty of switched-on head teachers who will understand the value of healthy meals. I met one at Hall Mead school in Upminster at the launch of national school meals week last year, and there are many like him. Many of them work at primary and secondary schools in my constituency in Sunderland, where I have had the opportunity to try some of the great healthy food on offer to children there, but not every school has that culture or a leadership team that sees the benefits of healthy lunches.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government appear to have learned nothing from the past? The previous Conservative Government scrapped nutritional standards, and school meals really declined in quality over a long period. They also put schools under immense financial pressure and introduced compulsory competitive tendering, which decimated the school meals service and reduced it to producing fast food, instead of investing in staff who could cook proper meals from scratch. It is only in the past 13 years that there has been huge investment in rebuilding kitchens and in reintroducing opportunities for school meals workers to produce the meals that they want to.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree. The point of the debate is that we must learn the lessons of the past, not repeat them. We cannot just sit by and allow everything we have achieved in the past 13 years to be undone, which is what is happening at the moment.
To illustrate the point that not all leadership teams understand the benefits of school food, I want to cite a case that was in the news recently, although it does not fall within the Minister’s purview. Bridgend council considered constructing a pathway between Brynteg comprehensive school and a McDonald’s, which just shows that the argument about the value of ensuring that all our children, not just those on free school meals, have a nutritious lunch in school has not yet been won. It also shows why stay-on-site policies are so important for secondary schools.
Mrs Hodgson
Exactly. A school or a local authority spending money on a path to a fast-food joint, rather than on instigating a stay-on-site policy, is almost as baffling as bringing in a fast-food giant to write public health policy, although, as we know, that, too, has happened. However, there is a serious point: despite all the evidence of the benefits, it is clear that not all school leaders or local authorities place the value that the majority of us in this room would like on children eating healthy lunches.
Everything that the Government have done so far means that standards will start to slide. Why? What possible benefit can there be for our children in giving certain schools the power to throw the rulebook out the window? Perhaps the Minister can at least explain that today. Of course, it is not only in new academies and free schools that standards could slide, because Ofsted no longer has to assess a school’s compliance with the regulations, so how do Ministers expect them to be honoured?
According to the Minister’s letter to caterers, which I mentioned earlier, mums and dads will now have to keep an eye on things, although she does not explain quite how they are expected to do that. However, she promises that, if they tell the Secretary of State about a school, he will use one of his ever-increasing number of powers to direct the school to jolly well buck up its ideas. Unless schools literally go back to the bad old days of turkey twizzlers and chips, however, I cannot imagine that many parents would notice any changes—for example, if the spaghetti bolognese, which might have met the standards before, suddenly had more fat or less vegetable content. That is a meaningless thing for the Minister to say. All that I would ask her is what possible benefit there is to schools or pupils in removing that element of an Ofsted inspection—none that I can think of.
It will be little surprise if nutritional standards slip; after all, the cash that subsidises them has effectively gone. Ministers say that it is within the direct schools grant, but again that is meaningless, because many schools are struggling with their budgets. For many of them, subsidising school meals will be far down the list of priorities, behind staff, materials and many services for which they would previously not have had to pay, such as the broadband bill, to take one example. One more service that they will now have to buy on a commercial basis will be advice from the School Food Trust on how to meet the nutritional standards—not really an attractive option if they do not now have to meet those standards anyway.
As we have heard—it was highlighted in the media last week—school meal take-up is on the rise. I congratulate the Minister on using that for some positive media coverage. I cannot really blame her, I suppose, but there is evidence that that spike could be due to pupil premium-chasing, as reported in The Independent on Sunday. The test of her policies will lie in whether we can see the same rise in three years’ time, and unless there is a radical rethink, I do not think we will. If it should become clear that we are spiralling in the wrong direction, I hope that the Minister will rethink her approach.
My colleagues have spoken at length on the merits of free school meals as a way of closing the gaps in health and educational attainment between children living in poverty and those from better-off backgrounds. It was, as has been said, a cruel blow to hundreds of thousands of young children in working poverty when the Minister and her colleagues scrapped the extended eligibility.
In the Westminster Hall debate on free school meals that I led last June, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has pointed out—that the Liberal Democrats were conspicuous by their absence, as were the Conservatives. That was hardly surprising given their part in one of the most regressive decisions that we have seen from the Government. It is noted that the Minister is here today representing her Lib Dem colleagues as well as her Conservative friends and that she is alone in that task. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said in his excellent speech, the universal credit throws the whole system of free school meals into confusion, which will not be cleared up for some time.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a truly excellent speech. Does not the absence of coalition Members demonstrate that they do not understand the link between a healthy school meal in the middle of the day and narrowing the attainment gap? It demonstrates their narrow and blinkered thinking about education.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I agree.
The one thing that I ask the Minister is to ensure at least that least no one loses out because of universal credit. We never know; perhaps under the universal credit system the Government may be able to give a little something back to the half a million or so kids who lost out when the extended eligibility was scrapped last year. However, given the Government’s record so far, I do not think that many of us will be holding our breath.
We have a Government who pay lip service to the importance of school meals—both free and paid for—but whose actions are completely incongruous with that rhetoric. If that were not bad enough, they also do not think that cooking healthy meals is sufficient of a life skill to be taught to young teens. Just as a free school meal may be the only proper meal that some children get, there is a similar cohort for whom the only food skills that they get will be the ones that they learn at school. In fact, they are more than likely to be the same children. Given that fact, the Labour Government put together plans to ensure that all children get mandatory cookery lessons, in the hope that those skills would stay with the young people who received them for the rest of their lives and even transfer to their parents, too. There was evidence of that in the excellent work of Jamie Oliver, of which the Minister is no doubt aware. He has shown that children given knowledge of healthy food and how to cook it go home and influence the food choices made by their parents. In a letter to me, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) justifies the decision to scrap the commitment by saying that the Labour Government did not take any legislative steps to make it compulsory—a pathetic excuse if ever I heard one. However, that is not surprising: after all, it might be difficult for those setting up free schools in an old pub or office to accommodate first-rate food technology classrooms. The simple fact is that the Tory-led Government’s half-baked policies are a recipe for disaster for our children.
I want in closing to ask the Minister two quick questions. Will she fight her corner for free school meals when decisions are taken following the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and try to extend at least some help to the families who were short-changed by her Government last year? If it becomes clear that the policies that we have been discussing today are resulting in a fall in nutritional standards and/or the take-up of school meals—whether in free schools, academies or other schools—will she step in and do something, or does the “hope and pray” or, as she calls it, localism approach to government prevent her from doing so?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I think it might be the first time I have done so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing this debate on a very important topic. I was delighted to hear about his cooking exploits, but I was not quite sure that the diet he described would constitute a healthy lifestyle. Sponge and custard creams are probably exactly what we are trying to get children to avoid snacking on; hopefully no children will be reading about his favourite foods.
Andrew Gwynne
To be fair, I did also mention my Scotch broth, which is wholesome and nutritious; but when we talk about a balanced diet we do not want to be so restrictive that we cannot enjoy a slice of cake now and then.
Sarah Teather
Far be it from me ever to want to deny the hon. Gentleman a slice of cake. I stand corrected; he did of course mention the Scotch broth as well.
There is much in the hon. Gentleman’s commitment that I would agree with. School food is hugely important. What children eat affects their concentration and health, their tendency to pick up infections and the likelihood of their being absent from school. School food is vital support in that context; it is vital in supporting healthy eating habits, which, beginning from a young age, can continue throughout a life. Unhealthy habits embedded at a young age are also much more difficult to break. Similarly, free school meals play a critical role in addressing issues of poverty and inequality, particularly for young people who would otherwise not get a nutritious meal during the day. That is the reason for the Government’s commitment.
I was struck by comments that hon. Members made about the benefits of eating together, which affects socialisation and behaviour. Children can learn to interact around a meal table, and they may not have other opportunities to do that. I recognise also the previous Government’s achievements, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, on nutritional standards and the renovation of kitchens. On those points I agree with him.
Andrew Gwynne
The Minister is being generous in giving way. If she recognises the achievements of the previous Government, particularly in relation to nutritional standards, why are the Government scrapping them?
Sarah Teather
The Government are not scrapping them, and if the hon. Gentleman will now let me finish I shall deal with the points on which I disagree with him.
I just want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I ask hon. Members to forgive me but I am still losing my voice; it has almost returned after last week’s Education questions, but it is coming in and out. The hon. Lady made a point about nursery education, and the realisation of the need to embed the relevant attitudes early is precisely why I have asked the School Food Trust to produce some nutritional guidance for nurseries and children’s centres. It is producing that at the moment and I hope it will help to embed some of those standards at an early age.
We are absolutely committed to driving up the take-up of school meals. It now stands at 44.1% in primary schools and 37.6% in secondary schools. However, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out that, in her constituency, the take-up has gone down in some schools. The School Food Trust is looking into some schools that have had difficulties; although the average might have gone up, some secondary schools have seen striking decreases, and the trust is considering the details in order to understand why.
To help drive up the number who take school meals, we are encouraging schools to use more freedom in charging. We included measures in the Education Bill to allow schools to be more flexible in how they charge. For example, they can make offers if a family has two children or make introductory offers to encourage people to take up school meals. However, I disagree with Opposition Members on many points.
One of the consistent themes of the debate was our decision to remove the ring fence. I was struck by the contradictory nature of Opposition Members’ argument; they spoke about the commitment to school food that they see in their constituencies from schools and head teachers, yet they are unwilling to trust schools to deliver. It is not right to ring-fence everything. It is right to give schools the freedom to decide how to prioritise spending, depending on existing practices. None the less, I recognise what many Opposition Members said about the impact of rising prices. That is why we are working with Pro5, a partnership of the UK’s largest public sector organisations; we want to drive down the price, encouraging better procurement by using centrally negotiated contracts. I hope that we will reap benefits from that.
Diana Johnson
Am I correct in thinking that the Government decided to ring-fence the music grant for at least one year to ensure that music was provided in schools? If they can do it for music, why can they not do it for school food?
Sarah Teather
The hon. Lady would be the first to blow the trumpet if the Labour Government had done so, given the extent to which schools already offer healthy balanced meals. Is she honestly saying that we should always ring-fence everything for ever? I am sure that that is not her view.
Sarah Teather
I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I have not done so yet, but I shall then need to make some progress or I will not be able to answer any of the Opposition’s questions.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
The Minister speaks of removing ring-fencing, but we are in the process of changing the culture of school food and of the way in which schools consider healthy living. That is why it is vital that the Government give out the message that this tranche of money needs to be spent on school food. That is the point being made by Opposition Members; we are not saying that everything should be ring-fenced.
Sarah Teather
Culture has changed significantly, and I join with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in paying tribute to Jamie Oliver for the work that he has done in changing attitudes.
I now turn to what Opposition Members said about free school meals. The rise in the number of pupils eating school meals inevitably means that there has been a rise in the number taking up their entitlement to free school meals. The latest figures show that 19.1% of pupils in maintained nursery and state-funded primary schools and 15.9% of pupils in state-funded secondary schools are registered for free school meals. However, for all sorts of reasons, not all children entitled to free school meals currently take up the offer—for instance, because of stigma or because they are unaware that they are entitled, a point made by a number of Opposition Members. Cash-free systems can help in driving down the stigma attached to free school meals. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned Tameside’s system for online checking. That is part of the Department’s award-winning free school meal eligibility checking system, which has had a huge impact on encouraging parents to apply for free school meals by helping to remove that stigma. It is also significantly cheaper for local authorities to administer.
A number of Members spoke about the universal credit, with its automatic passporting of benefits. If we were to use that system, our way of dealing with free school meals would have to change. I understand that hon. Members want answers now, but I am sure they recognise that it is important that we get the detail right. That is why we are taking our time; we are examining how best to ensure that all those children eligible for free school meals can benefit. We are working through that now, and I shall update hon. Members as soon as I can.
I wish to correct a few misunderstandings on the pilot scheme. We did not cancel the pilots in Durham, Newham or Wolverhampton, but we had to cancel them elsewhere because, unfortunately, the programme was underfunded by £295 million. Being able to offer free school meals to every primary school child is certainly on my wish list; if money were to grow on the trees in the atrium at the Department for Education, that wish would be high up there.
Sarah Teather
I shall complete this point first. I have only four minutes left and I have barely answered any of the points raised in the debate.
Free school meals for every primary school child is definitely on our list of things that it would be nice to offer at some point in the future. The absolute need for evidence is precisely why those pilots were allowed to run; we can evaluate the evidence and see what impact it has at a later stage, when finances make it rather easier.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the Chamber today are two former Ministers from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and they both say that the Minister is wrong. It is a question of priorities: we prioritised it and she has not.
Sarah Teather
The problem is that Opposition Members have given no indication of what they would cut in order to fund free school meals. I suspect that the two former Ministers did not see the detailed budgets of their Department, but evidence makes it extremely clear that the previous Government underfunded their pledge by £295 million. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said that the Labour party had a plan to halve the deficit, but they should make clear where those cuts would fall. It is simply not good enough to say that they have a plan to halve the deficit but not make it clear where the cuts would fall. If we were to have honoured all of those pilots, we would have had to cut the best part of £300 million—
Sarah Teather
No, I will not give way again. We would have had to cut the best part of £300 million from elsewhere in the Department’s budget. If hon. Members were to tell me which areas of the budget they would be willing to cut to the tune of £300 million, then it might be a little easier—[Interruption.]
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. I ask hon. Members to quieten down a little.
Sarah Teather
Hon. Members also spoke about Ofsted. It had responsibility only for the healthy eating approach of schools. It did not engage nutritionists when doing those inspections, so it would be a fallacy to assume that the only thing that was driving compliance with standards was the Ofsted inspection.
On the School Food Trust, I think there have been some misunderstandings. All advice that the trust has made available with Government grant will continue to be made available free of charge. It will be able to charge for new advice that it prepares once it becomes a charity and no longer receives Government grant, but it will be a charity, a not-for-profit organisation, and will need only to cover its costs. I believe that the high quality of its advice means that local authorities and schools will want to use it. A great deal of the support that it has offered has proved useful.
Opposition Members raised the subject of including cooking in the national curriculum. They should wait until we have reviewed the national curriculum, and see the outcome. However, our internal review of what secondary schools are doing shows that most already provide practical cooking at key stage 3, and they are unlikely to stop doing so regardless of whether we legislate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on securing the debate. I have tried to answer at least some of the questions raised this morning.
Office of the Public Guardian
(12 years, 9 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
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am sure that you are aware of “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens in which many of the characters’ lives are ruined by the court case Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which never gets resolved. The case rumbles on for years and then for decades until no one can remember what it was all about in the first place. In the meantime, it provides a tidy living for lawyers and others, while an indifferent legal system looks on with complacency. Over the past three years, I have had the misfortune of having to take up a case on behalf of my constituent, whom, for the purpose of this debate, I shall call Mrs F. Our dealings with the Office of the Public Guardian have left me feeling that we are perhaps caught up in the same thick miasma, both literal and metaphorical, of Charles Dickens’s novel.
I do not have time to explore all the nooks and crannies of the case, but I fear that my constituent and I are not alone—I see that other hon. Members are present today—in being frustrated by the obfuscation, delay and lack of action by the Office of the Public Guardian in discharging its duties.
In this case, my constituent and her ex-husband are divorced. The only outstanding matter in relation to the divorce is a flat they jointly own in Spain. Sadly, Mr F suffers from dementia, which deteriorated after the couple’s separation, and is unable to attend to his own affairs. As a result, the court appointed one of his relatives as deputy to attend to his affairs.
I have the file of correspondence that I have accumulated in trying to assist my constituent since she came to see me in September 2008. As a constituency Member of Parliament yourself, Mr Dobbin, you will appreciate that the matter had been in train for some time before my constituent took the major step of approaching me as her Member of Parliament to assist. Mrs F was frustrated by the lack of effort from the Office of the Public Guardian in ensuring that the apartment was sold, given that buyers were available and that it was in the interest of both parties that the property should be sold. My constituent was paying all the service charges and taxes associated with the property and having little or no success in recovering the other half from the appointed deputy.
At that point, the Office of the Public Guardian told me that the Public Guardian was gathering evidence and would consider what further action would be necessary. That was nearly three years ago. In March 2009, I received a letter from Monica Ogle of the compliance and regulations department at the Office of the Public Guardian saying that my constituent’s complaint had been rejected. She blamed the Spanish authorities for the lack of progress and said that that those problems had now been resolved.
On 30 March 2009, I wrote again to the Office of the Public Guardian complaining about the deputy’s lack of oversight, the mounting cost to my constituent and the lack of response from the deputy’s solicitor to correspondence. I received a reply, dated 16 April 2009 which promised additional assistance to the deputy in selling the property. However, by July nothing seemed to have been done, so I wrote again to the Public Guardian. In his reply of 30 July 2009, he said that he would consider whether the deputy was best suited to act in this case, ensure that the deputy arranged for payment of service charges so as not to jeopardise ownership of the property concerned and work towards a “swift resolution” to the property sale. That was two years ago.
Three months later, in October 2009, my office spoke to a representative from the Office of the Public Guardian and was given an assurance that that representative would speak to all concerned about any outstanding matters preventing the sale of the property.
In January 2010, I again wrote to the Public Guardian and explained that no progress had been made. At this stage, with a general election approaching and in the forlorn hope that I might be able to conclude this case before my potential imminent demise at the ballot box, I took the step of writing to the then Minister, Bridget Prentice, asking her to intervene given that this case was causing such distress to my constituent.
On 12 February 2010, the Office of the Public Guardian replied, suggesting that the problem was the lack of a buyer. For the first time, it suggested that my constituent could, at her own expense, apply to the court to discharge the deputy. It did not indicate, however, that the Office of the Public Guardian could do that itself.
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
Many elderly people face these difficult issues. There has been a case in my constituency in which theft and forgery took place and an elderly person was cheated out of money. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a lack of confidence and awareness in the Office of the Public Guardian? The people to whom I spoke were not aware that they could go to such a place.
Kevin Brennan
I am not sure, Mr Dobbin, whether you think that there is a lack of confidence or awareness at the Office of the Public Guardian, but I certainly think that that is the case. My awareness has been considerably increased by having to deal with the Office of the Public Guardian over the past three years on behalf of my constituent.
My constituent is clear that the property in her case could have been sold on a number of occasions and has supplied documentary evidence to that effect. She believes that those sales were prevented by the lack of action from the deputy and from the Office of the Public Guardian.
I received a similarly disappointing answer from the then Minister, which parroted a lot of what the Office of the Public Guardian itself had said. Throughout this period, my constituent was active in trying to resolve matters both through her solicitors and in corresponding directly with the Public Guardian. In the meantime, she was bearing all the expense of the property, which amounted to a considerable sum.
On 18 March, I again wrote to Martin John, the Public Guardian, emphasising that the sale was being prevented by the lack of authority being provided on Mr F’s behalf and that my constituent was concerned that the property could be placed under embargo to recover charges that she could not afford to pay, which would certainly not be in the interest of either party.
The Public Guardian replied. For the first time—we are talking about one and a half years on into this correspondence— he indicated that the deputy was being advised not to pay any of the share of the charges by their solicitor and that the Public Guardian could apply to the court to discharge the deputy, but did not consider it appropriate “at present.”
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this serious issue. People often feel completely helpless in these situations, especially when a deputy is imposed on them. I do not know whether he knows this, but a constituent of mine—I will call him “Mr Able”—used to have his deputy visited on an almost annual basis by the authorities about 12 years ago. In the period between 2003 and 2006, however, there was a cosy consensus between the Office of the Public Guardian and the solicitors appointed to act as Mr Able’s deputy that there would be no such visits, because they did not find them fruitful. And yet throughout that period, there was no action in response to Mr Able’s demands to have his deputy discharged. Surely there needs to be regular oversight of deputies whose role is being challenged by those whom they are supposed to be caring for?
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, there have been reforms since the period that he has referred to. I am afraid to say, however, that those reforms were introduced by the previous Government—I accept that—and as far as I can see they are not bringing genuine change and genuine service to the public. The Office of the Public Guardian should offer genuine service to the public, but from the evidence of my dealings with it, I must say that it has certainly not done that.
It is significant that, in previously advising my constituent that she could apply to the court at her own expense, the Public Guardian did not advise her that it was also within his power to do so. Eight months after the promise of “a swift resolution”, the Public Guardian advised for the first time that the deputy was not accepting responsibility for the shared costs and that he himself was not prepared to act to remove the deputy.
In a separate letter of the same date, the Public Guardian said that he had considered the appointment of a panel deputy, but he also said that that would be too costly and—unbelievably—that it would delay the sale of the flat, after all the delay that there had already been.
Another 16 months on, we are no further forward. My constituent is considerably out of pocket. Seasons change and Governments come and go; regimes fall; media empires crumble; but still the “swift” progress promised by the Office of the Public Guardian has been slower than the progress of a glacier.
By February 2011, as the Minister well knows, we had a new Government in place; in fact, it had been in office by then for a period of nine months. In this new era, I wrote again to the Public Guardian. My constituent had had to shell out a few more thousand pounds in the meantime to prevent the property being embargoed. I asked the Public Guardian how it could possibly be in the interests of Mr F to allow this situation to continue. I pointed out that another buyer from the UK had been lost because they were not prepared to wait for all the paperwork issues to be resolved. I suggested that the inaction of the Office of the Public Guardian was tantamount to maladministration. I understand that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) may already have taken a case to the ombudsman or that he has a case in progress with the ombudsman.
Kevin Brennan
I suggested that in the case that I am discussing a referral to the ombudsman might be required. I had a reply on 17 February 2011 from the Public Guardian, in which he raised new issues in relation to the case. For the first time, the Public Guardian said that my constituent had the only set of keys to the property and that he did not think it right that her ex-husband should be liable for any of the service charges on the property. That issue had never been raised in the previous two and a half years of correspondence in relation to the case. The Public Guardian once again blamed the lack of a buyer for the lack of progress, but he admitted in that letter of 17 February 2011 that, despite all of the correspondence that we had had:
“I accept that updates may not have been pursued as frequently as they might and my head of operations has instructions to ensure regular engagement with”—
he names the deputy in the letter, but I will not give the name now—
“and her solicitor with regards to any progress in the sale of the property.”
At the end of that letter, he said this about the deputy:
“I am content with the way she is discharging her duties”.
My constituent wrote to me on 28 February 2011 stating how appalled she was by the Public Guardian’s reply. She made it clear that both parties involved in the case had had keys to the property; that her keys were with the Spanish estate agents and had been all along; that her flat had not been visited for five years and that it was only visited then to deal with a leak; and that she had paid more than £15,000 in charges in the meantime. She went on to rebut the Public Guardian’s position and to express her shock at his reference to a visit to her ex-husband, whose Alzheimer’s meant that he had not been able to communicate on a cognitive level for a number of years.
I wrote again to Martin John, the Public Guardian, on 16 March 2011, enclosing my constituent’s letter to me and saying that I would apply for an Adjournment debate if no progress was made. I have received no reply to that letter, although staff in my office made inquiries about it yesterday and were told that the Office of the Public Guardian had no record of the letter.
I am determined to get this case resolved before I retire, but preferably much sooner. I understand that this is a complex and sensitive area of law, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that if the Office of the Public Guardian had lived up to half of the fine words on its website and a quarter of the promises made to me, this matter would have been resolved some time ago. In the meantime, my constituent has lost thousands; lawyers have pocketed thousands; the Office of the Public Guardian has cost millions; and the fortunes of the person whose interest the office is supposed to defend have undoubtedly been diminished. I do not know why the deputy in this case has not acted more decisively; I do not know why a solicitor who does not even reply to correspondence has been engaged; but I do know that the fact that this matter is unresolved is a disgrace.
I know that this matter is not in the Minister’s brief, but will he commit to ask his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), to undertake a full ministerial review of this case, with a view to galvanising the Office of the Public Guardian out of its “Bleak House” mentality and into a proactive mindset that genuinely serves the public interest?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Dobbin.
May I start by offering the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) my apologies for not being the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), in whose brief the Office of the Public Guardian directly sits? However, as we speak my hon. Friend is debating amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill upstairs in Committee. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to make do with me—well, he will have to make do with me.
As I said to the hon. Gentleman privately last week before this debate, I myself have had some unhappy constituency cases in the past 14 years of people who have fallen into the clutches of state-overseen administration of the affairs of a loved one. We have heard about another example of that from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). If one finds oneself in circumstances where professional administrators are taking a very substantial sum out of the case, one can then see the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce parallel that was adduced by the hon. Gentleman coming to fruition awfully for individual constituents. However, I do not think that that is actually the case here, because obviously the deputy at hand is not a professional administrator. She is a relative of one of the parties, which in cases such as this one is more common than the appointment of professional administrators.
At the beginning of my response to this debate, I want to say that the work of the Public Guardian and his role in safeguarding the interests of people who lack capacity is very important, and that it is entirely right and proper that we should consider the effective functioning of the Office of the Public Guardian and how well it is able to support the Public Guardian in fulfilling his statutory duties. However, I also want to say at the outset that I am not entirely clear whether the particular aspects of this case offer the best evidence to test how effectively the Office of the Public Guardian is operating or indeed to show up a particular fault on behalf of the office. It appears to me that the issues are essentially private matters, which could and should have been resolved by the parties themselves rather than with significant intervention by the state, in the form of the Office of the Public Guardian. I will come back to the individual cases that have been mentioned in the debate in the latter half of my remarks.
Let me provide some context by explaining the role of the Public Guardian, because there is a degree of misunderstanding about what precisely are the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Public Guardian, and that gets to the heart of the case that the hon. Gentleman has discussed.
The statutory role of the Public Guardian was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Among other things, he is responsible for maintaining a register of deputies appointed by the courts; supervising such deputies on an ongoing basis; and investigating any concerns raised with him about a deputy’s potential misconduct or abuse. I want to make it clear that the Public Guardian himself does not have any role in managing the affairs of a person lacking capacity and nor does he have powers to step in and take over the management of a person’s affairs if a deputy is deemed to be unable or unwilling to manage those affairs. Furthermore, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Public Guardian to remove a deputy once appointed, or to place limits on the way in which a deputy exercises his or her powers.
Mr Blunt
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, otherwise I will not be able fully to respond to the debate.
The Public Guardian’s role is essentially supervisory and investigatory, and if he believes that a deputy is unable or unwilling to fulfil his or her functions effectively, he can make an application to the Court of Protection seeking the deputy’s removal and replacement. The hon. Member for Cardiff West made that clear in his remarks, but his constituent was obviously not aware of the situation until rather late in the day. Since coming into force in October 2007, the Office of the Public Guardian has worked hard to raise awareness of its role and function, and I hope this debate will make a small contribution to that.
Mr Blunt
I am sorry. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to be able to put the role of the office on the record and deal with the case presented by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. If I then have time, I will of course take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Once a deputy has been appointed by the Court of Protection, the Public Guardian assigns him or her to an appropriate level of supervision. That process follows a risk-based assessment that ensures that all deputies receive adequate and proportionate oversight and support. An annual supervision fee is payable to the Office of the Public Guardian, which is proportionate to the degree of support or scrutiny required. In most cases, the supervisory regime requires the deputy to report to the Public Guardian on at least an annual basis. It can also result in further contact from the office throughout the year, to confirm that the deputy is carrying out his or her duties properly and to identify any need for additional support. In certain cases, it also involves a visit from an independent Court of Protection visitor, who reports their findings to the Public Guardian.
If a third party has concerns that a deputy has abused his or her position, that they are not acting in the person’s best interests, or that the person who lacks capacity is otherwise at risk, they can raise such issues with the Public Guardian. That can be done in confidence, as the office has a well-established whistleblowing procedure. In this case, the third party has plainly consistently been in touch with the Office of the Public Guardian, not least in the past three years through the hon. Member for Cardiff West.
After an initial assessment, if the concerns warrant further investigation the case is passed to the dedicated compliance team, which has responsibility for investigating allegations or concerns brought to the Public Guardian’s attention. The issues raised vary considerably, from relatively simple matters to extremely complex ones. An investigation often uncovers a number of different views as to what is in a person’s best interests, and those views can differ radically.
When considering allegations or concerns, the Public Guardian always considers first and foremost the impact on the person who lacks capacity. He considers to what extent their best interests are being met by the deputy and whether or not, in his view, the person’s interests might better be met by alternative arrangements. If there are significant concerns about how the deputyship is operating, the Public Guardian might make an application to the Court of Protection to seek either the removal of the deputy or limits on his or her powers. If there is evidence of a criminal offence or if serious issues are uncovered, the Public Guardian passes the details to the police. If no major concerns are uncovered but some residual issues bear greater scrutiny, the Public Guardian can allocate the deputy to a higher category of supervision, which enables his office to keep a closer eye on the situation or to provide a higher degree of support to the deputy. Finally, it is entirely possible that he might find the complaint unwarranted, or that there is insufficient evidence to pursue it.
It is always open to a third party to make an application of their own volition to the Court of Protection, seeking an order in relation to the management of a person’s affairs. For example, were a third party unhappy about the outcome of an investigation carried out by the Public Guardian, they would be entirely at liberty to make an application to the court to seek a deputy’s removal. That is the situation with the case that has been presented today.
This case concerns a dispute about the sale and maintenance of a foreign property in which two parties have a shared interest. One of the parties lacks capacity and has a deputy appointed to manage his affairs. The second party is of the view that the deputy has failed to do what is required from her side in order that the sale of the shared property can be progressed. I also understand that there are ongoing issues concerning the appropriate level of contributions to the maintenance of, and the shared service fees relating to, the property.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a significant interest in the case and has written on a number of occasions to raise concerns. As we have heard, he wrote most recently to the Public Guardian in March 2011, but the office has no record of that letter, which is why the hon. Gentleman has not received an answer. I regret that that has happened. I obviously have no idea why, but I hope that today I can provide the hon. Gentleman with appropriate assurance on the issues that he has raised.
I am aware that there is a view that the Public Guardian could, and indeed should, take over active management of the case—as implied by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks today—and that his office should progress the sale of the property. However, that is not one of the functions of the Public Guardian, nor does it fall within the scope of his powers. Indeed, even if the Public Guardian had such powers and responsibilities, I am not convinced that this case merits such an intervention. On the face of it, it seems to be a dispute between two private parties, albeit complicated by the lack of capacity of one of the parties and the fact that the property is located abroad.
I have sought advice on the case, and it has become evident that it is not even wholly clear whose responsibility it is to advance the sale of the property. When the parties where divorced, Cardiff county court ordered, on 20 December 2000, that Mrs F’s solicitors shall have conduct of the sale of the property. I am not certain whether the property referred to in that direction is the property under debate; if it is, it is absolutely clear that it is Mrs F who should be progressing the sale. Since Mrs F has the keys to the property, I would want to see more evidence of obstruction by the deputy of a process that she should be progressing.
Kevin Brennan
I just wish to put on the record that, from my observations, Mrs F has made every effort to progress the sale of the property. The Minister is right that the sale is being held up by a lack of action on the part of the deputy and the lack of use of such powers as the Office of the Public Guardian has to ensure that the deputy progresses the matter. I think everyone agrees that it is in the interests of the person without capacity that the property be sold. In the meantime, a vast fortune has been lost.
Mr Blunt
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is where the dispute lies. It lies on whether the deputy has obstructed a sale that should have been progressed and led by Mrs F, who has full possession of the property. There is then the issue of service charges and everything else, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the deputy received legal advice that she should not be paying those charges as she had no access to the property. That could have led to another circumstance in which some of the service charges and costs could have been reduced by the property being rented out for 50% of the time when it was, in effect, being shared. I have seen no evidence of any sensible discussion between the deputy and Mrs F to try to progress the matter, nor have I, and more importantly nor has the Office of the Public Guardian, seen evidence of obstruction by the deputy.
Kevin Brennan
I will ensure that the Minister gets a copy of my latest letter, which the office says it has not received. Will the Minister undertake to respond to the issues raised in that letter, which refer to some of the points that he has made?
Mr Blunt
The Office of the Public Guardian has undertaken a number of reviews of the case, including a full investigation and a number of visits to the deputy by the independent Court of Protection visitors, and his office continues to maintain contact with the deputy and to liaise with her over the shared property and the progress of its sale.
In conclusion, if the hon. Gentleman’s constituent remains unhappy, she has the opportunity to go to the Court of Protection. That is what the hon. Gentleman has been asking the state to do through the Office of the Public Guardian. The office has investigated the case and does not think that that is justified, but it is entirely open to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent to go to the Court of Protection to seek the replacement of the deputy if the evidence and circumstances warrant it. That is the safeguard. However, I fear that on the basis of the evidence that I have seen—I am happy to see further evidence from the hon. Gentleman—I do not think that the case has been made out that the Office of the Public Guardian has failed his constituent.
Hospital Finances
(12 years, 9 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
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I could not help thinking on my way here, as I passed the scrum of photographers and reporters, “There are an awful lot of people. They can’t all be coming for the debate on hospital finances, however important it might be.” I apologise in advance to the Members present, who I know debated such themes extensively in the Committee that considered the Health and Social Care Bill. I can only say that I did not anticipate that today would turn out as it has. I wanted to flag up an important issue that I think will dominate next year’s headlines and to put some of my thoughts and concerns on record. I will not suggest that we could all go off quietly, have a cup of tea and discuss it in a genteel way, but if the Minister and the Opposition spokesman give adequate responses, we might curtail this debate before an hour and a half.
When I arrived in this place in 2001, one of the first people whom I met was another new MP, Dr Richard Taylor, a distinguished Member who had just won the Wyre Forest constituency somewhat unexpectedly. David Lock, an unfortunate colleague of yours, Mr Betts, had lost half his votes in the election simply by virtue of his stance on hospital reconfiguration. Since then, an axiom in this place has gone something like this: “If you back hospital changes and any sort of configuration, you lose; if you oppose hospital changes and any sort of configuration, you ordinarily win.” I certainly sat through many debates, somewhat better attended than this, on hospital configuration in many parts of England when I was part of the Liberal Democrat health team, and generally speaking, that has been the invariable subtext to the debate.
Offstage, away from the Commons arena, many groups were set up during the previous Parliament to defend their local hospitals in a variety of ways. An all-party group was set up on community hospitals, and another, of which I was a founding member, was set up on small hospitals. It is recognised that reconfiguration and change in the acute sector is ordinarily political dynamite. Understandably, this and previous Governments have wanted to keep the issue at arm’s length.
One way to do so is to suggest that it is all a matter of local decision making, although somehow it always comes back to the Secretary of State’s desk. Another way is to refer such matters to a reconfiguration panel, a device set up expressly to keep things off the Secretary of State’s desk. A third way is to claim that whatever change is in the offing is the result of extensive work by consultants—McKinsey is often involved. I have never found them particularly helpful myself, as ordinarily they suggest that hospitals solve their financial problems by simply doing less, meaning closing wards and so on. However the technique favoured by most Governments hitherto has been deferral: putting off the agony in the expectation that some other Secretary of State will have to pick up the ball and run with it. The current Secretary of State is a veteran of many hospital configuration debates, having been a health spokesman for his party for a long time.
That is the background to the issue. However, I suggest that the landscape is changing dramatically. First, there is a widely accepted view that more services should be delivered in the community, and, presumably, that fewer services should be delivered in the acute hospital sector. Many of the effects of the “any willing provider” policy and patient choice are already working their way through the system, leading to an increase in the deficit on the acute hospital side. Since the 2010 Budget, there is clearly a need across the health sector to find substantial savings, amounting in national terms to £20 billion.
Added to that is the chronic effect of private finance initiatives, which appear to be crippling many in the hospital sector. An investigation conducted by The Daily Telegraph found, for example, that one fifth of hospital trusts with active PFIs have closed casualty departments, while during the same period only 4% of hospitals without PFIs closed or proposed to close casualty departments. We can clearly see from the cases of some individual hospitals—I shall not name them here—that severe problems have been brought about chiefly, if not exclusively, by long-standing PFI debts. The Daily Telegraph investigation—we do not need to believe The Daily Telegraph, but this is what it says—found that
“Some PFI hospitals—built and run by private firms and effectively rented back to the state—will end up costing taxpayers more than 10 times their capital value.”
Much of that cost, of course, is picked up by the acute sector.
In addition, constant deferral has sometimes made problems more acute, which is particularly true in London. Further grief is generated, to some extent, by adjustments, not uninfluenced by the Department of Health, to the tariff for many acute services. Not long ago, primary care trusts were strapped for cash and acute hospitals were okay; to some extent, intervention in the tariff has changed that, and the acute sector could do absolutely nothing except remonstrate.
Some trusts are in serious trouble, and their problems cannot be eternally deferred. The problems of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, for example, are critical. The other day—I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with this issue—I picked up a brochure distributed around Merseyside saying, “Save Whiston and St Helens hospital”. He might be surprised to know that it says that
“local politicians have been informed by Ministers in the Department of Health that plans are in place to privatise”
Whiston and St Helens hospitals.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
As the hon. Gentleman is not an MP for that area, I will explain a bit of the background. One or two hon. Members are scaremongering among the local population. Despite repeated assurances from me and others, they will not accept that there is no intention, in any shape or form, to privatise Whiston or any other hospital.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the Minister could clear up today any uncertainty on the question whether failing trusts might be dealt with by privatising or franchising through privatisation? The Minister could tell us what Matthew Kershaw at the Department of Health meant the other day when he told the Health Service Journal that private franchises might be one way to consider dealing with failing trusts.
John Pugh
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can ask his own questions when the time comes. The point that I am making, which could be made about several hospitals, is that financial trouble is not necessarily coupled with clinical trouble, as it is in the case of the hospital that I am discussing. Sometimes they go hand in hand, but in this particular case there is a clear pattern of good clinical delivery, which we all want to see sustained. However, most of us know, even if we do not want to name individual hospitals, that about 20 hospitals—17, 18 or 19 of them—will not be in good shape for foundation trust status, largely because of the financial problems that they currently face.
The issue is how we address these problems without the kind of collateral political damage that we saw in Kidderminster. The solution is not obvious. Mergers between different trusts do not always work well. Nigel Edwards, the previous chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said that no merger has ever done the trick of resolving the problem—not by itself anyway. Neither is it possible to do things and get away with it by shepherding other NHS custom in the direction of those hospitals that are financially challenged. I believe that that is the concern of hon. Members in Warrington apropos what may happen at Whiston. If the facility is PFI and expensive, there is an argument that that will be the one that is maintained. Indeed, the previous Government were accused of doing precisely that in connection with Burnley hospital, where Blackburn was the more expensive proposition in capital terms. I do not think that that is the way to do it.
I do not think we can go back to what used to be called brokerage, whereby basically some hospitals do well, some do badly and the strategic health authority comes along at the end of the year and masks the whole procedure by handing out money. That is a discredited tool that has long been dropped. Plenty of loans are available, however, which hospitals are sitting on and which they have to repay. A few years ago, under the previous Government, if a deficit was incurred, an equivalent amount was taken off the following year’s allowance, but, happily, that scenario no longer exists. This is not a situation in which immediate and obvious solutions exist.
To some extent, the modern view of the NHS—namely, that we need to encourage private autonomy to allow the strong to merge with or to acquire the weak, or to allow the weak to simply fail via a variety of different market adjustments—has some appreciable weaknesses, which I would like to discuss. If we let a hospital’s culture or ecology sort itself out as best it can in any particular area, we may find that at some point in time there will be a conflict with the Secretary of State’s duty to secure a comprehensive health service, because how it turns out might not actually do that. In crude terms, there are many situations in which we would take the view that we cannot let an acute hospital or a district general hospital fail.
The problem, however, persists and our failure as politicians to address it in a mature, sensible way has been subject to a fair amount of criticism. I refer hon. Members to an article in The Times initiated by comments made by Dr Peter Carter of the Royal College of Nursing, who said:
“In our metropolitan areas we have far too many acute hospitals. That’s a drain on the system and it has got to change”.
Dr Carter, of course, represents the nurses. He went on:
“People are going to have to be brave to make these decisions. Some of those hospitals that we have known and loved, and which were performing appropriately in their day, are no longer appropriate.”
In the same article in The Times on 17 June, Chris Ham from the King’s Fund—we know him well—said:
“For too long politicians have not been willing to show the leadership that the health service needs.”
That is a kind of allegation of almost wilful political inertia, which in the view of those experts seems to be compounding the problem.
Politicians are subject to a twofold accusation. The first is of being inert, cowardly and fearful, and the other is that they agree to certain things in private, but take a completely different stance in public. Under the previous Government, we saw the spectacle of one Minister proposing and supporting radical upheaval in the NHS, while another, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), opposed it. Similar points are made by many think-tanks, which do not need to get their hands dirty with the business of reconfiguration.
Owen Smith
In a similar vein, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, before the last election, it was less than helpful to see the current Secretary of State standing outside various hospitals with a placard protesting that they would not close on his watch?
John Pugh
I have direct experience of the Secretary of State coming to my constituency to support his own party’s candidate and taking the same stance as me on the local configuration issue. He has ample experience of that. To be fair, the Secretary of State has told me that doctors are not necessarily completely blameless. Apparently, some doctors say privately that certain things need to be done, but they are not prepared to attend public meetings to say so, which is understandable. Certainly, some people in the clinical community will propose a reconfiguration, while others will oppose it—often citing differing clinical evidence.
To pull things together, the reality is that this is a tricky problem and solving it by central diktat or dirigisme is attractive only to think-tanks, never to politicians or people who have to work in real time in the NHS. It is probably also insufficient to simply set tests or parameters and let the thing unfold, if we want to end up with a comprehensive service in all areas. The Government are never quite out of the equation, however much they might wish to exit and leave it to the health economy to sort itself out. They are not a bit player in any sense. Hitherto, but maybe not henceforward, they have influenced the tariff, which has an immediate effect on the viability of hospitals. They have subsidised acute sector competition and opened access to alternative providers, all of which impact directly on the acute sector.
More importantly, the Government’s drive—this is accepted as the drive of not only this Government, but the previous Government—to make NHS providers autonomous has reduced opportunities to cut costs across the whole acute sector. I will give three straightforward examples. A lot of NHS property is essentially dormant and not needed at present, and companies would manage it to better revenue and capital effect on the budget. These companies, however, deal in property portfolios, not in isolated plots of land held by an individual hospital. Properly managing the dormant and surplus estates of the NHS is an extraordinarily good way of benefiting the acute sector, but it is difficult to progress when the acute sector is divided into specific, autonomous and relatively small units.
Similarly, we would all regard savings in procurement in the acute sector as relatively painless. If we can, it would be far easier to make savings in procurement rather than in staffing or in actual services, which are more painful to progress.
The recent National Audit Office report established that the autonomy that hospitals individually possess militates to some extent against them making some of the savings that we clearly would wish them to find. I shall read briefly a couple of sections from the NAO report:
“The local control of procurement decisions and budgets in the NHS contrasts with the direction that is being taken for central government procurement.”
It points out that Sir Philip Green has saved appreciable amounts of money across central Government by achieving large-scale efficiencies in procurement. The report goes on to state that
“this approach does not apply to the NHS which operates as a discrete sector, increasingly driven by a regulated market approach, in which the government does not control providers such as hospital trusts. Central government, by contrast, operates as a single body of departments where consistent and collaborative procurement arrangements can be pursued.”
If we read the report and analyse the net effect of that, we realise that NHS hospital trusts pay widely varying prices for the same thing. The NAO report gives examples of hugely different procurement exercises that have resulted in very strange outcomes. It states that
“the 61 trusts in our dataset issued more than 1,000 orders each per year for A4 paper alone.”
It points out that procuring on a scale greater than individual trusts will have benefits. I know that there are procurement hubs and so on, but essentially, as the NAO analyses the problem, it thinks that the current NHS structure means that we are missing out on across-the-board savings within the acute sector. It concludes by saying:
“We estimate that if hospital trusts were to amalgamate small, ad-hoc orders into larger, less frequent ones, rationalise and standardise product choices and strike committed volume deals across multiple trusts, they could make overall savings of at least £500 million, around 10 per cent of the total NHS consumables expenditure”.
Owen Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having listened to or sat through, as I did, 40-odd sittings on the Health and Social Care Bill, it is precisely such fragmentation that we are worried will get worse and will be compounded by the Bill’s measures? Is he concerned that the sort of centrally planned savings that he describes as being achieved through procurement will be forgone?
John Pugh
The scenario that the NAO and I have described was actually created by the advent of foundation trusts and the architecture put in the place by the previous Government as much as by anything that the Bill might do. The Bill will not substantially worsen the opportunities for savings. However, we might wish to consider the following issue in the context of the Bill. The NAO states:
“Given the scale of the potential savings which the NHS is currently failing to capture, we believe it is important to find effective ways to hold trusts directly to account to Parliament for their procurement practices.”
That is a perfectly valid point. It is not a political point; if anything, it is a housekeeping point.
The NAO has produced another recent report entitled “Managing High Value Equipment in the NHS in England”. We are talking here about things such as MRI scanners that cost millions of pounds. The NAO points out that, in reducing the costs of high-value equipment and maintenance, it is far preferable if the whole exercise is strategically planned, rather than planned within each individual trust. It concludes that
“the planning, procurement, and use of high value equipment is not achieving value for money across all NHS trusts.”
In other words, NHS trusts are looking after themselves, rather than considering whether there is spare capacity in the equipment of a neighbouring trust, simply because they are, by and large, poised in a competitive relationship. Already the drive to secure quality, innovation, productivity and prevention savings and the rationalisation that follows from that is being hampered—if not blocked—by a degree of obduracy from the foundation trusts, who are looking after themselves rather than the whole health economy. The drive to secure such savings is also being hampered to some extent by the need to satisfy competition requirements, which I should say, in case the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is going to intervene, were already in place.
I have given the example of Merseyside where centralising pathology, which is a wholly sensible thing to do, has had to get over the hurdle of impressing the co-operation and collaboration panel. It was apparently satisfied when it discovered that pathology could be obtained in Wigan. That was enough competition and was okay. However, the fact that those involved had to get over that hurdle delayed the savings and some of their impact. I pause for a second to ask hon. Members to speculate about something. If Marks & Spencer behaved in exactly the same way with regard to all its separate stores, we would consider that to be an imbecilic business practice. There is no reason why we should not query it when we see it within the NHS.
Owen Smith
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that it is slightly ironic that he should be making this argument now, given that Opposition Members consistently argued throughout the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that the sort of fragmentation he is talking about will get worse once we get rid of all strategic planning at a regional and national level? If we get rid of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, that will be a major problem and will compound the issues he is talking about.
John Pugh
I am not wholly convinced that we will get rid of that level of planning. Instead, it will go through another avatar or incarnation and reappear as a subset of the national commissioning board’s activities. That organisation is rapidly developing regional tentacles, some of which look very similar to parts of the strategic health authorities. Yes, there is the need for some strategic look at how savings are to be achieved if we are going to make savings across the acute sectors; otherwise, we are missing some very soft savings in times of severe financial restraint. It is not me saying that; it is those people who have looked at the matter in the greatest depth—in this case, the NAO.
However, one cannot roll back the clock; we are where we are. I suspect that there will be a fair amount of merging among trusts so, perhaps with the evolution of super-trusts, we will get real economies of scale. The key question I ask and the reason behind this debate is: what can the Government actually do to manage this process of change, given that all the financial information coming our way now and next year will illustrate that there will be change and that significant problems need to be addressed in London and other parts of the country? The way I see it is this. There is a yawning gap between what the public would like to see and what hospital administrators consider to be financially expedient or workable, and what doctors see as clinically desirable. There is sometimes a tendency to confound the two. I have seen many cases for change based on financial expediency that are represented as cases about promoting a clinically desirable framework. That has always created a degree of cynicism on the part of the public, who see the money rather than the clinical needs of the services driving change.
Financial expediency and clinical desirability are different. None the less, they are both forces that we can do nothing specific about as they stand. Those forces are driving change even though the public, particularly in London, are probably reluctant to accommodate that. One very bad way of resolving such a dilemma—and it will be a difficult dilemma for whoever has to deal with it—is simply to do the politically expedient thing and work out which option loses fewest votes. That does not necessarily produce anything like a desirable situation and it creates a lot of bitterness, particularly if political leverage is used to benefit candidates of one or another party, however tempting that may be.
To make a positive suggestion for a way forward, I accept that this is a very difficult environment, and one that is only going to get more difficult, but I would like to draw attention to what I have picked up in most of the debates I have had, in this Chamber and elsewhere, on reconfiguration, often in parts of the world that I was not directly informed about. In those debates—I remember a well-attended debate, with many Conservative hon. Members, about reconfiguration in the Watford area—the fundamental issue that crops up time and again is access. People spend far more time talking about the way to the service than about the shape of the service—far more time talking about traffic than about clinical processes. We have to draw a lesson from that.
It seems fairly straightforward that people who have serious life-threatening diseases have one primary consideration, which is to get the best conceivable service they can to save their life. Recognising that, they will go to where that best service is. For example, in my constituency of Southport people who contract cancer often have to travel to Clatterbridge hospital in the Wirral for some of the specialist cancer services that are not available in Southport. Although they would rather have those services on the doorstep, they would sooner have the best conceivable service. On the other hand, asking people who are travelling for very complex, life-critical services to also travel in order to get triage should they have some mishap, or to travel if they want to do something very ordinary like give birth to a baby, or if they want to attend a clinic, or if they want to get their chronic condition attended to or assessed, or if they want some sort of initial diagnosis of their symptoms, or if they want a routine stay in hospital, then to suggest that they should not go local, that they should travel further, creates uproar. Frankly, if they are asked to travel further than other people and prolong an anxious journey, or encounter some tortuous route, that will enrage them significantly.
A lot of debates about hospital reconfiguration in this place have been about the fears of one community about the basic, simple services for which they will unfairly be made to travel further than other people—fears that, in a sense, they have been rejected and that some other community has been selected to have services on its doorstep. The tendency of many people in the health service is to think that that is an issue, but not a health issue—the Department of Health does not do highways.
I can give a classic example of that in my constituency. There are two hospitals in my local trust—one in Southport and one in Ormskirk. The services were configured, I think largely for political reasons, in a rather strange pattern. A and E for adults is in one hospital, and A and E for children is in another. Theoretically, if there is a car crash with both parents and children involved, they would go off in different directions. That strikes many people as almost perverse. When people in Southport, complain very vocally and emphatically, as they still do, about having to traipse over to Ormskirk even for the most minor ailment affecting a child, they have a legitimate grievance. I have to say that that appeared to be a grievance that was shared by the Secretary of State. When he was campaigning for the Conservative candidate in my constituency, he agreed with me on precisely that point. If one reads the fine print of the Shields report, which did that configuration, one finds a very short sentence saying, in effect, “this is a fine configuration which I, Professor Shields, medical man, wish to stand by.” He treats the weakness—that there is a long and tortuous road between the two communities—as though that really was outwith the particular suggestions that were being made.
I recall similar issues with regard to the debate that we had about hospitals in the Watford area. People said that the configuration had not recognised the fact, unbeknownst to the health authorities, that it may have been possible to get from one part of the community to another at 10 o’clock or mid-afternoon, but not at peak time. That would not work or be satisfactory for the people who would have to negotiate dense traffic and no direct road. I looked at the Secretary of State’s four tests for acceptable configuration. They show progress in the right direction, but the one thing that they did not mention was physical access and time taken in access to health services.
In conclusion, I would like to make a positive suggestion. When we think about configuration, we need to lay down access standards that offer some kind of basis of what people can rationally, reasonably expect: to test proposals coming forward against access standards; to ensure that access is, as far as we can get it, fair for all; to have goals for access that allow for variations in people’s condition, whether life-critical or standard; to allow to some extent for differences in rural and urban environments; and to allow even for factors such as population density. People in London would be flattered, to some extent, by the picture they see of access arrangements in London. They probably feel that they are not as good as they might be, but in comparison with rural environments they are markedly different.
If the Department of Health could take access seriously, then the huge political problems that are on the horizon, and not very far on the horizon, can be resolved in a less politically contentious way. We could then convince people that some of the reconfiguration that may have to be done is fair, if not welcome. Until we do that, we are going to get into precisely the same territory as Dr Taylor and David Lock in Kidderminster. It is the failure on the part of the NHS, I guess, to talk to the department of highways and the Department for Transport effectively. It is a failure to take into account what it means for the ordinary patient, and how it looks from the ordinary patient’s point of view, that really makes these difficult issues absolutely explosive.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate, albeit at an hour and on a day when there is a little competition for the attention of the House and perhaps of the media, too. Maybe the media are watching, but I have my doubts.
I will start on a note of agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and, I am sure, the Minister, on the need to make savings in the NHS. There was widespread agreement before and after the general election that the NHS needs to make significant savings of £15 billion or maybe £20 billion in the spending period, which is vital. Equally, the NHS needs to find ways to achieve those efficiencies to achieve productivities that will allow those savings to be sustained over a longer period. There is also widespread agreement that there is a massive challenge in achieving those savings, and addressing perennial problems that have persisted in the NHS under successive Administrations.
Some trusts, as the hon. Gentleman has said, are consistently in the red and have been for a while. They seem to have persistent and perhaps insurmountable problems with their finances. There has been an evolving but still too opaque process of dealing with that, with bail-outs or loans from the SHA or the PCT to trusts that have struggled. Despite the efforts of successive Governments, and particularly the previous Labour Government, there remains too much variability in the quality of service offered and prices paid across the NHS. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that there have been persistent political obstacles in the way of achieving the reconfiguration of services, which we all recognise may be required to deliver some of the proposed savings.
Since the Government came to office more than a year ago, they have been right to try—rhetorically, at least—to address those issues and to spell out some of the challenges and potential solutions. First, we all agree that there needs to be greater transparency on accounting, on design decisions about services and, in particular, on reconfigurations of acute services. Secondly, there has been widespread agreement over a long period that clinicians need to take greater responsibility for redesigns and, as the Government would put it, to be at the heart of decision making in ways that force them to take account of issues and be responsible about engaging in the ongoing debate. Finally, there is agreement that we need a more effective means of dealing with failing trusts, so that we have a failure regime that allows whichever party is in government to reconfigure vital services in a way that protects them.
The Government want to do all those things, and they are right to want to do them, while increasing quality at the same time, but the problem is that their prescription for achieving them is entirely inappropriate. It is the wrong prescription for the NHS, and it will not achieve what the Government want; in fact, it will compound the problem. The past year has been a wasted year, in which many of the decisions that the Government say they want to take and that they want the NHS to take have been put off. The health service has had to deal with the chaos of having to wait and wonder what the future will hold for individuals and institutions across the NHS, as the Government’s shambolic Health and Social Care Bill passes slowly and tardily through the Commons.
The principal reason why the Government have introduced the Bill is that they still have an entirely misguided belief that competition in the NHS between providers will result in a more efficient allocation of resources, drive productivity and lead to innovation in the NHS, which is not the case. The planning that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is vital in the NHS, and that is particularly true of planning that militates against injudicious decisions being taken by parts of the NHS that are more autonomous than they were previously.
Ultimately, the chaos we have seen over the past year has been worse than not allowing the NHS to take the necessary financial decisions and steps towards reconfiguration to achieve better financial outcomes. Worse still, it is compromising patient care. The quality agenda that the Government profess to support and pursue above all else, even in respect of competition, is not letting the NHS improve as quickly as it has done in the past. The Minister is looking quizzical, but I would point to the fact that the figures for 18-week waiting times, for four-hour waits at A and E and for the time people wait to receive vital diagnostic tests are all increasing.
Owen Smith
Yes, they are. The Minister says they are not, and if he wants to intervene, I would love to hear what he has to say.
Mr Burns
I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misinterpret the facts, and even he will have to accept, if he looks at the facts, that the median waiting time remains stable. Even someone he loves to quote—Chris Ham of the King’s Fund—has acknowledged that in recent weeks.
Owen Smith
The King’s Fund explicitly said that, for the months from February through to March, numbers for the 18-week wait were at a three-year high. The Minister talks about median waiting times, but we need to talk about overall waiting times. He cannot disagree with the fact that the figures for the other waiting times that I have mentioned—the waiting times for diagnostic testing and for four-hour waits in A and E—are at their highest levels since their inception. That is where we are, and I fear that is where we will be for a long period unless the NHS is allowed to concentrate on clinical targets, which are crucial to the quality of service that patients receive, rather than having to worry about future configuration and structure.
How has the vital question of savings been dealt with over the past year? The hon. Member for Southport has discussed the need to save between £15 billion and £20 billion, and service reconfiguration is one way to do that. We do not know exactly how we are doing on savings right now, because the Government have not told us where we are or whether we are on track to realise those savings. We know that trusts are being asked to make savings of about 4% a year, but we do not know how many actually are. We fear that we are behind the curve in achieving that figure, which Monitor’s report of September last year suggests that 63% of trusts are failing to do. The King’s Fund tracker, which came out only last week, said that half the managers it surveyed feared that they would not hit the 4% target, and an even greater proportion feared they would not hit the 6% target that they are setting for themselves.
Mr Burns
Will the hon. Gentleman accept—I am sure that he knows this—that the King’s Fund work was only a snapshot? It surveyed only 29 finance directors out of 165, and 27 of them made the comments that he has described. However, the latest quarterly NHS performance statistics, which are an actual look at what is going on across the NHS rather than a snapshot, show that 20 of the 21 indicators are being reached. Of those, 14 show improvements, whether that is on bowel and breast cancer screening or on times for admission for minor strokes. That gives a more accurate assessment of what is going on.
Owen Smith
Of course, the baseline for those outcomes is relatively new, because this is a new set of indicators. More importantly, however, the Minister will accept that I was talking specifically about financial data and whether services will hit their financial targets. I acknowledge that the King’s Fund tracker is but a snapshot and that, as the Minister has said, it uses only 29 NHS trusts. However, the Monitor survey of September last year, which I have mentioned, related to all 100-odd foundation trusts, and it found that 63% of them are behind the curve in achieving the 4% target. It is not, therefore, inexplicable or out of the realms of possibility that the King’s Fund survey might be entirely accurate, even though it is a snapshot. Of course, the Minister can clear this up for us right now by saying precisely how many foundation and non-foundation trusts are on target to meet the 4% target for productivity savings this year. He can clear that up for us, and we will have no further questions about it. He could publish a tracker to keep things clear for us.
After quality and savings, the third issue that I want to discuss is transparency, because the Government have persistently said that more transparency in the system will allow decisions to be taken in a better way and to be scrutinised, as well as allowing an improvement in productivity and quality. Other Opposition Members and I have pursued this issue during the seemingly endless sittings on the Health and Social Care Bill. I have said repeatedly that the fog around this issue has not got any thinner; in fact, it was approaching pea-soup status towards the end of our sittings.
We have no real idea how the Government will address the apparent shortcomings in the 17—or is it 20 or 25?—trusts that are currently in trouble and do not have the requisite stability to achieve foundation trust status. We do not know exactly what the Government are doing to bring them up to foundation trust status. Nor do we know precisely what will happen if one of them goes bust. We do not know what the failure regime is—
Owen Smith
Well, as we said in Committee, we wait with bated breath to hear what the failure regime will look like. It is a crucial piece of the jigsaw if the Government are to be trusted with the NHS and if we are to know precisely what regime they will put in place to protect services that, as we have heard across the country, are considered vital for communities.
We do not have any idea, really, how many of the existing foundation trusts are overspent, and therefore in breach of their authorisation. The Minister could inform us about that. He could be a little more transparent about precisely what the situation is. I mentioned this earlier, but the Minister could clear up persistent concerns, in particular on the Labour side of the House, that the Government think that private sector management might be a means to improve the productivity, efficiency and, indeed, perhaps even the clinical quality, of some of the failing trusts. I do not think that that fear is wholly misplaced. We simply need to listen to the words of Matthew Kershaw, who is employed in the Department of Health to oversee that very process, and who told a Health Service Journal conference just the other day—it was reported only a week ago—that it was perfectly possible that we might look at means by which private sector companies might come in to run, through franchise, some failing trusts.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman really takes the biscuit. He raises the possibility of private sector companies providing a manager or managers where the management in an NHS hospital are failing to help pull it round and return it to stability. He conveniently forgets that there is only one instance, to the best of my knowledge, where that is happening in the NHS, and it is—possibly, provided it is all finalised—at Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon. That was set in progress not by a Conservative Government, but by his party’s Government, under the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), prior to the general election. To complain about something that his own party’s Health Secretary did is somewhat rich.
Owen Smith
The difference, of course, is that that is one instance in a system where there is still strategic management, planning and control, both at the centre and in the regions. The difference under the new dispensation, as envisaged in the Health and Social Care Bill, will be that we shall have a fundamentally disaggregated, fragmented NHS with more autonomy and with the ability for more trusts to choose what to do. That runs the risk that the Secretary of State will have far less control over those private providers, if they are running franchises.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman can wriggle as much as he likes. The fact is that he has been holed below the waterline. A Labour Government set up the only example in the health service in England of what he said, specifically, it was unacceptable to do. He could at least have the decency to come clean and accept it, and, if he feels so strongly now, he could apologise.
Owen Smith
I am not sure that I am the most celebrated politician being asked to apologise today. I do not need to apologise and do not feel that I am holed below the Plimsoll line, because clearly a very different future scenario is being painted as a result of the changes that the Minister and the Government are pushing through in the Bill. Our grave concern is that the local populace, politicians, and, indeed, Parliament, will have far less control over and insight into what different parts of the NHS will be doing after they are afforded that much greater autonomy. Of course, there will also, ultimately, be a far greater ingress of private companies into the NHS at many levels.
John Pugh
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument is an argument for all seasons? He can use it whenever he criticises the Government for something and then finds out that his party’s Government have done it; so he has rendered himself undefeatable in argument, but somewhat meaningless.
Owen Smith
I would love to be undefeatable in argument, but I am not sure whether that is true. However, I will add one thing before I move on. I did not say—this is the principal reason why I do not need to apologise to the Minister—that the idea of a private company coming in and running an NHS service should never be countenanced. I suggested that in the world envisaged in the Health and Social Care Bill, where there will be a significant increase at many levels in the number of private sector providers in the NHS, there is an immediate local concern, in addition to the far more substantive problems of competition law becoming the norm for organising the NHS and, crucially, dismantling it. The local concern is that there will be less control over a greater proportion of the NHS, once we have more private providers. That clear concern is widely felt across the House and outside it.
The hon. Member for Southport touched on how NHS bureaucracy allows tough decisions to be taken. He talked about politicians not being prepared to take tough decisions, and about the NHS’s own clinicians, bureaucrats and managers being unable to do so. That needs to be recognised, because there are difficulties with an organisation as big, and arguably as unwieldy, as the NHS, with so many different moving parts and so many different agendas in play. However, as to the labyrinthine bureaucracy that the Health and Social Care Bill will create, with the welter of new organisations—the national commissioning board at national and local levels, consortia, senates, clinical networks in addition to the ones that we currently have, health and wellbeing boards, HealthWatch, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission—it is beyond this simple politician to see how that much more complex architecture will facilitate easier decision making in the NHS about tough reconfigurations. I just cannot see how it will get easier with far more complex architecture.
I thought that the hon. Member for Southport talked interestingly about how, at a more aggregate level, one might imagine better ways to manage what he called the “dormant surplus estate” of the NHS, which is an interesting point. There are ways in which dormant bits of hospitals and dormant land could be better managed. I have grave concerns about the world that I envisage will pertain in several years, if the Bill unfortunately passes, in which different parts of the NHS will have much greater autonomy in making those decisions, and there will be a much greater risk that the motivation behind them will be financial as opposed to clinical. I find it impossible to believe that the likelihood of aggregated strategic decision making in respect of that estate will be improved by allowing the NHS to break up, as I fear it will. The National Audit Office report that the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid was not on precisely that territory, but it pointed to a risk that always attends autonomy—that it results in less strategic decision making, because decisions are made at a more micro level. That risk clearly attended foundation trusts, and it will get worse, not better, under the Bill.
Lastly, the Minister has talked about clinicians sitting at the heart of the decision-making process. Again, I use the analogy of a labyrinth in the NHS; I cannot see how in that new labyrinth clinicians will be at the heart of decision making. It is a labyrinth that would challenge Theseus, let alone the NHS. Those clinicians will be in the maze with many bureaucrats, some of them perhaps rebadged and shifted from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities into consortia, the NCB or the NCB’s regional arms, and some perhaps from BUPA, Assura Medical or one of the other bodies that will no doubt help to manage commissioning for consortia, and, potentially, for acute care.
In reality, the previous Government funded the NHS from a point where it was on its knees. They tripled the funding of the NHS, radically increased capital spending and raised some of the issues that the hon. Member for Southport has mentioned about the private finance initiative—we could have a long debate about that and how we should reconsider some of those capital projects.
Owen Smith
My recollection is that in 1996-97 NHS funding was around £39 billion, and it has now gone up to around £111 billion.
Owen Smith
Well, it is not far off. With the greatest respect, funding pretty much tripled—the figure might be £10 billion short, but it is pretty close.
Owen Smith
Okay, let us call it 2.8 times, as opposed to three times, but the increase was rather large. It was certainly reflective of the enormous need when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, following the chronic underfunding of the NHS presided over by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. Some of the capital spending and its mechanisms, as I have said, need to be opened up and debated, so transparency ought to be a good thing in that case. That capital investment was undoubtedly required, because we needed new hospitals and investment, which were not provided by the previous Tory Government and which the Labour Government delivered.
In the latter years of the Labour Government, after the 2006 White Paper and, crucially, Lord Ara Darzi and his review, we started to look carefully and in a structured fashion, given the difficult nature of the task in hand, at how clinician-led reconfiguration of the NHS could come about and, notably, at greater integration between primary and secondary care and at delivering more of the services traditionally delivered in secondary and tertiary care in the primary care setting. That was the legacy that we left this Government, who have, with respect, blown it. They have wasted the past year, instead of moving on with that positive heritage. They have shifted into their misguided belief that competition in the health service, as for utilities, white goods or whatever other analogy they want to use, will drive more efficient decision making, innovation and better productivity. The Minister is wrong about that, and that will not happen. I am absolutely certain that that is the case.
In pursuing the illusion of competition, the Minister is running two risks in the reconfiguration and financial agenda that we are debating today. First, the increased short-term risk is of ill-considered cuts and reconfigurations in the NHS as a result of managers with their eye only half on the ball, and, as Sir David Nicholson has conceded, half their time spent wondering and worrying about their personal and professional future. There is a real risk that short-term decisions are being taken in that worrying, troubling atmosphere.
In the longer term, the far more profound risk is that the sort of competition that the Minister believes will drive greater efficiency and the disaggregation of the NHS will result in an NHS that delivers worse, more fragmented care, with more variability in the price paid for care, which is a licence for a postcode lottery. My grave concern is that the Government are prepared to countenance such a future and prepared to take such risks with the NHS.
John Pugh
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that competition is not a panacea for developing efficiency in all places, but nor was the Darzi prescription, which he has just mentioned and which was written in the same way for everyone throughout the land. My own constituency ended up with a Darzi clinic, which was in the community but actually further away for more people in Southport than the district general hospital—we are now struggling to fill it and to find a use for it. Although I accept that competition is not a universal panacea, there is a problem with top-down prescription.
Owen Smith
Darzi was not only about polyclinics—that they were the principal prescription that he came up with is one of the myths. There was a much broader agenda in play which, as I have said, was about integration and pushing more services into primary care, although not necessarily into polyclinics. All I was suggesting was that the Government could legitimately have pointed to that area as a legacy of the previous Government that they could have picked up and run with—one they could have made significant inroads on in the past year. Instead, they have misrepresented the direction of travel as one wholly driven by a belief in market forces, as the ultimate way to get efficiency in the NHS. That is what led to this wasted year.
Finally, I entirely agree that politicians need to be a lot braver about the NHS. Politicians of all stripes need to take difficult decisions about how services must be restructured and reorganised for the 21st century. The way to go about it is not the Government’s method, whereby they abdicate a greater degree of responsibility for the NHS—pushing it, at arm’s length, to the NCB and others, including the private sector. Nor is it wise for the current Government to have come into office with so many hospitals able to parade a photo of the current Secretary of State or local Tory MPs holding placards saying, “We will not allow this service or that hospital to close.” That was not wise, and it might have sown false hope for some hospitals, which I suspect that the Government will come to rue in future.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate and on his particularly interesting and thoughtful speech. I have some sympathy with him, but he is right: sadly, events elsewhere on the parliamentary estate are securing more attention. However, I hope to reassure him by saying that this debate had quality rather than quantity.
It is a particular pleasure to have the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) with us. We have got used to him, while in Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill, and he is beginning to invent—or rather, reinvent—himself as some sort of cheeky chappie, who talks the talk that is fed to him by his party elders. One has to admire him because, more or less, most of the time, he manages to stop that smile completely breaking out on his lips—he clearly does not believe a lot of what he is telling us, because it flies in the face of reality. If one needed an example taken to its typical extreme, it would have been his accusations about private managers helping to secure and turn around any NHS hospital, because the only example will probably be Hinchingbrooke, which was of course set on its way by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). We have to admire the hon. Member for Pontypridd for bringing up an example as fraught with danger for him as that.
The subject of the debate is interesting and, as the hon. Member for Southport said on a number of occasions, difficult in many ways. Before engaging in it, however, I pay tribute to those doctors, nurses, ancillary staff and others who work day in, day out in hospitals up and down the country doing a fantastic job for patients. All too often, because the quality of their care for patients is seamless, it goes unnoticed, which is a reflection of the high standards that they set for themselves in providing that care.
We believe that we must have a sustainable national health service in this country—one that can evolve with the times and changing situations, whether medical or financial. The report this week from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has underlined the importance of the Government’s commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability for the NHS. It also demonstrates the critical importance of responding to our ageing population. Consequently, health funding will need to rise in the coming years, and the Government are totally committed to its doing just that.
As hon. Members know, we gave a commitment in our election manifesto to provide a real-terms increase in funding in every year of the Parliament while we are in government—the lifetime of this Parliament. We have honoured that, and we will continue to do so in subsequent years. The only trouble is that because of the horrendous economic situation that we inherited from the last Government, the available money is far more restricted, because we must take some extremely tough decisions to sort out the mess that was left to us. That has meant that the real-terms increase in NHS funding has been modest, albeit a real-terms increase, and has presented a challenge to the NHS, as the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Southport said.
Owen Smith
Will the Minister say how much less that amount of money will be as a result of the pause and listen exercise, and the increased cost resulting from the Health and Social Care Bill?
Mr Burns
The answer is no. It is not, “No, I will not give an answer”; it is no to the fundamental question. The hon. Gentleman is aware from previous discussions that the cost of the listening process and the Future Forum was modest, and the impact assessment for the Bill, which he studied, will be updated, as he well knows, when the Bill leaves this House and goes to another place. The current impact assessment shows that the one-off cost of the modernisation and improvement of the NHS is about £1.4 billion. By the end of this Parliament, the savings generated by that modernisation process and the changes will be about £5 billion, and £1.7 billion a year thereafter until the end of the decade, of which every penny will be reinvested in front-line services. There will be a subsequent impact assessment, probably in about six or seven weeks, subject to progress in this House, and if there are any changes or updating we will see them in that impact assessment, and there will be an updated figure.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman says he looks forward to it. Let us hope that he does when he sees the figures, because in my experience he rarely looks forward to anything that flies in the face of his arguments or is not helpful to his arguments, because he finds that disappointing. I hope that he will be disappointed when the new impact assessment comes out.
To return to my original point, the increase in real terms that we will make in every year of this Parliament will mean a £12.5 billion increase in funding for the health service over the lifetime of this Parliament.
The report from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility emphasises the importance of constantly increasing productivity within the NHS and other public services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in every year of the last Government there was a fall of between 0.2% and 0.4% in productivity in the NHS, which is unacceptable, and ultimately would become unsustainable because we need to generate growth and productivity to drive improvements in patient care, outcomes and the overall performance of the NHS in providing patient care.
As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southport said, we embraced and accepted the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention agenda challenge set out by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), which involved savings of £20 billion over three years originally, but we have extended it to four years. By cutting out inefficiencies, and enhancing and improving best practice that can be shared within the NHS, we can make savings that can be ploughed back into patient care.
The extra £12.5 billion to finance the increase in the health service over the next few years will not alone be enough to meet the rising demand for health care and its increasing costs. We need to find savings of up to £20 billion during the lifetime of this Parliament that we can reinvest, and that is the crucial challenge facing the national health service. I am confident that it will meet that challenge over the next three to four years.
The overall strategic health authority and primary care trust surplus of £1.375 billion during the last financial year will act as a sound financial platform for the NHS. Every penny of that surplus should be used to help to improve health outcomes for patients, and to meet the challenges and demands as we move to the new, modernised NHS, subject to approval in this House and another place. The challenge for every NHS organisation is to improve the quality of care that it offers while ensuring that money spent on care is spent effectively and efficiently, because that is what matters to patients and to the public.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the crucial move to community-based services, which is already happening, and will continue to happen where it is clinically appropriate. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact on hospitals of reducing hospital-based activities and delivering more services in the community. That is a crucial area, and a valid issue to raise. As I said, where it is clinically appropriately and when it can lead to demonstrable improvements in patient outcomes, more services should be provided in the community—for example, in GP practices or even in the home. All of us as constituency MPs and those of us with a particular interest in the NHS and health care know of examples and more and more practices where home and community settings are being used to meet the demands and needs of local populations, because the vast majority of people in this country would prefer, when it is clinically appropriate and feasible, to be treated in the community in their own homes instead of having to go to a perhaps inappropriate hospital setting for treatment. The QIPP long-term conditions workstream seeks to ensure that patients can be cared for effectively in their home or community, avoiding unplanned, unnecessary and expensive admissions. That is better for the patient, better for the NHS and better for taxpayers. It is also an opportunity for hospitals.
Increasingly, the best hospitals think of themselves no longer as just a physical place of bricks and mortar, but as providers of excellent health care. For example, Croydon Health Services NHS Trust provides both hospital and community services through a number of community and specialist clinics throughout the area. It is effectively becoming a health care trust instead of simply a hospital trust. That is the way for the future.
A considerable amount of the debate was spent on reconfiguration, and I would like briefly to address that. As society and medicine change, so must the NHS. The hon. Gentlemen said that tough decisions will have to be taken, and that people will have to be brave, honest and realistic in addressing the issues. I totally agree.
The NHS has always been responsive, whether to patients’ expectations or improving technologies. As lifestyles, society and medicine continue to change and evolve, the NHS must also change to meet those challenges. As technology and clinical practice get better and better, some services that were previously provided only in acute hospitals can now be safely provided in other places. A local health centre, a GP surgery or even the patient’s own home may, when appropriate, be the setting for health care and treatment that were previously not possible or feasible in such places. That shows how our health care is constantly evolving and improving.
Owen Smith
I hope the Minister will forgive me as I have asked this sort of question many times. Does he feel that in the world envisaged by the Health and Social Care Bill, where there is more competition between different providers in local health economies, it will be more difficult rather than easier for the sort of integration he speaks of to come about?
Mr Burns
In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will preface my reply by the words, “If he will forgive me.” We have had these conversations frequently—to be polite—during the course of the 42 sittings of the Health and Social Care Bill, and I fundamentally disagree with him. As we modernise the NHS, we are seeking through the Bill to put the patient at the centre of their experience, so that they are totally involved in their treatment and needs, are talked with rather than talked to, and can be part of the decision-making processes by which we are driving up the quality of patient care and improving outcomes. We will ensure those things through a comprehensive national health service, greater integration and far greater collaboration.
Mr Burns
There is no point in my giving way to the hon. Gentleman; I have only 10 minutes left and whatever I say he will not accept publicly because it runs contrary to the mantra that he and his hon. Friends constantly spout as they seek to undermine the procedures that will ensure a first-class national health service to meet the demands of our citizens.
Returning to my original point, at the same time as one will see different settings for appropriate care, other services that need highly specialist care will be centralised at larger, regional centres of excellence where there is clear evidence of improved health outcomes. Reconfiguration is about modernising treatment and improving facilities to ensure that patients get the best treatment as close to home as possible, thereby both saving and improving lives. That is an essential part of a modernised NHS, but it should not be enforced from above.
There will be no more impositions of the kind that saw a GP-led health centre in every PCT, whether it was wanted or not. Instead, the reconfiguration of services will be locally driven, clinically led and will have public support. It will be change from the bottom up, not the top down. The reconfiguration of services should—and will—be a matter for the local NHS. There is no national blueprint for how health care should be organised locally, and services need to be tailored to meet the specific needs of the local population. Effective local engagement will ensure that services continually improve, based on feedback from local communities. In an NHS that is built around the patient, changes to services must begin and end with what patients and local communities need. Last May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced four tests, and current and future reconfigurations must be along the lines of the four basic premises in those tests. Local plans must demonstrate: support from local GPs; strengthened public and patient engagement; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for patient choice. The tests make sure that any changes to health services will be true to the spirit of “No decision about me, without me.”
The hon. Member for Southport also raised the important issue of the private finance initiative. We have seen evidence from around the country of significant problems in a number of hospitals as a result of decisions taken by the previous Government to approve what were sometimes extremely expensive PFI schemes that became a drain on a trust’s annual income. As the Government confirmed at the end of last year, where PFI schemes can clearly be shown to represent good value for money, we remain committed to public-private partnerships, including those delivered by PFI, and they will play an important role in delivering future NHS infrastructure. We also believe, however, that there have been too many PFI schemes, and that some were too ambitious in scope. In addition, we have also had serious concerns about the value for money of some PFI contracts signed in the past.
The Treasury has reviewed value for money guidance for new schemes, and looked at how operational schemes can be run more efficiently. In January, the Treasury published new draft guidance, “Making savings in operational PFI contracts”, which will help Departments and local authorities to identify opportunities to reduce the cost of operational PFI contracts. As part of that savings initiative, my noble Friend Lord Sassoon, Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, launched four pilot projects to test the ideas in the Treasury’s draft guidance. One of those pilots was a hospital PFI scheme at Queen’s Hospital in Romford. The focus of the Romford pilot was to find efficiency gains and savings within the PFI contract, allowing the quality of care for patients to remain the top priority. Earlier today, Lord Sassoon announced the results of three of the four pilots, including that at Romford hospital. The Romford pilot showed that savings of 5% could be made to the revenue cost of the PFI scheme.
I welcome the Treasury’s findings, but we have yet to consider them in detail. I understand that the Treasury has now placed updated value for money guidance on its website. I hope that that will help trusts with operational PFI schemes, and trusts that are planning PFI schemes, to make significant savings. Every penny of those savings will be retained by the trust to be reinvested in improving patient care.
Owen Smith
I have a basic factual question for the Minister. Will the results of that survey lead to an attempt to reopen or renegotiate any of those contracts?
Mr Burns
As I said to the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago, the pilot schemes and investigation published by my noble Friend Lord Sassoon show that there is potential within existing PFI schemes to make some savings—I cited the figure of up to 5%. We are going to study that report. It was published earlier today and we need time to look at it and see how those savings can be realised within the context of the existing PFI scheme, rather than by reopening it and starting again.
In conclusion, there are many challenges to the NHS, but those concerning finances will be assisted and helped by our commitment to a real-terms increase in funding. The hon. Member for Southport said that the reconfiguration programme must be driven by local demand and needs, and I agree with him. He raised the issue of access to facilities being part of those considerations, and it may console him that I am able to assure him that access will form part of any consideration. Local people will determine where their local services should be placed and, together with a number of other factors, the issue of access should be considered. Such decisions must be determined by what the local community needs and what meets its requirements in the provision of health care. In many ways, such decisions will be determined with the same checks and balances, and with the involvement under a modernised NHS of health and wellbeing boards, and in certain circumstances, the national commissioning board. Overview and scrutiny committees will have the opportunity to refer plans to the Secretary of State.
As the NHS is modernised, the changes outlined by the Secretary of State will begin to take effect and give clinicians and the local NHS greater control over decision-making processes, rather than having politicians micro-managing on a day-to-day basis from Richmond House. That will provide a future for the NHS that can meet the requirements of enhancing and improving patient care and, most importantly, improving outcomes for patients.
Royal Parks
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
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The royal parks are a national asset treasured by millions of Londoners, those who work here and countless tourists from all four corners of the globe. For many, they provide an oasis of peace and tranquillity amid the incessant din of urban noise. For others, they are a meeting place, a venue for team sport, an arena—sometimes, at least—for music and a setting for national expression. Balancing those needs is a key part of the Royal Parks Agency’s job, but there is concern that the balance is getting out of kilter. I have raised previously in Parliament the issue of the creeping commercialisation of Hyde park in my constituency; indeed, I did so as long ago as 2004. However, I fear that the matter is ripe for exploration again, so I am delighted to have had the chance to obtain this debate.
This year, the number of complaints received about concerts and events in the royal parks has increased markedly, yet in 12 months’ time this nation will be hosting both the Olympic games, when our royal parks will provide a focal point for even more celebrations, and, of course, the diamond jubilee. Meanwhile, the Royal Parks Agency’s budget is diminishing drastically, heaping on the pressure for further commercialisation. In addition, I believe that plans are afoot to devolve some of the responsibility for the parks to the Mayor of London.
The royal parks are owned by Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Crown and were, in the main, royal hunting grounds and pleasure gardens before being opened to everyone for public enjoyment. In 1851, at the time of the great exhibition, the general power of management for the parks was granted to the commissioner of works and now resides under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. In that regard, the parks remain—rightly, in my view—a national treasure, a gift from the sovereign to the country as a whole. That is despite the eight sites—Bushy park, Green park, Greenwich park, Hyde park, Kensington gardens, Regent’s park, Richmond park and St James’s park—all being within Greater London.
Those 5,000 acres of parkland are important historical landscapes aside from their role in the living fabric of the city that I represent and love so much. Regent’s park is the largest wetland area in central London. Richmond park is the capital’s largest national nature reserve and a designated site of special scientific interest. The parks have historically provided a national focal point and, rightly, will do so again next year, when the Olympic circus rolls into town. No doubt, that event will swell in number the 37 million people who already visit the royal parks every year.
Hyde park, Kensington gardens, St James’s park and Green park lie within the bounds of my constituency and have an especial place in the lives of all my central London constituents. Naturally, few city-centre residents have gardens of their own. Our green spaces provide an invaluable escape—an oasis of calm—amid the urban jungle, but there has been increasing concern that the parks are adding to the stresses of life in the capital.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the Royal Parks Agency relies on three main sources of income: Government grant, self-generated income and grants from other sources. During the past 15 years, the grants from the Government—the first part of that three-legged horse—have been reduced, thus necessitating an increase in self-generated income, the second category. The proportion of such income has doubled in just five years to £14.4 million and in the past year funded 46% of the total expenditure for the royal parks.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I say how much I agree with the powerful point that my hon. Friend is putting over about the London parks? May I particularly ask him to elaborate on the complaints that he receives about the uses of the royal parks? Many such complaints are about noise and inconvenience, but there is a terrible cost to the fabric of the royal parks and there is a limit to how much those priceless, utterly unique places can physically take. I applaud my hon. Friend for raising this issue with our hon. Friend the Minister ahead of the Olympics and the diamond jubilee, when we will all want the royal parks to look their absolute best.
Mr Field
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right. I will elaborate later on issues to do with the fabric of the royal parks. Inevitably, there are concerns about noise, but he is precisely correct to identify that issue. The commercialisation is often concertinaed over a relatively short period. There have been representations not just from me but, more importantly, from all the amenity societies locally to ensure that that concertina is confined to roughly two or three months every summer. However, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out, some of the fabric is ruined for the other nine months of the year. That has to be stopped as far as possible.
The reduction in the burden on the taxpayer is welcome—clearly, these are times of great austerity and the amount of grant that comes from central Government in all areas is under close scrutiny—but tensions have arisen between the need to maintain the parks as sanctuaries of peace and the requirement to adopt a more commercial approach to ensure self-sufficiency. That tension has never been more evident than in the hosting of events in the parks.
One of the greatest money-spinners for the Royal Parks Agency has been, understandably, concerts in Hyde park—the largest of the central London parks. The Royal Parks Agency has for some years held a licence from Westminster city council for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment, permitting it a maximum of 13 major events per annum in Hyde park. However, in my 10 years as the local MP, the file of correspondence expressing concern at the commercialisation of Hyde park has bulged further every concert season. Indeed, the number of complaints from my constituents had swelled to such an extent that I was compelled to initiate a parliamentary debate seven years ago to express their concerns.
At that time, I advised the then Culture Minister:
“In recent years, Hyde park has been host…to noisy rock concerts and large-scale, commercially sponsored events…Such activities have led to destruction of the fabric of the park, from which it will take many years to recover…After last year’s Bon Jovi concert, my postbag was full of letters from local residents who could not believe how loud the noise was.”
Obviously, there are not too many Bon Jovi fans in Marylebone and Mayfair. I continued:
“That applied not only to roads in the immediate vicinity, but to roads in Marylebone and Mayfair. Nor am I talking about one afternoon or evening of mayhem. The erecting and dismantling of a concert site means literally a week of noise and upset to the park’s tranquillity, including juggernauts moving along roads that were not built for such heavy vehicles.”
I said that the previous year’s Red Bull Flugtag was
“the most destructive event the park has ever witnessed. Trees were badly and permanently damaged, and there was a lot of graffiti in the area.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 379-80WH.]
Unfortunately, those problems have remained. There was some diminution of them in the years immediately afterwards, but this year they have worsened. One constituent of mine, Mr Paul Appleyard, a musician and musical arranger, wrote to me at the beginning of this month to report that at 10 o’clock at night, the sound was, in his view,
“louder than a building site whose code of practice requires a cessation of activity after 7pm”.
The bass of this infernal racket was such that the glassware in his flat was being rattled. He went on to say that
“this is not the time to live with closed windows”—
this was in the middle of the brief summer that we had some weeks ago in London at least—
“and even so, the noise penetrates the double glazing. I always thought that parks were supposed to be an amenity for all, not an emitter of noise pollution”.
When I raised similar concerns last year with this Minister, who is responsible for tourism and heritage, he admitted that my constituent was
“not alone in his objections”.
However, the Minister went on to say that the Royal Parks Agency is subject to the Licensing Act 2003, with the number of events that it can hold being strictly limited, and, furthermore, that
“the Agency runs a hotline for local residents during the events season, and concerts are monitored by independent noise consultants as well as a team from the environmental health unit at Westminster City Council”.
This year, there have been nine concerts to date, with two more to follow in September. No doubt, the much-maligned Winter Wonderland will also be returning as the Christmas season begins. On average, there are 53,000 people at such events, although the number can be as high as 65,000 at major concerts. Westminster city council has noted an increase in the number of calls to its noise team in each of the past three years, from 56 in 2009, to 70 in 2010 and to 85 so far this year. This season, the extent of the area affected by noise has also grown, with complaints coming from as far north as St John’s Wood and as far east as Harley street. That is just for events in Hyde park.
Officers monitoring noise levels have noted that although preliminary findings suggest that Hyde park has been broadly compliant with the conditions of its licence, there appears to be some evidence of a public nuisance as a result of concerts. Westminster city council is considering that evidence extremely carefully to see whether the licence for future years should be reviewed or tightened up to improve controls.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his intervention, noise is not the only problem. There is huge traffic disruption, and further problems are caused by the additional number of people using the tube and our buses and pavements. Unsurprisingly, that influx of humanity causes great waste, and the cost burden of dealing with it falls largely on Westminster city council. In the relatively recent Live Aid example, the council committed high core resources to managing the event, but it estimates that there were significant additional financial costs over those 10 days. As a result, the council’s cabinet member for city management, Councillor Ed Argar, wrote to the Royal Parks Agency to highlight the burden to the local taxpayer.
Similar concerns have been expressed by the council’s planning department. Under the regulations, event operators are permitted 28 days per annum for temporary events without having to apply for planning consent. The council fears that that provision is regularly breached. As a result, residents are not consulted under the planning process about events being held in the parks.
The council has also been approached about the potential erection of advertisement hoardings in the parks. Although it accepts the need to generate income in the current economic climate, it has concerns about the potential impact of over-commercialisation. Has the Minister’s Department noted an increase in the number of complaints? Has he had recent discussions on such matters with representatives of the Royal Parks Agency, and does he plan to review current procedures to mitigate the impact of concerts on residents and the fabric of the parks?
For several reasons, this is an opportune moment to discuss these issues. First, the budgetary pressures on the Royal Parks Agency are now huge. The headline cut in grant-aid for the Royal Parks Agency under the comprehensive spending review is some 23%. However, combined with a 10% cut this year to give a 36% cut over five years, the equivalent loss to the agency is about £5.5 million a year. The agency’s capital budget will be cut, with immediate effect, by about 45%. That is an extremely serious reduction in resources for our parks, and the agency will doubtless be looking for ways to make up that loss. Further commercialisation is clearly one option. Chris Green of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s public engagement and recognition unit has already advised that the agency will be developing commercial income streams at a time of reduced Government grant.
Secondly, we are fast approaching the London Olympics. I have no doubt that the parks will be called upon to host all manner of events. I received a letter this morning from Carolyn Dicker of the residents association of St George’s Fields. She is particularly concerned about the impact that proposed Olympic events in Hyde park will have on her community on the Bayswater road, which is only a stone’s throw away from the park. It is a worry that what should be a great national celebration should have a considerable negative impact.
I am well served by a number of amenity associations and local residents, who also serve the whole community. They represent the community’s interests to the Royal Parks Agency on such matters. One such group, the Knightsbridge Association, has alerted me to its concerns about the extent of the Olympic programme in July and August in central London next year and its impact on the amenities of the royal parks.
Live Nation is currently consulting about London Live, when large outdoor screens, free of charge, will be set up in some of the parks. London Live will operate from 28 July to 11 August in Hyde park, with an additional nine concert events and three paid-entry shows. It will be set up on 2 July, and all temporary structures will be removed completely by 24 August. Core hours of operation will be 10 am to 11 pm, but events may begin as early as 7.30 am to accommodate the sporting schedule. It is anticipated that 50,000 people will visit the site at any one time, increasing up to 80,000 for events such as the opening and closing ceremonies.
It is probably appropriate for me to note that no Member from the Greenwich area is here today, but what is happening in Greenwich park is a crying shame for local residents. The park is not in my constituency, but I have visited the area during the last six weeks. Much of the park is already cordoned off; a huge amount of work has been done in advance of the equestrian events. That will have a massive impact on the amenity for local people, who live in a congested part of south-east London. However, it will have an impact not only in July and August 2012; it has already begun, and it will last for two full summers.
Nicholas Soames
I am lucky enough to have tickets to the wonderful three-day event in Greenwich, with its astonishingly beautiful backdrop, but there was a realistic, sensible and, in my view, much wiser campaign to hold it in Badminton or Windsor, or somewhere where it would have been far out of the way and much less inconvenient for those who live nearby.
Mr Field
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that he also has tickets for the beach volleyball and perhaps other events in which he can partake in the coming year.
Noting that the monitoring of crowds and crowd dispersal was completely inadequate during recent concerts, the Knightsbridge Association is anxious for improvements to be made in time for the Olympics. In previous years, concerts were handled by a minimum of some 200 police officers, but the police were not involved this year. Leaving that to the stewards and marshals employed by the concert organisers resulted in chaos.
The association suggests much better directional signs for tube stations and bus routes. In fairness, I give some credit for that not only to the Government but to Westminster city council. The council has done a tremendous job in improving the amount of signage. Those, like me, who walk in central London will see the huge benefits of improved signage, and I hope that it will continue. I suspect that that might not all be done quickly enough for the Olympics, as it is an ongoing programme, but it is greatly to the credit of the Minister’s Department. It has also been noted that the closure of Park lane causes gridlock for several hours at a time, and I believe that its closure during the Olympics is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that that eventuality is avoided. People in Knightsbridge and beyond naturally share the council’s concerns about litter, noise and damage to the park’s fabric.
Thirdly, there have been concerted moves in the past couple of years to bring the Royal Parks Agency under the jurisdiction of the Greater London authority. The Minister will know that we have been in constant correspondence on the matter over the past year. It is argued that giving that additional responsibility to the Mayor of London would make the Royal Parks Agency more accountable and would fit well with the Mayor’s existing responsibilities for tourism and the environment. However, I have expressed serious concerns about the safeguards that would need to be put in place if such a move were to go ahead.
It was originally thought that the transfer of power would be legislated for under the Localism Bill. I made clear to the Minister personally my deep concern that that was inappropriate legislation for making such a change. As I suggested earlier, the royal parks are a national asset and must be treated as such. Westminster city council shared my concerns, but for different reasons.
The proposals would have provided the Mayor with extensive powers, without offering any real influence to the boroughs in which the parks are located. The council regarded that as a lost opportunity, given the risk of not securing greater democratic influence over the management of the parks in future. The boroughs already manage a number of matters in connection with the parks, including planning consent, noise and licensing. They contend that it makes sense for councils to be involved more closely, not least as they have experience of balancing the varied needs of residents, visitors and businesses.
I am grateful to the Minister for the fact that the concerns that I expressed have been taken on board—the provisions are no longer in the Localism Bill—but I remain to be convinced that responsibility should be transferred to the Mayor. I appreciate his press release yesterday; it is something of a halfway house, but I hope that it will keep most people relatively happy. Nevertheless, I want to put those concerns on the record. I accept that the transfer will occur only if a number of safeguards are firmly in place; it is unlikely to be formalised legislatively. I therefore wish for the Minister’s reassurance on two points.
First, I am concerned that any Mayor, particularly one in the mould of Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor for the eight years before 2008, might be tempted to use the parks to promote populist causes to the long-term detriment of their fabric. Mayors might also view the parks as an expandable source of income, leading to yet more commercialisation. I should therefore like to see explicit safeguards to limit the expansion of the existing commercial events programme, to preclude any Mayor running a wide variety of free events in the parks and to prevent the Mayor from granting permission to other groups to host their own events and festivals in the parks. The royal parks are for everyone—residents, workers, visitors and tourists alike—and should not be annexed on a regular basis for other causes.
Secondly, if the devolvement of such a power comes to pass, I believe that active local amenity societies should be given a place on the board. For Hyde park, that applies to the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens and to similar high-profile groups near other parks. Constituents of mine who live on the boundaries of the royal parks are most affected by their development. I believe that residents and those involved in the voluntary upkeep of our parks must be given a voice beyond that provided by the Mayor in his capacity as an elected, accountable representative for all Londoners.
As someone who has served on a local authority—I was a councillor for the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea for eight years and vice-chairman of the Holland park committee for some of that time—I know that there is a danger in assuming that busy local councillors can be given another responsibility. A councillor might have a great passion for a park, but that does not provide us with the democratic safeguard that we need. Such powers need to be put in place within resident associations and amenity societies.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about who should be in charge of the royal parks, but if I were to press him would he not say that the councils of Westminster and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have conducted their oversight role extremely well over many years? They have not been nimby and just looked after the interests of residents but have realised that the parks are a national resource. Does my hon. Friend not think—perhaps the Minister could also answer this in his remarks—that it would be best for the parks to remain under parliamentary or national control but with real local oversight, in tune with localism?
Mr Field
I hope that we are moving in that direction. I agree with my hon. Friend who was formerly the deputy leader of Westminster city council and so has more than a passing interest in these matters. Managing the royal parks must involve balancing the range of needs to which he refers. He is absolutely right to say that the local authority in Westminster has done an extremely good job in trying to bring that balance into play. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Royal Parks Agency, as it tries to keep that equilibrium in place in the face of some very difficult economic circumstances, which will only get more difficult in the years ahead.
The fact is that our parks are adored, which is a testament to the great work that the agency does. I seek in no way to undermine that work in this debate. The events and concerts that they host are enjoyed by thousands, including many of my constituents, and have a tradition that goes back decades. Nevertheless, a key ingredient of the agency’s success in the future will be keeping genuinely concerned local people on board. In that respect, I deem it vital that the ongoing issues of noise, litter and disruption are reviewed again and dealt with before the anger swells.
The impact on my constituency in terms of cost to the local taxpayer as well as the diminution of the quality of life cannot be ignored. Similarly, it would not be right if plans to hand over power of the parks to the Mayor were to go ahead without putting in place explicit safeguards to involve local residents and to prevent the parks being taken yet further down the path of a commercial free-for-all. The royal parks are a tremendous gift to us all. The softest voices supporting this priceless asset must not be drowned out in the bustle for reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, looking after us this afternoon, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on making some tremendously important points. He has been assiduous in pursuing them with me during the past year, and it has been tremendously helpful that he has done so, because he has been a useful sounding board for some of the ideas that have been under discussion. I hope that he is content with our direction of travel. I will endeavour to respond to some of the questions that he asked in his speech.
Let me start by marking one really important point of principle, which my hon. Friend mentioned and with which I thoroughly agree. He repeatedly used the word “balance”. Although it is a difficult task, it is essential that we maintain a balance in considering how we deal with the royal parks. He rightly pointed out that parks are a priceless and hugely appreciated national asset. They are also used as local parks as well. He gave numerous examples of local residents’ concerns about parks being used in ways that may be appreciated across the wider London area and the south-east, but that might impact negatively on local residents’ use of the parks. There is an inevitable tension between that national role and local accountability. Almost certainly, it has always been thus ever since the royal parks were set up in the 1850s.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need to balance the importance of peace, tranquillity and quiet enjoyment with the concerns about commercialisation. Perhaps one of the most commercial events that the parks have ever hosted was the Great Exhibition and that was a very long time ago. I suspect that these points are rightly raised periodically because the duty of preserving the right balance will never go away. It is an inherent tension that must be managed according to the needs of national users, local residents and society, as the country changes. People might be willing to accept one kind of use now that they might not have regarded as acceptable 30 years ago. Indeed, if we were to wind forward 30 years, that equation might well rebalance itself. There is a need for constant vigilance and recalibration. We must remain sensitive to the competing needs in the future.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are hugely committed to ensuring that the ceremonial and royal character of the parks is maintained. They are not just municipal parks. There is something different about these parks both in their history and in how they are managed now, and it would be a crying shame if we were to put that at risk or to lose that at any point in future.
I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend—it is extraordinary that this has not been the case for ever throughout the royal parks’ existence—that in future there will be a representative from the royal household on the newly appointed board for the royal parks. I find it extraordinary that something with such immense royal connotations and a vital, ongoing ceremonial role did not have any kind of official representation from the royal household. It is entirely appropriate that it should.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the noise and the rest from some of the events. He mentioned some of the different concerts that have taken place. I can confirm that a number of items have created a few problems this year. The biggest number of complaints came from two different concerts over two nights. On 1 July, we had the Black Eyed Peas, and on 2 July, we had the Chemical Brothers, both of which excited a fair number of complaints. My hon. Friend mentioned that not many Bon Jovi fans live in the area, and fans of the other two bands might be relatively few and far between there as well.
John Penrose
I take my hon. Friend’s point. He also mentioned the importance of noise during the set-up and take-down of event stands and so forth. It is entirely reasonable that guidelines equivalent to those used on a construction site should be in place. I will, if he will allow me, ask the chief executive of the royal parks to write to him, detailing how they approach these issues, so that he can see the kind of safeguards that are in place.
Nicholas Soames
I accept exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Minister makes about noise, but does he accept that the grass and physical fabric of the parks are put under tremendous strain? The parks already have a substantial backlog of unfunded repairs, and this sort of use can only make matters worse.
John Penrose
I am conscious of the time, but I accept that there is an inevitable issue of wear and tear on the parks’ fabric. Again, we have to strike a balance between ensuring that the parks are available for people to use and enjoy and that the effects of that wear and tear are dealt with properly.
One of the reasons why we have introduced the new board is to ensure proper and ongoing inbuilt local representation. One of the board’s first tasks will be to create systems and processes to ensure that local community groups, amenity groups and societies can have their voice heard as well as the local council. Clearly, it would be wrong to lock in any amenity group or society because, inevitably, such groups wax and wane and we need to be flexible. Indeed, the new board will have an explicit duty to be flexible. Equally, the board will be required to deliver according to terms of reference, which we will publish to ensure that everyone is clear about them.
Those terms of reference will include the kind of safeguards that will ensure that the royal character of the parks is maintained, that ceremonial events are not compromised and that inappropriate events that would contradict the royal character are not held. I hope that my hon. Friend will see an increase in local representation. He can rest assured that safeguards to protect the ongoing future health of the parks will be put in place, so that these unique assets can be enjoyed for many generations to come.
GM Food Technologies
(12 years, 9 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
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Betts. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon and to have this opportunity to talk about a subject that is of increasing importance, both to the globe and to this country, and that merits the very highest attention in this Parliament. It is the subject of our food science, agricultural research and in particular the potential of genetically modified food and other genetic and breeding technologies to support this very important sector. If I have time this afternoon, I will say why I believe it is such an important subject and why we should debate it now and in this Parliament.
However, I should start by declaring something of an interest. I come from a farming and agricultural background. I never actually worked in agriculture; that fate narrowly escaped me. Before coming to Parliament, I had a 15-year career in biomedical research in health care. Through that work, I have some experience of the genetic sciences and their potential to deliver good, albeit in the health care sector rather than in the food sector. I also have some experience of the very difficult ethical, moral and scientific issues that new technologies often throw up, and of the importance of Parliament being able to debate those issues properly, clearly, openly and well, and to build trust in an appropriate regulatory framework in order to build public support.
I declare an interest as someone who has worked in this sector and I draw Members’ attention to one or two shareholdings in one or two very small and unprofitable companies. I also declare something of a constituency interest. My constituency of Mid Norfolk is rural. That is not to say that everyone there works in agriculture, but it has a strong rural background and a strong agricultural heritage. We sit between Cambridge and Norwich. At the moment, my constituency is something of a rural backwater, located between those two phenomenal centres of science and technology. What is very striking to me as the local MP in an area where average annual incomes are £17,000, which is well below the national average, is the lack of public discussion about the potential of technologies that are developed in our area, particularly in Norwich at the Norwich Research Park. When I talk to people on the doorsteps about some of these technologies and their potential to do good around the world and in the UK, I am always struck by how surprised people are that we are not debating them and talking about them more openly.
I have also served as a non-executive director of Elsoms Seeds, a small, family-owned seed business, which does not actually have any involvement in GM but has a long and proud history of pioneering seed development in the agricultural sector. For a while, I served as an adviser to the Norwich Research Park. I mention that because, as many of my expert colleagues in the room know, it is something of a centre in UK food science, with the Institute of Food Research and the John Innes Centre next to the university of East Anglia and the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, where work is continuing on a model gut. There is also some very pioneering work on nutrition and food science going on at the research park. Norwich is something of a centre of excellence globally in this sector and I am passionate about its potential to do good here in the UK, including in Norfolk, and across the world.
Why do I think that this technology has so much potential? The answer lies in a very important document, which I commend to all Members present if they have not already looked at it. It is the foresight report on food, written by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, last year, and it was published—with the most beautiful timing—as we all arrived here in this new Parliament. It issues a clarion call to us all, including to this Parliament, about a global challenge. World population is set to rise to 9 billion during our lifetime, and in that time as a global society we have to produce twice as much food from half as much land with half the inputs, if we are to develop anything like a sustainable agricultural sector globally. I repeat—we have to produce twice as much food from half as much land with half as much pesticide, water and energy. That is a major challenge; it is one that Sir John and his committee have rightly received huge credit for addressing; and it is one that this Parliament needs to take very seriously.
Sir John in that report and many others since its publication have highlighted the importance of our using every tool at our disposal. I am not for a minute suggesting that GM is the magic bullet, or the only technology or even the most important technology to consider. However, as Sir John and his committee highlighted, it is one vital technology in the toolkit. And it seems to me that that global challenge of international development, of helping to lift people around the world out of poverty and of helping other countries around the world to go through a process of agricultural and industrial revolution—which took us nearly 200 years to go through—more quickly and more sustainably is a noble and important calling which we in Europe and the rest of the advanced western world, particularly here in Britain, should be drawn to.
We should be drawn to it not least because as we now find ourselves to be a small, wise, old, poor, public sector-dominated and debt-ridden economy that is looking for ways to drive growth around the world—not just growth for its own sake but growth that we can be proud of, that is fulfilling and that gives this country a sense of its self and its role in a world that is now dominated by bigger and faster-growing countries—it seems to me that drawing on our agricultural heritage and our science base in the life sciences, whether in medicine, food science or clean tech, and exporting that expertise and knowledge around the world to help the next generation of nations is something that we could all be proud of. It would be a part of a growth recovery that would have social benefits as well as economic benefits.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my view that this important debate is somewhat hampered by extremists who describe some of the practices to which he refers as a sort of “Frankenstein food”, generating fear and concern that freeze people into inaction when in fact we should be inspiring them into action?
George Freeman
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. I mentioned my own experience in the biomedical sector, where I have come across that sort of extreme anti-science movement. I hope that in my moderate tones I have communicated the fact that I am not for one moment an extremist on either side. But I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
Extremism is not helpful in the debate on this subject. In my medical experience, I have seen the extremism of the anti-animal experimentation groups. Nobody is in favour of animal experiments. However, there is an irony that I will share with everyone here today. I am setting up a company to develop predictive toxicology software, to reduce the need for animal experiments. In order to do that, one needs to consult with the people who know most about the animal experiments, to reduce the necessity of those experiments. In so doing, we triggered the attention of the animal extremists, who targeted the company. Of course, of the six people on the board, there was one female, who was the company secretary. Who do people think the extremists targeted? The lone female in her cottage at night. The cowardice—moral, intellectual and physical—of the extremists shocked me then and in this debate today I want to try to initiate an open debate and to invite a proper and open discussion of the issues. As I say, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall, because the debate about it is very important and the matter needs to be aired, debated and talked about. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GM food technology gives an opportunity for cheaper food and better usage of the land, to try to meet the demand for food that exists throughout the world. Is he aware of the key and critical role that some universities are playing with private partners in the development of GM technology? One of those universities in particular is Queen’s university in Belfast. I have visited the university and I am aware of the good work that it does. Does he accept that that key partnership is important to the development of GM food technologies?
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Yes, a number of our universities play a key role in GM development and I absolutely agree with him that Queen’s university in Belfast is in the vanguard of that, along with the universities of Liverpool, Reading, London, Norwich and Aberystwyth, and one or two other universities in the UK. Moreover, GM is potentially an important part of helping our universities to generate novelty and to put themselves at the front edge of this important area of science. The foresight report frames for us the challenge and the opportunity for the UK. In my own area of Norfolk, when one openly discusses the benefits of the technology for local agriculture, people are interested, and there is an appetite out there to hear more about it.
It might be useful to share one or two facts to help frame the debate. It is worth remembering that commercial GM crops have been grown and eaten since 1994. In 2010, the hectarage of GM crops worldwide was 148 million hectares across 29 countries, 48% of which was in developing countries. Some 15 million farmers, 90% of whom are small and resource-poor, are already actively involved in growing GM crops. The argument is often put that the technology is untried and untested, but I suggest that that is a substantial body of evidence, with proper scientific and rigorous monitoring, and I do not think that anyone is aware of any serious problems that have arisen as a result of the adoption of the technology.
It is also worth acknowledging the extent to which it is the developing world that is driving the adoption. On top crops by area, the percentage of global crop that is now GM is 77% of soybean, 26% of maize, 49% of cotton and 21% of canola. The interesting thing that comes from that is that GM crops have a potential not just in food but in fuel and fibre. One of the problems with the debate in the UK is that the extremists take us straight to the hardest point of all, which is the compulsory—that is often the implication—force-feeding of people here with GM food. To my knowledge, no one is proposing that; I certainly am not. I do propose, however, that we should debate whether this country has a role to play in the application of the technology in fuel and fibre, and certainly in food production around the world. That should be non-controversial.
Going further, one could say, “Should there not be choice in the UK, particularly in the health care and the nutraceuticals and functional foods areas?” I think it would be perfectly appropriate—and the idea would enjoy public support—to say, “The consumer should have choice, but what is wrong with going into a supermarket and having on one side the organic carrots grown locally, here in Norfolk, over there the carrots grown more intensively at a lower cost, and over here the rather more expensive cholesterol-reducing carrots that have been grown and bred specifically for a group with particular dietary, nutritional and health care needs?”
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, particularly as I missed the first five minutes of his speech because I went to the wrong Chamber. I come from a part of Britain that considers itself to be GM-free. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we grasp the issue of GM in this country we are in real danger of becoming seriously globally uncompetitive and will eventually lose a huge number of jobs and a huge amount of business, along with the ability to influence the debate across the world?
George Freeman
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was just about to turn to the extent of the global nature of the matter.
As chair of the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture, I recently had the great privilege of welcoming two people from around the world who are involved in biotechnology: a gentleman from Brazil who specialises in soya, and a gentleman from Uganda who specialises in bananas. No sooner had I given them the warmest of parliamentary welcomes—I confess, possibly with a sense of welcoming people from the Commonwealth to the mother of all Parliaments—than I ate my words, because they had not come to find out what we thought about the sector but to share how much progress and investment they were making, what extraordinary innovations they were driving, the local benefits in terms of food production and productivity, and the health benefits in their countries. In response to my hon. Friend’s point, that is happening around the world in any case, and the question for Britain and Europe is whether we want to participate and bring our expertise, insight and science to bear, or sit on our hands and become irrelevant, missing out on all the opportunities that we have touched on.
It is worth looking at some of the global data. I was very struck when I looked at which countries are the biggest adopters. One would expect to see the United States of America at the top of the list, but the next 10 are Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay and Bolivia. The fact is that the technology is being adopted rapidly by some of the fastest-developing second world countries, not because they are threatened by global mega-corporations or because they are under compulsion but because the technology offers extraordinary benefits to their rapidly growing populations, their domestic economies and their ability to develop as nations.
Part of my argument is that the technology is being adopted globally whether we like it or not, and it is bizarre that in this country we are getting into a situation in which it is almost impossible to debate the technology, and in which the European Union appears to be encouraging a national framework that countries can opt into or out of purely on the basis of emotional and political rationales—I will come on to that in a minute. As the eurozone teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, it seems peculiarly bizarre not to be involved in this major area of global growth.
I want to look at some of the things that some of the organisations involved have said. I draw Members’ attention to the Food and Drink Federation, which has issued an excellent briefing on the subject. The federation believes that
“modern biotechnology, including GM, offers enormous potential to improve the quality and quantity of the food supply but the impact of this technology must be objectively assessed through scientific investigation. Robust controls are necessary to protect the consumer and the environment; and consumer education and information are fundamental to public acceptance.”
I could not agree more. It goes on to stress the importance of choice:
“However, we believe that the time has come when serious consideration should be given to reopening a free and unbiased debate about the environmental, safety and consumer benefits of GM. FDF therefore welcomes”
the debate today. It also supports the foresight report’s conclusions that we need to produce more from less and with less impact. I am pleased that the report makes a call for the recognition of the role of GM.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I am very taken with all my hon. Friend’s arguments, but I think it comes back to the key argument of the need for more food. He talked about some of the extremists who have caused problems, and I am drawn to the analogy of the nuclear industry. There were some extremist arguments about nuclear, but the most intelligent of the campaigners came to realise that we needed an energy-secure and carbon-neutral fuel. Surely there is a similar argument, based on scientific evidence, that can engage those who have campaigned against GM, because of the need to feed the world, particularly its poor.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, not least because, as with the nuclear debate, people are now beginning to shift positions. George Monbiot has done so on nuclear, coming around to admitting that it has a very important part to play in the true green mix. Some early opponents of GM are now convinced by the evidence, and say, “After the number of years and the number of crops that have been grown around the world we really need to change our tune.” For that reason, it is particularly interesting to look at a briefing from the anti-GM campaign, which this weekend is staging a protest in Norfolk against the blight-resistant potato, about which I will say something in a moment. Interestingly, the briefing states:
“The campaign against GM crops ten years ago was so successful that GM almost completely vanished from our fields and supermarkets, and many people have forgotten the issues associated with the technology. But in many other parts of the world peasant farmers have been desperately fighting its spread”—
not very successfully, we might observe. It continues:
“With the renewed threat of GM on the horizon campaigners need to get together again to show the rest of the country…that we’re still here, and we’ve got an even better case than ever.”
In that language, one can hear the lack of rational debate. There is no discussion of the evidence or the latest science or findings. It is an emotional call to arms. I respect people who are concerned about the technology, but rather than ripping up plants, attacking and destroying experiments and hysterically screaming down those who want to discuss the issue, we must engage in an open and rational debate.
The blight-resistant potato is an important example of the potential involved. Many hon. Members will be aware of the groundbreaking work going on at the Norwich Research Park, led by Jonathan Jones and his team. Those who know their potato will know that the average potato crop receives more than 10 sprays of blight treatment chemicals, which are expensive and not terribly nice. That involves tractors, fuel, time and labour. It is high-energy, high-input agriculture. A blight-resistant potato would require none of that, and would have a huge impact on creating the low-input, low-energy agriculture that we all want. Sadly, campaigners will be coming to Norfolk this Saturday to try to stop that experiment. We need more science, we need a more rigorous and open debate and we need proper scientific and evidence-based policy making. I believe that we need political leadership from a generation in Parliament to stand up for this country’s potential around the world, educate the public and engage in an open debate.
With that, I will sit down and allow the ministerial spokesman to share his wisdom with us. I thank you for this opportunity, Mr Betts.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I rise as a poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is engaged elsewhere in the House, but I have at least some experience in the field as a farmer whose family has been on the same farm for 161 years. I also trained in crop production, so I have some understanding of the issue. Before entering this Parliament, I was in the European Parliament and served on its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I was involved in the regulation on adventitious contamination of food by genetically modified varieties.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing the debate. When the House debated biotechnology and food security in January, the Minister of State highlighted the over-generalisation and simplification that often characterise exchanges on the issue. Discussions about GM should focus on arguments based on sound science rather than emotion. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record the Government’s position on this important issue.
The coalition Government’s policy is measured and balanced, recognising that GM technology presents both risks and benefits. We are clear that human health and environmental protection are our overriding priorities. We will agree to the planting of GM crops, the release of other types of GM organisms or the marketing of GM food or feed products only if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment. The UK’s independent expert Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment assesses all GM crop applications on a case-by-case basis, and that process is replicated at EU level by the European Food Safety Authority. That high level of scrutiny makes the EU authorisation regime the most robust in the world.
We recognise, of course, that GM is a sensitive issue, and we are committed to listening to the public’s views on the development and use of the technology. We will also ensure that clear labelling rules allow consumers to exercise choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk noted in his local supermarket, the law already states that if the GM content of any product exceeds 0.9%, it must be labelled as genetically modified.
The Government are in favour of UK farmers having access to developments in GM and support their right to choose whether to adopt them. We also recognise that the economic interests of those who do not want to use GM crops must be appropriately protected. Therefore, we will implement pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate GM crops from conventional and organic crops if and when they are grown commercially in the UK.
To set GM technology in its wider context, the global population is estimated to increase to 9 billion by 2050. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that global food demand will increase by 70% compared with 2005-2007 levels. That will require a substantial increase in food supply, and we must ensure that that increase is achieved sustainably. As long as GM technology is used safely and responsibly, it could be one of a range of tools for tackling the long-term global challenges of food security, climate change and the need for a sustainable increase in agricultural production.
For our part, the Government recognise that GM has a potentially useful role to play, and everyone concerned about the future of food production needs to take a balanced and evidence-based view. As the foresight report led by Sir John Beddington indicated, we must be prepared to use all available options to ensure that food production keeps pace with demand.
In 2010, more than 15 million farmers in 29 countries cultivated GM crops, covering 10% of the world’s arable land, an area of 148 million hectares, or roughly the combined size of France, Spain and Germany. Those numbers are increasing every year. Given the scale of GM cultivation and the rate at which the technology is being taken up, it is vital that the UK has in place robust policies based on sound science and evidence to ensure that the technology is used safely and appropriately.
It is important that all our policies on GM are pragmatic and that regulation is proportionate. That is crucial to encouraging innovation and economic growth in the biotechnology sector and promoting fair market access for safe products. As an example of pragmatism in action, the UK pushed hard for the recent EU agreement to allow a 0.1% tolerance in animal feed imports for GM materials that are not approved by the EU but are going through the authorisation process. That will reduce the risk of whole shipments of perfectly safe grain or soy being turned away and help increase confidence and certainty in the market.
Most existing GM crops have either insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant traits. Their impact is variable, but generally they have led to increased efficiency and improved returns for farmers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned a systematic review of the available evidence on the impact of current GM crops, which will be published later this year. The review will be a useful resource for discussions on the future of GM.
In addition, the Government continue to support the development of safe GM crops here in the UK. Last year, DEFRA approved two GM crop research trials. One was on blight-resistant potatoes, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, at the Sainsbury laboratory in a constituency neighbouring his. The other, at Leeds university, was on nematode-resistant potatoes. We have also heard about research at Queen’s university in Belfast. As somebody who has spent a small fortune on blight sprays and nematicides, I can certainly testify that such crops would be popular among farmers. DEFRA is currently considering an application submitted by Rothamsted Research to trial an aphid-repellent wheat. All those trials form part of wider projects publicly funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, showing that the Government are investing in fundamental science in the area and making use of and supporting the UK’s excellent plant science base.
It is no secret that there are problems reaching decisions at European level on the authorisation of GM crops. Only one crop has been approved for commercial cultivation in the last 13 years. To address that difficulty, the European Commission has proposed that member states should be allowed to ban GM crops nationally for non-safety reasons. Although the Government want to improve the current EU situation, we do not think that the Commission’s proposal is the right way forward. It would undermine the EU single market and the principle that regulatory decisions should be grounded in a science-based safety assessment. We were also disappointed by the recent vote in the European Parliament to take the process even further.
We will continue to argue in Brussels for the authorisation regime to function more effectively. In particular, we want the Commission to make it operate as originally intended by voting on authorisations without unjustified delays. If member states cannot reach collective agreement on proposed GM products, we will push for the Commission to proceed via the agreed rules, which allow EU authorisation to be granted in line with the scientific evidence and robust safety opinions provided by the European Food Safety Authority.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Media references to Frankenstein foods do not add to the debate; they only frighten people unnecessary. Similarly, we condemn those who seek to destroy trials. Surely those who oppose GM crops should at least see the evidence before forming a decision. I thank my hon. Friend again. He is an advocate for the safe application of science to address the problem of how to feed a growing world population.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Consumer Credit and Personal Insolvency Review
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I have today— together with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban)—published a summary of responses to the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, (“Managing Borrowing and Dealing with Debt”), launched jointly by BIS and HM Treasury. The summary also includes the Government’s response on the insolvency aspects of the review. The call for evidence asked 31 questions covering a range of issues from advertising regulations to addressing unfair bank charges and dealing with debt; 216 responses were received.
On personal insolvency and debt advice, we propose to take action that will assist consumers in distress when things go wrong.
We have already committed to continue funding the face-to-face debt advice project for this year. In order to place debt advice in the future on to a more sustainable footing, we are pleased to announce that the Money Advice Service has agreed to take on responsibility for the co-ordination of debt advice services. The Money Advice Service will carry out a detailed review of the current debt advice landscape to identify the best way that these services can be delivered. The Money Advice Service will develop a model that ensures that debt advice is delivered in the most effective and efficient way.
Later in the year we will consult on increasing the petition debt levels for creditors. The level (currently £750) has not been increased since the Insolvency Act 1986 came into force and we believe that to be able to threaten someone with bankruptcy for such a small amount is disproportionate.
Financial rehabilitation following bankruptcy can be an unduly lengthy process, and a number of stakeholders commented on the difficulties a bankrupt can experience in operating even a basic bank account facility. The Government will be consulting in due course on amendments to address a perceived risk from banks that a trustee in bankruptcy may pursue the bank for property acquired by a debtor during the course of the bankruptcy.
Following comments about the potentially confusing number of possible debt solutions available to someone experiencing financial problems, we intend to consult on whether the provisions on county court administration orders should be repealed, as the numbers entering this process are rapidly declining, with just over 5,000 currently in existence.
We also recognise concerns about the provision of debt management services and note that there is potential for the regulatory landscape significantly to change. In the meantime, we will work alongside the OFT with the key players in the debt management industry to drive up standards and drive out unscrupulous behaviour.
On the consumer credit section of the review, it was clear that there was much concern about interest rates applying to the high-cost credit market with a number of respondents calling on the Government to introduce a cap on the total cost of credit that can be charged. Intervention in this market carries a risk that we might reduce access to credit. Given the concerns raised and the lack of hard evidence on what impact a total cost of credit cap might have on both the lenders and consumers, we will commission research to see if a cap on the total cost of credit would avoid adverse consumer outcomes.
We will report back later in the year to announce the Government position on the consumer credit aspects of the review while we continue to consider the evidence.
We are placing copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses.
ECOFIN
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 12 July 2011. The following items were discussed:
Bank stress tests
The Council held an exchange of views on the European Banking Authority (EBA) stress tests. It adopted a statement and agreed a communication strategy on backstop measures to address potential vulnerabilities in member states’ banking systems. I emphasised the importance of credible backstops, and of implementing Basel III in full. On 15 July, the EBA published results in aggregate format, while national supervisory authorities published results on individual banking institutions. At the time of publication, Ministers planned to issue statements, based on a common template, on remedial and backstop measures.
Stability and Growth Pact
a. Closure of Finland’s excessive deficit procedure
The Council adopted a decision closing the excessive deficit procedure for Finland, given that its deficit for 2010 remained below 3% of GDP.
b. Implications of the economic situation for fiscal surveillance
The Council adopted conclusions which reinforced recommendations made in relation to the European semester and excessive deficit procedure. The Government welcome the conclusions, and their emphasis on ensuring that all member states fully implement budgetary strategies for timely meeting of fiscal targets. The Council will re-examine the situation after the summer, on the basis of an updated assessment prepared by the Commission.
Presentation of the Polish presidency work programme
The Council took note of the Polish presidency’s ECOFIN work programme for the second half of 2011.
Follow up to the G20 Deputies meeting in Paris on 8-9 July 2011
Finance Ministers took note of the meeting of G20 Deputies. It agreed that Ministers would prepare, at the informal ECOFIN in September, terms of reference for the meeting in Washington on 23 September of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors.
Follow-up to the June European Council on 24 June 2011
The presidency summarised discussion on economic policy issues at the European Council. On the economic governance legislative package, the presidency would continue to liaise with the European Parliament and come back to the Council for further discussion after the summer. With reference to the euro-plus pact, the European Council would consider progress on the commitments made by signatories in December. The UK is not a member of the euro-plus pact.
Savings Taxation Directive
The Commission gave a presentation on its recommendation for a Council decision authorising it to negotiate changes with Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and Switzerland on the taxation of savings income. The Council agreed that the mandate should be further examined at working group level, and progress reported back to ECOFIN as soon as possible. The UK is keen to progress this dossier, and welcomes further commitments at Council.
11th Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) ministerial meeting
Ministers held a joint lunch meeting with their counterparts from the EU’s Mediterranean partner countries to discussion implementation of FEMIP.
Private Finance Initiative Contracts
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
This Government have previously voiced their concerns about the value for money in private finance initiative (PFI) contracts. Today, as part of ongoing plans to reform PFI, Government are announcing their plan to deliver £1.5 billion savings from the existing stock of PFI projects. These savings will be retained by the contracting authorities and put towards front-line public services.
The Government are committed to ensuring taxpayers get value for money from PFI contracts. And we have already taken a series of steps to improve the cost effectiveness and transparency of PFI contracts.
At the spending review 2010 the Government abolished PFI credits to create a level playing field for all forms of public procurement.
In January this year the Government issued draft guidance to support the public sector in making savings from operational PFI projects. Since then Cabinet Office and Treasury have tested the guidance on a pilot project at the Queen’s hospital in Romford, Essex and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has conducted savings pilots on its PFI projects. And today, on the Treasury website, the Government publish the updated savings guidance that reflects the lessons learned from these pilots.
In April this year the Government introduced new guidance to Departments to strengthen the approvals process of all projects. All major projects outside of a Department’s delegated authority now need to go through three approval points.
And earlier this month the Government published for the first time an unaudited summary of the whole Government accounts (WGA), a new level of financial transparency which revealed the scale of PFI project liabilities. The Treasury is also engaging with the National Audit Office on a new study of the balance of risk and return of private investor equity in PFI projects, and to consider how financial transparency in this area could be improved.
In making this announcement today. Government recognise the role played by the strong parliamentary campaign to reduce PFI costs and secure better value for money for the taxpayer.
PFI saving pilots
Annual savings of around 5% have been confirmed for each of the Romford PFI savings pilot and two MOD pilots. Savings have been identified in three main areas: effective contract management, making better use of PFI assets, and ensuring the public sector only pays for what it needs.
The level of savings achievable at other PFI projects will vary, reflecting the bespoke, complex nature of assets and services delivered under these long-term contracts. But the pilots have shown that valuable efficiency savings can be achieved when private sector suppliers work together with the public sector to reduce PFI costs.
Applying the lessons of the pilot projects across the PFI portfolio
The Government want to apply the lessons from these pilots to PFI projects across the public sector.
The Cabinet Office, supported by Treasury and by local partnerships, will now lead a central programme that brings together ongoing major Government supplier renegotiations with project level savings initiatives being delivered by local contract management teams across the country, for services including defence, hospitals, schools, street lighting and waste. All operational savings that are made will remain with the institutions concerned, to be reinvested in the areas of highest priority, to support investment in our hospitals, schools and other front-line services.
This new savings programme will drive the sharing of best practice across public sector authorities, recognising that improving local delivery skills is essential to ensure better value from the use of private finance in public infrastructure in the future.
In addition, the Treasury will be taking forward engagement with the PFI industry to secure agreement to a code of conduct for industry and public sector co-operation on operational savings initiatives, and to improve transparency. The Government will continue to look at what more can be done to get better value for money from existing and future PFI projects.
It is important that the lessons demonstrated from these savings pilots are factored into future procurements from the very beginning. The first example for this will be the new programme of privately financed schools that was announced today. The new schools programme provides an opportunity to test an improved approach to working with the private sector to deliver essential public assets. This Government are committed to ensuring that the lessons learned from the PFI savings pilots are applied in the future pipeline of privately financed projects.
Public Service Pensions
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The coalition programme gave a commitment to review the long-term affordability and sustainability of public service pensions, and Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Service Pensions Commission has demonstrated that reform is needed. At Budget, the Government made clear that they accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers, trade unions and others and that we would set out proposals in the autumn that are affordable, sustainable and fair to both the public sector work force and the taxpayer.
The Government have already committed to retaining a form of defined benefit pension in the public sector and protecting accrued rights so that all the benefits that members have earned up to the point of change will be protected. Today, I would like to inform the House of the progress that has been made and the process going forwards.
The Government and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) have held a series of constructive meetings to discuss public service pension reform which have covered Lord Hutton’s key recommendations and the Government’s proposed employee contributions increase. A basis for agreement has been established in several areas, but differences remain on some of the key recommendations.
The Government and the TUC have agreed that to further inform the discussions on Lord Hutton’s recommendations, there should be scheme level discussions alongside the central process already established. Scheme level discussions will ensure a fuller understanding of the implications of reforms, before final conclusions are reached. These scheme level discussions will deliver initial proposals for reformed schemes by the end of October this year, allowing further work to finalise detailed scheme design before the Government introduce legislation in due course.
Lord Hutton’s recommendations will inform these scheme level discussions and the Government will provide scheme-specific cost ceilings. These ceilings will be based on Lord Hutton’s proposals, but will go further and ensure that the pension individuals receive at normal pension age would be broadly as generous for low and middle-income earners as it is now. These cost ceilings will ensure that public service pensions remain affordable and sustainable, by setting a limit on the contribution made by the Government and ultimately the taxpayer.
Further to the rationale for short-term savings set out in Lord Hutton’s interim report, the Government announced plans to target £2.8 billion savings per year by 2014-15 through public service employee pension contributions at spending review 2010. The scheme-by-scheme consultations for the unfunded public service pension schemes to deliver the first year’s savings of £1.2 billion will commence by the end of this month. Reflecting the Government’s commitment to protect the low paid, the Government’s have set out their preferred parameters for any design. There should be no increase in employee contributions for those earning less that £15,000 and no more than a 1.5 percentage point increase in total by 2014-15 for those earning up to £21,000. This amounts to a 0.6 percentage point increase in 2012-13 on a pro-rata basis. It is proposed that higher earners will pay more but the Government have proposed a cap on the maximum increase of 6 percentage points (before tax relief) by 2014-15. This amounts to a 2.4 percentage point cap in 2012-13 on a pro-rata basis. These consultations will be completed by the end of October, in order to ensure implementation by April 2012.
The Government remain committed to securing the full spending review savings of £2.3 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15, requiring each scheme to find savings equivalent to a 3.2 percentage point increase. Scheme specific discussions will make proposals on how these savings are achieved and will be required to make proposals by the end of October this year. For local government, the Government recognise that the funded nature of the scheme puts it in a different position and will discuss whether there are alternative ways to deliver some or all of the savings.
I have today exchanged letters on these issues with the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress and copies of these letters have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Fire and Rescue Service
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I would like to inform the House about losses relating to the failed FiReControl project. In my recent statement to the House of 5 July 2011, Official Report, columns 82-83WS, I announced our next steps following the closure of the project in December 2010 and a consultation on the future of fire and rescue services in England that finished in April 2011.
The amounts incurred on the project have been reported over the life of the project in the Department’s annual resource accounts. Additionally, in 2010-11, as the project has now been cancelled, amounts incurred over the life of the project, including future liabilities, have been disclosed as losses in line with reporting requirements. The disclosure recognises £212 million spent on the project as a loss (with £10 million disclosed in 2009-10) plus an estimated future loss of £231 million in relation to the control centre buildings. A copy of this disclosure has been placed in the Library of the House.
This represents nearly half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted by the last Government on an over-ambitious, ill-conceived, centrally imposed solution that was disproportionate to the risks faced and did not engage the end user—the fire and rescue service. The National Audit Office report of 1 July 2011, HC 1272, on “The failure of the FiReControl project”, clearly sets out the many failings under the last Government. In December 2010, I took firm action, recognised by the National Audit Office, by closing the project before any more public money was wasted.
Our way forward is based on local solutions. It both reflects the views of the sector and encourages fire and rescue services to make best use of the legacy assets from FiReControl, including the control centre buildings, for the benefit of the taxpayer and local communities.
Government Olympic Executive
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I am publishing today the Government Olympic Executive’s quarterly report—“London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report July 2011”. This report explains the latest budget position as at 30 June 2011, and outlines some of the many wider economic and social benefits to the UK.
The overall public sector funding package (PSFP) for the games remains at £9.298 billion. As reported in the annual report in February this year, the breakdown of the funding package altered from April 2011 reflecting the changing focus of the programme from construction to the operational delivery of the games. We continue to seek value for money and cost savings in our day-to-day running of the project. The ODA has also achieved additional significant savings in the quarter and, with just over a year to go to the 2012 games, the anticipated final cost (AFC), which is the current forecast of the final cost of the ODA’s programme, including risks, scope changes and inflation, is £7.250 billion, compared to £7.266 billion at the end of March 2011, a total decrease of £16 million.
In the last quarter £1.5 million was released from the PSFP to support crowd management and public safety at the sailing venue in Weymouth. An additional £0.8 million was also released to dress two venues outside London and expand the installation of Olympic rings and Paralympic agitos on buildings in the UK, while £3.1 million was released for a small number of additional events as part of the London 2012 Festival.
Throughout the Big Build, the ODA has made strong progress in preparing the venues and infrastructure at the Olympic park with 88% of the games-time construction programme now completed and in many cases ahead of schedule. Completed venues now include the velodrome, the main stadium (running track to be laid later this year), the handball arena, the basketball arena and the international broadcast centre (IBC). Construction works are nearing completion on the aquatics centre which remains on track to be finished by 27 July 2011—one year to go until the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic games. The venue will be unveiled by the ODA to mark one year to go.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games are continuing to help businesses and people through the difficult economic times. The games are also benefitting those living in the host boroughs, with nearly 25% of those working on the park hailing from the surrounding area. Currently, over 40,000 people have experienced work on the Olympic park and athlete’s village since April 2008. More than 98% of the ODA’s suppliers are based in the UK whether they be supplying the official merchandise for London 2012 or supplying the rain-screen cladding on the Olympic stadium. Smaller businesses have also had the chance to share in the success of the games with 73% of CompeteFor contracts awarded to SMEs.
The games are also supporting the Government’s “Plan for Growth”, by providing unique opportunities for business across the UK to grow internationally. UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) is enabling this through the Host 2 Host programme which seeks to maximise the economic benefits of hosting the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The programme allows business to create links and share best practice with previous and future host cities of Olympic games and other major sporting events.
I would like to commend this report to the Members of both Houses and thank them for their continued interest in and support for the London 2012 games.
Copies of the quarterly report July 2011 are available online at www.culture.gov.uk and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses
Cities Minister
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Prime Minister has agreed that from today, in addition to his existing role as Minister with responsibility for decentralisation, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), will become Minister for cities, with responsibility for English cities. He will report in this new role jointly to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
National Policy Statements
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Yesterday, the House of Commons debated and approved the six energy national policy statements which I laid for parliamentary approval on 23 June 2011. I am therefore pleased to inform Parliament that I am today designating them as national policy statements under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2008, and laying copies before you as required by section 5(9)(b) of the same Act.
I believe this designation marks a significant step forward, as it delivers a key part of our plans to move to a low-carbon future while protecting the security of the UK’s energy supplies at affordable prices.
Afghanistan
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the eighth progress report on developments in Afghanistan.
The report focuses on key developments during the month of June.
The UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolutions 1988 (2011) and 1989 (2011). This created two new sanctions regimes to replace the UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999) al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions regime. This is an important step. It sends a clear signal that now is the time for the Taliban to break with al-Qaeda and join the political process. We welcome the Government of Afghanistan’s support of this initiative and their continued engagement in the implementation of sanctions to counter the insurgency,
June saw the anticipated increase in security incidents. The insurgency continued its attacks in an attempt to reassert itself, but the Afghan National Security Forces continue to respond effectively. The Afghan forces dealt with a major, sophisticated attack on the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul on 28 June professionally and speedily.
The Special Electoral Court established in December to investigate accusations of electoral fraud following the 18 September parliamentary elections, announced its findings. These called for the dismissal and replacement of 62 of the Lower House’s 249 MPs. The Lower House of Parliament responded to the announcement by passing votes of no confidence in the Attorney-General, Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court.
Negotiations between the Afghan Government and the International Monetary Fund on a new IMF programme have stalled. While the Government of Afghanistan have made progress, the IMF is keen to see more robust action in key areas including asset recovery. A UK co-funded forensic audit of the Kabul bank is now under way.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).
The July and August progress reports on developments in Afghanistan will be published in a single document in early September.
British Council
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2010-11 financial year have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can also be found at the British Council’s website, www.Britishcouncil.org.
During the period the British Council received £189,983,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Building Stability Overseas
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence, wish to inform the House that the Government are publishing today our “Building Stability Overseas Strategy” which will help us to prioritise and implement a distinctive UK approach to building stability overseas with maximum impact.
The national security strategy (NSS) identified shaping a stable world as a core Government objective to reduce the likelihood of threats affecting the UK or our direct interests overseas. The strategic defence and security review (SDSR) made a commitment that we would reduce such threats by tackling them at source. The “Arab Spring” has highlighted the need for a strategic UK approach to early engagement in places at risk of instability, and to be prepared for a fast, flexible and integrated Government response.
The “Building Stability Overseas Strategy”, which is being published online today on the websites of all three Departments, sets out clear, achievable proposals for how we can improve the way we identify, prevent and end instability and conflict overseas by using our diplomatic, development, defence and security tools, and by drawing on Britain’s experience, relationships, reputation and values. We will prioritise action on those fragile and conflict-affected countries where the risks are high, our interests are most at stake and where we know we can have an impact. The strategy is based around three mutually-supporting pillars:
Early warning—Improving our ability to anticipate instability and potential triggers for conflict. To this end, we will establish an early warning system that will take a global view of countries in which political, economic and security shocks over the next 12 months could trigger instability. We will also produce a new internal watchlist of fragile countries in which we assess that the risks of conflict and insecurity are high and the UK has significant interests at stake.
Rapid crisis prevention and response—Improving our ability to take fast, appropriate and effective action to prevent a crisis or stop it escalating. We will therefore create a £20 million annual early action facility within the tri-departmental conflict pool. This will be a cross-Government facility with a mixture of official development assistance (ODA) and non-ODA resources to help us move more swiftly in response to warnings and opportunities. We will also continue to develop and improve the readiness of our stabilisation response teams (SRTs). These are integrated teams drawn from across Government—including military, police or civil servants and other experts—that can deploy swiftly into difficult environments and enable the UK to rapidly help shape the response to emerging crises, either bilaterally or with international partners.
Investing in upstream prevention—Helping to build strong, legitimate institutions and robust societies in fragile countries that are capable of managing tensions and shocks so there is a lower likelihood of instability and conflict. We are already investing more in upstream prevention, increasing to 30% by 2014-15 the proportion of UK official development assistance that supports conflict-affected and fragile states. In addition, we will work to ensure that the conflict pool provides predictable multi-year resources for: free, transparent and inclusive political systems; effective and accountable security and justice (including through defence engagement); and building the ability of local populations and regional and multilateral institutions to prevent and resolve the conflicts that affect them. We will also increase our work with other key groups such as local government, communities, the private sector, faith groups, civil society and the media.
I have deposited a copy of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the FCO website at: www.fco.gov.uk, the DFID website at: www.dfid.gov.uk and the MOD website at: www.mod.gov.uk.
National Diplomatic Missions (Outstanding National Non-Domestic Rates Bills)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates requested from them.
They are obliged to pay only 6% of the total national non-domestic rates value which represents payment for specific services such as street cleaning, lighting, maintenance and fire services.
The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is £566,009. As at 7 May 2011, missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR.
£35,000 has been repaid since February 2011.
Bangladesh | £84,542 |
Cameroon | £62,249 |
Côte d’Ivoire | £82,693 |
E. Guinea | £19,707 |
Iraq | £19,533 |
Liberia | £18,764 |
Sierra Leone | £52,651 |
Tunisia | £30,869 |
Ukraine | £26,526 |
Zimbabwe | £108,613 |
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations (Unpaid Parking Fines)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2010, there were 5,109 parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom which were brought to our attention by councils.
These totalled £491,086.
In March this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly.
Subsequent payments totalled £105,360 (with a further £77,310 of the outstanding debt being waived by councils). There remains a total of £308,416 in unpaid fines for 2010.
The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding fines totalling £1,000 or more, as of 15 June 2011.
DiplomaticMission/InternationalOrganisation | Number of Outstanding Fines (excluding congestion charge) | Amount in £ |
|---|---|---|
China | 257 | £27,690 |
Afghanistan | 245 | £25,820 |
Turkey | 253 | £25,590 |
Saudi Arabia | 169 | £15,440 |
Cyprus | 140 | £14,500 |
Pakistan | 128 | £13,120 |
France | 120 | £11,900 |
Ghana | 107 | £10,760 |
Uzbekistan | 102 | £9,680 |
Malaysia | 89 | £8,950 |
Ukraine | 86 | £8,260 |
Russia | 71 | £7,920 |
Egypt | 72 | £7,180 |
Tunisia | 68 | £7,080 |
Jordan | 76 | £6,790 |
Nigeria | 70 | £6,590 |
Sudan | 48 | £4,920 |
Liberia | 45 | £4,660 |
Korea (North) | 44 | £4,560 |
Qatar | 41 | £4,500 |
Iraq | 41 | £4,180 |
Guinea | 39 | £4,120 |
Cote D'Ivoire | 46 | £3,800 |
Albania | 33 | £3,560 |
Libya | 33 | £3,530 |
Greece | 31 | £3,280 |
Morocco | 34 | £3,080 |
Mongolia | 29 | £3,040 |
Georgia | 35 | £3,010 |
Oman | 31 | £2,860 |
Romania | 28 | £2,860 |
Kuwait | 24 | £2,700 |
Iran | 27 | £2,660 |
Bangladesh | 23 | £2,560 |
Azerbaijan | 27 | £2,380 |
Germany | 26 | £2,340 |
Yemen | 25 | £2,300 |
USA | 24 | £2,210 |
Bulgaria | 20 | £2,120 |
Mauritius | 20 | £2,060 |
Mozambique | 23 | £1,970 |
Tajikistan | 21 | £1,780 |
Italy | 15 | £1,700 |
Kenya | 14 | £1,640 |
Slovenia | 16 | £1,580 |
Lebanon | 16 | £1,520 |
Equatorial Guinea | 19 | £1,490 |
Zambia | 18 | £1,450 |
Sierra Leone | 15 | £1,270 |
Moldova | 12 | £1,180 |
Spain | 12 | £1,160 |
India | 17 | £1,140 |
Ethiopia | 12 | £1,120 |
London Congestion Charge (Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The number of outstanding fines incurred by the diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge since its introduction in February 2003 until 20 January 2011 was £49,707,491.
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the congestion charge. The table below shows the 62 diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines totalling £100,000 or more.
Country | Number of fines | Total outstanding (£) |
|---|---|---|
USA | 45,005 | 5,029,920 |
Russia | 38,380 | 4,358,100 |
Japan | 31,073 | 3,486,120 |
Germany | 30,478 | 3,448,210 |
Nigeria | 23,323 | 2,572,110 |
India | 15,353 | 1,766,620 |
Sudan | 14,325 | 1,549,260 |
Ghana | 12,821 | 1,461,680 |
Poland | 12,328 | 1,405,140 |
Spain | 10,557 | 1,209,740 |
France | 10,371 | 1,171,240 |
Greece | 9,800 | 1,118,420 |
Kenya | 10,015 | 1,090,230 |
Ukraine | 9,354 | 1,066,200 |
Romania | 8,789 | 996,400 |
Kazakhstan | 8,258 | 950,360 |
Tanzania | 8,318 | 896,680 |
Algeria | 7,009 | 769,280 |
South Africa | 6,641 | 726,340 |
Korea | 5,928 | 687,720 |
Sierra Leone | 5,955 | 637,900 |
Bulgaria | 5,417 | 608,140 |
Hungary | 5,154 | 584,020 |
Pakistan | 4,714 | 548,390 |
Yemen | 4,783 | 542,220 |
Slovakia | 4,751 | 540,780 |
Belarus | 4,599 | 521,640 |
Cyprus | 4,502 | 515,740 |
Zambia | 4,294 | 477,380 |
Cuba | 3,992 | 452,260 |
Cameroon | 3,826 | 422,840 |
Zimbabwe | 3,402 | 359,360 |
Ethiopia | 3,289 | 359,100 |
Czech Republic | 3,043 | 343,100 |
Austria | 2,680 | 306,800 |
Namibia | 2,721 | 292,420 |
Mauritius | 2,602 | 287,700 |
Swaziland | 2,680 | 287,300 |
Equatorial Guinea | 2,510 | 276,660 |
Mozambique | 2,421 | 265,500 |
Botswana | 2,246 | 254,700 |
Belgium | 2,222 | 253,640 |
Lesotho | 2,285 | 250,040 |
Denmark | 2,123 | 244,400 |
Vietnam | 2,133 | 239,540 |
Afghanistan | 2,031 | 236,200 |
Malta | 1,906 | 215,640 |
Malawi | 1,969 | 212,960 |
Uganda | 1,739 | 193,520 |
Côte d'Ivoire | 1,748 | 185,620 |
Jamaica | 1,575 | 176,600 |
Egypt | 1,751 | 173,240 |
Liberia | 1,505 | 170,440 |
Luxembourg | 1,311 | 150,620 |
Guinea | 1,394 | 145,180 |
Lithuania | 1,242 | 144,880 |
Saudi Arabia | 1,366 | 142,810 |
DPR Korea | 1,272 | 135,660 |
Portugal | 1,127 | 133,140 |
Turkey | 1,077 | 113,010 |
Finland | 988 | 112,460 |
China | 918 | 106,000 |
Antigua and Barbuda | 911 | 101,640 |
Alleged Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2010 15 serious offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 12 of these were driving-related. This is a decrease on the figures for 2009 (17 alleged offences—11 driving-related). We define serious offences as those that could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment, also included is drink-driving or driving without insurance.
Some 22,500 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and the majority of diplomats abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious crimes committed by the diplomatic community is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, those entitled to immunity are expected to obey the law. The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When allegations of alleged criminal conduct are brought to our attention by the police, we ask the relevant foreign Government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate. For the most serious offences, we seek the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat.
Alleged offences reported to the FCO in 2010 are listed below.
Offences allegedly committed in 2010 | |
|---|---|
Driving under the influence of alcohol | |
Ghana | 1 |
Kazakhstan | 2 |
Kyrgyzstan | 1 |
Uzbekistan | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 2 |
Algeria | 1 |
Driving under the influence of alcohol and without insurance | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Driving without insurance | |
Croatia | 1 |
DRC | 1 |
Egypt | 1 |
Offences under the Human Trafficking Act | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Actual bodily harm/assault | |
Turkey | 1 |
Robbery | |
Côte d’Ivoire | 1 |
Figures for previous years are available in my written statement to the House on 28 June 2010, Official Report, column 26WS.
Extending Patient Choice of Provider (Guidance)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing operational guidance for the national health service on extending patient choice of provider.
In response to the NHS Future Forum’s report, this Government remain committed to extending patients’ choice to include choice of any qualified provider. Since April 2008, patients have been offered choice of provider in routine elective care. Both in the coalition agreement, and in the White Paper “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”, Cm 7881, this Government committed to giving patients greater choice and control over their health care.
Our goal is to enable patients to choose any qualified provider where this will result in better care. We will adopt a phased approach, introducing choice of provider for services where there is a strong demand from patients for greater choice, starting with community services. We will ensure patients, carers and professionals are engaged nationally and locally, and lessons are learned from each stage
Choice of any qualified provider will mean that when patients are referred for a particular service, they can choose, where appropriate, from a range of providers that are qualified to provide safe, high-quality care and treatment—and select the one that best meets their individual needs. To ensure that competition is based on quality and not price, patients’ choices will be limited to services covered by national or local tariff pricing. The guidance is intended for commissioners and current and prospective providers of NHS-funded services. Commissioners will continue to shape local services in line with best practice, including where services need to be integrated to improve quality.
Today I am also publishing the Government’s response to the first part of our consultation, “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control”. A response to the feedback received on the remaining commitments will follow later in the year.
The guidance, “Extending patient choice of provider”, accompanying impact assessments and “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control Government response: Extending choice of provider (Any qualified provider)” have been placed in the Library. Copies of the guidance and the response to the consultation are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Suicide Prevention (Consultation)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Today I am publishing a consultation on a new suicide prevention strategy for England. “Consultation on preventing suicide in England: a cross-Government outcomes strategy to save lives”, has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_128065.
Suicide rates in England have been at a historical low recently and are low in comparison to those of most other European countries. However, there were still nearly 4,400 suicides in England in 2009, the latest year for which national data are available.
Suicides are not inevitable. An inclusive society that avoids the marginalisation of individuals and which supports people at times of personal crisis will help to prevent suicides. Government and statutory services also have a role to play. We can build individual and community resilience. We can ensure that vulnerable people in the care of health and social services and at risk of suicide are supported and kept safe from preventable harm. We can also ensure that we intervene quickly when someone is in distress or in crisis.
In developing a new national all-age suicide prevention strategy for England, the Government have built on the successes of the earlier strategy published in 2002. Real progress has been made in reducing the already relatively low suicide rate to record low levels. One of the main changes from the previous strategy is the greater prominence of measures to support families—those who are worried that a loved one is at risk and those who are having to cope with the aftermath of a suicide.
There is no single approach to suicide prevention. It needs a broad co-ordinated system-wide approach that requires input from a wide range of partner agencies, organisations and sectors. People who have been directly affected by the suicide of a family member or friend, the voluntary, statutory and private sectors, academic researchers and Government Departments can all contribute to a sustained reduction in suicides in England.
The draft strategy sets out our overall objectives:
a reduction in the suicide rate in the general population in England; and
better support for those bereaved or affected by suicide.
We have identified six key areas for action to support delivery of these objectives:
reduce the risk of suicide in key high risk groups;
tailor approaches to improve mental health in specific groups;
reduce access to the means of suicide;
provide better information and support to those bereaved or affected by a suicide;
support the media in delivering sensible and sensitive approaches to suicide and suicidal behaviour; and
support research, data collection and monitoring.
The new health and wellbeing boards will become the local forum for determining local needs. These boards will be able to support suicide prevention by bringing together local authorities, clinical commissioning groups, directors of public health, adult social services and children’s services and local Health Watch. This presents a unique opportunity for local agencies to look at the wider context and agree how best to marshal resources across agencies to have the greatest positive impact on local health and wellbeing.
The draft strategy has been developed with the support of leading experts in the field of suicide prevention, including the members of the national suicide prevention strategy advisory group, under the chairmanship of Professor Louis Appleby CBE. I would like to thank all members of this group for sharing their knowledge and expertise.
The consultation period will close on 11 October 2011.
Southern Cross
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I wish to update the House further on the situation regarding Southern Cross Healthcare.
As I have always made clear to the House, the Government’s overriding concern is the welfare and safety of the 31,000 residents in Southern Cross’s care. We expect all parties to work together to secure a consensual, solvent restructuring of the business that meets their collective responsibility to secure the welfare and care of residents. I am pleased to see that Southern Cross, its landlords and lenders continue to share that view.
Officials continue to maintain close contact with Southern Cross’s senior management, landlords and lenders. Government continue to be actively involved in discussions with all parties. When I last updated the House on 12 July, Southern Cross had the previous day announced their expectation that the end of the restructuring process would see the operation of all the company’s care homes being transferred to the landlords and alternative providers of care. This represents a step in the ongoing process, agreed between the company, its landlords and lenders on 15 June, for a consensual, solvent restructuring. Discussions to resolve the remaining steps continue.
I appreciate that residents, families and staff are anxious to know what will happen next. Let me repeat the assurances I have given to the House previously: whatever the outcome, no one—state-supported or self-funded—will find themselves homeless or without care. We have made clear to all parties involved in the restructuring discussions that they have a collective responsibility to ensure a way forward that covers all homes and assures continuity of care. In addition, we will continue to work with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, the Care Quality Commission and others to ensure that they are ready to respond to any potential disruption to the continuity of care and to ensure that all residents are protected.
The announcement made on the 11 July by Southern Cross has no immediate effect on the provision of care or the operation of care homes. Southern Cross remains in operation, and will continue to operate all its care homes until transfers to new operators have taken place. I understand that this process is expected to be completed by the end of October or earlier. That does not mean however that it should take that long to make clear what each landlords plan is and how homes will be run by new operators.
Each of Southern Cross’s landlords is settling its arrangements regarding which care home operators to work with. This is a key part of the ongoing discussions. The Government are strongly urging all parties to set out their plans as swiftly as possible so as to offer reassurance to residents and families. As these arrangements are finalised, we understand that updates will be issued. NHP the biggest of the landlords, owning 249 Southern Cross homes, announced its plans on 18 July to contract with an alternative provider of care and to transfer Southern Cross care home staff. The Department is being kept up-to-date on developments.
I want to make it absolutely clear that no transfer of homes will take place without new operators having been approved and registered by the Care Quality Commission. Alternative operators will need to be reputable and experienced care providers that can satisfy the CQC that they are capable of delivering high-quality care and of meeting all regulatory standards. A number of landlords which will take over the running of Southern Cross homes are already registered with CQC as care providers in their own right and there are established processes to allow these providers to extend their current registration to include additional homes.
For providers not currently registered with CQC, it will require a new application, which will be subject to full scrutiny and a determination of fitness to provide the service. CQC is committed to ensuring continuity of care, but it will not lower the regulatory bar or reduce the rigour of the registration. CQC’s principal concern is the safety of service users and it will not compromise on the standards required. I have been assured that CQC will ensure that resources will be made available to handle any registration work that is needed and they have been working with Southern Cross for some time to prepare for this.
The transfer of care homes to alternative operators will be a managed process that ensures continuity of services. The company has withdrawn its statutory redundancy notice and given an undertaking to care home staff that they will transfer to new operators on their current terms. All parties involved in the negotiations have given a clear commitment that the continuity of care will be paramount throughout the process.
For the future, I would like to assure the House that the Government will be considering what measures may need to be put in place to prevent similar situations from arising again. Options for financial regulation or other measures will be considered as part of the development of the forthcoming White Paper on social care. The Department of Health is already working with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to consider ways to ensure a diverse and dynamic social care market, but with the right safeguards for stability and continuity of care. I will update the House as this work develops.
With the forthcoming recess, I appreciate that hon. Members will want to be informed of developments. I undertake to write to hon. Members to keep them informed as the matter progresses.
London Bombings (Government Response to Coroner's Inquests)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In my written ministerial statement on 9 May, Official Report, columns 26-27WS, I undertook to inform the House of the Government’s response to Lady Justice Hallett’s report following her inquests into the 7 July attacks.
All responses have been published on the inquests website earlier today. The Government have not asked for any part of their response to be withheld.
The Government and the Security Service have carefully considered the coroner’s report and fully accept the three recommendations directed to it—namely recommendations 1, 2 and 9. The Government response sets out in full the next steps which have been or will be taken to address these three recommendations.
The Government response also provides full consideration on areas of concern that were raised by the coroner, but which were not attached to formal recommendations, and considers the broader UK implications of those recommendations addressed to London-based organisations.
Lady Justice Hallett has identified important areas where the Government and local partners, including the emergency services, can work to improve our ability to respond to emergencies. Through the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and the wider Resilience Programme led by the Cabinet Office, we will work to implement swiftly the actions set out in the Government’s response.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Library of the House.
Human Trafficking
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I am today publishing the Government’s human trafficking strategy “Human Trafficking: The Government’s Strategy” a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
Victim care arrangements remain central to the Government’s approach to combating trafficking. Adult victim care arrangements will be strengthened, with support offered by a greater range of specialist care providers. This will ensure that victims have access to the care they need, tailored to their particular circumstances and in line with our international commitments. We will also ensure that children remain a focus of our efforts as we look to combat those traffickers who exploit vulnerable children.
A renewed focus on preventing human trafficking is required. The UK is already a world leader in the fight against trafficking but we recognise more can be done with international partners to reduce the threat from overseas. The strategy recognises the importance of working with source and transit countries to target and disrupt the work of traffickers and prevent more vulnerable men, women and children from becoming trafficking victims. A key aspect of our approach will be better intelligence gathering and sharing and, from 2013 the National Crime Agency will play a vital role in spearheading our fight against organised criminal groups who are engaged in human trafficking.
The strategy also sets out our aim to better co-ordinate our border and policing law enforcement efforts to prevent traffickers from entering the UK. We will use intelligence to target those convicted or suspected of trafficking at the border as well as developing risk-based indicators to facilitate the systematic targeting of high risk passengers.
We will also ensure we monitor intelligence in relation to key events such as the Olympics and Paralympics to respond quickly and appropriately to any potential increased risk of trafficking.
Proceeds of Crime
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament the 2010-11 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power introduced to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act.
From 1 April 2010 to the end of March 2011 over £67 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.
Secure Estate Strategy for Children and Young People
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Today is the launch of a consultation on the “Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People for England and Wales”.
This is a joint publication between the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board. The consultation invites views on a proposed strategy for the under-18 secure estate for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Custody continues to play an important part in the youth justice system for the small number of young people for whom a community sentence is not appropriate. The recent reduction in the number of young people in custody means that the secure estate is now going through a period of change. This presents an opportunity to consider the most appropriate configuration of the estate and consider whether different regimes can deliver improved outcomes.
The consultation, which will run for 12 weeks, and details on how to respond can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk.
Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas (Inquests)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. As always, we wish to express the Government’s deep and abiding gratitude to all of our service personnel who have served, or are now serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again we also extend our sincere condolences to the families of those service personnel who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in connection with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in particular the 11 service personnel who have died since our last statement. Our thoughts remain with all of the families.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 8 July 2011.
To supplement this statement I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses, which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. The tables include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.
Our Departments will continue to work closely together to improve our processes. We will continue the Government’s support for coroners conducting inquests into operational deaths. We remain grateful to them and their staff for their dedication, together with those people who are providing support and information throughout the inquest process and afterwards.
Since October 2007 both Departments have provided additional resources for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, Mr David Ridley, due to the repatriation of service personnel at RAF Lyneham. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests. As I confirmed in the last statement, we will again provide additional resources to the Oxfordshire coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, when repatriation ceremonies for those killed on operations overseas move to RAF Brize Norton within his district. The move will take place on 1 September 2011.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement there have been 23 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A total of 476 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 12 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In three further cases, no formal inquest was held. In two of these cases the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident. In the third case, where the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland, it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry.
Open inquests
Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan
There are currently 75 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twenty-one of these involve deaths in the last six months. The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 28 of the remaining open inquests, and 35 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next-of-kin. Hearing dates have been set in 13 cases.
There is one remaining open inquest into deaths from operations in Iraq.
Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Twelve inquests remain to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. Two hearing dates have been set. The remaining 10 cases will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.
We shall continue to inform the House of progress with the remaining inquests.
Special Advisers
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 19 July 2011, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2011-12.
The paybill for the period 13 May 2010 to 31 March 2011 was £4.5 million. This compares to £6.8 million for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and £2.1 million for the period 1 April 2010 to 12 May 2010, which includes £1.8 million in severance pay.
Appointing Minister | Special Adviser in Post | Payband | Salary if £58,200 or higher (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
The Prime Minister | Craig Oliver | Within scheme ceiling | 140,000 |
Andrew Cooper | Within scheme ceiling | 140,000 | |
Edward Llewellyn | Within scheme ceiling | 125,000 | |
Kate Fall | PB4 | 100,000 | |
Gabby Bertin | PB3 | 80.000 | |
Tim Chatwin | PB3 | 70,000 | |
Steve Hilton | PB3 | 90,000 | |
Polly Mackenzie1 | PB3 | 80,000 | |
James O'Shaughnessy | PB3 | 87,000 | |
Lena Pietsch1 | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Patrick Rock | PB3 | 78,000 | |
Liz Sugg | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Peter Campbell | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Sean Kemp1 | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Michael Salter | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Alan Sendorek | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Rohan Silva | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Isabel Spearman (p/t) | PB2 | ||
Sean Worth | PB2 | ||
Tim Colbourne1 | PB1 | ||
Deputy Prime Minister | Jonny Oates | PB4 | 98,500 |
Richard Reeves | PB3 | 85.000 | |
Alison Suttie | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Chris Saunders | PB2 | 60,000 | |
James McGrory | PB1 | ||
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs | Arminka Helic | PB3 | 70,000 |
Denzil Davidson | PB2 | ||
Will Littlejohn | PB1 | ||
Chancellor of the of the Exchequer2 | Ramesh Chhabra | PB2 | 60,000 |
Poppy Mitchell-Rose | PB1 | ||
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice | David Hass | PB2 | 69,266 |
Kathryn Laing | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equality | Fiona Cunningham | PB2 | 65,000 |
Nick Timothy | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Secretary of State for Defence | Luke Coffey | PB2 | 60,740 |
Oliver Waghorn | PB2 | 60,740 | |
Hayden Allan | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | Katie Waring | PB1 | |
Giles Wilkes | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | Susie Squire | PB2 | |
Philippa Stroud | PB2 | 69,250 | |
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change | Duncan Brack | PB2 | 67,000 |
Joel Kenrick | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Health | Bill Morgan | PB3 | 76.000 |
Jenny Jackson | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Education | Henry de Zoete | PB2 | |
Dominic Cummings | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government | Giles Kenningham | PB2 | 64,500 |
Sheridan Westlake | PB2 | 64,500 | |
Secretary of State for Transport | Sian Jones | PB2 | |
Paul Stephenson | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | Simon Cawte | PB2 | |
Amy Fisher | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Secretary of State for International Development | Philippa Buckley | PB1 | |
Richard Parr | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland | Jonathan Caine | PB2 | 69,266 |
Secretary of State for Scotland | Euan Roddin | PB2 | 60,000 |
Secretary of State for Wales | Richard Hazlewood | PB2 | |
Secretary of State for Culture, Media, the Olympics and Sport | Adam Smith | PB2 | |
Sue Beeby | PB2 | ||
Chief Secretary | Will de Peyer | PB2 | 63,000 |
Julia Goldsworthy | PB3 | 74,000 | |
Minister without Portfolio | Naweed Khan | PBO | |
Leader of the House of Lords, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster | Flora Coleman | PBO | |
Elisabeth Plummer | PB0 | ||
James Marshall | PB2 | ||
Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster General | Laura Trott | PB2 | |
Minister of State, Cabinet Office | Martha Varney | PB1 | |
Minister of State (Universities and Science), BIS | Nick Hillman | PB2 | |
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal | Robert Riddell | PB2 | |
Chief Whip (Commons) | Chris White | PB2 | |
Ben Williams | PB2 | 68,000 | |
1Appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister and based in No. 10. 2 In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Rupert Harrison (PB3, £80,000), and Eleanor Shawcross (PB2) to the Council of Economic Advisers. |
Special Adviser Pay Bands for 2011-12
The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2011-12 are as follows:
Scheme Ceiling | £142,668 |
|---|---|
Pay Band 4 | £88,966-£106,864 |
Pay Band 3 and Premium | £66,512-£103,263 |
Pay Band 2 | £52,215-£69,266 |
Pay Band 1 | £40,352-£54,121 |
Pay Band 0 | Up to £40,352 |
Olympics Airspace
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
On 7 March the Government announced plans to introduce temporary airspace restrictions in the south-east of England during the London Olympic and Paralympic games to help protect key games locations from potential airborne risks. We also made clear that further work would be done to evaluate the potential impact of these measures before final decisions were made. Additional work was also envisaged on possible exemptions and alleviations to mitigate the impact of the proposed restrictions on the aviation industry where possible, without reducing the effectiveness and robustness of the security measures.
Since March further extensive work has been done in conjunction with the aviation sector to understand the likely impact of the planned restrictions on the industry. Alongside this, security experts have also carried out further analysis on the risks to the games. This work has given us a more sophisticated understanding of the relative challenges as regards the Olympics and the Paralympics. The changes to the original measures have been made to minimise the impact of the restrictions without compromising the safety and security of the games.
As a result of both this improved understanding and work with the aviation community, the Government are today announcing further development of the plans for temporary airspace control measures.
Between 14 July and 15 August 2012, the airspace measures will, as previously proposed, comprise an inner Prohibited Zone and an outer Restricted Zone, approximately 60 nautical miles across, centred on the Olympic park.
Only certain categories of aircraft—those operating commercial services and subject to full aviation security procedures—will normally be permitted to operate within the Prohibited Zone. Aircraft involved in, for example, police, emergency medical, essential survey and Olympic broadcast operations will be exempt. Subject to specific conditions, exemptions will also be granted to flights operating from Denham, Fairoaks and White Waltham airfields, and the London heliport at Battersea—all located within the Prohibited Zone—directly to and from the boundary with the Restricted Zone.
As previously proposed, all types of aircraft will be permitted to operate in the wider Restricted Zone during this period provided that they can satisfy certain requirements designed to ensure that aircraft within the zone can be readily identified and monitored by air traffic control. Additional changes to the original plans are now proposed, including exemptions for flights directly exiting the Restricted Zone from airfields within three nautical miles of the zone’s outer boundary, and the removal of the prohibition against cross country solo student flights. Small changes to the boundaries of the Prohibited and Restricted Zones are also being made, primarily for reasons of air traffic safety and ease of navigation. Further work is under way to look at whether the current minimum period for filing a flight plan can be reduced from the existing two hours.
From 16 August until the Paralympic village closes on 12 September 2012, the Prohibited and Restricted Zones will be replaced by three separate, smaller, areas of restricted airspace one over central London and the Olympic park, one over the Eton Dorney Paralympic rowing venue, and one over the rowing village at Egham. Access to this airspace will be restricted to those aircraft permitted to operate within the earlier Prohibited Zone. A specific exemption will be granted in respect of operations into and out of the London heliport.
A similar approach—the introduction of localised areas of temporarily restricted airspace—will be taken in respect of the games venues elsewhere across the country as and when appropriate during the games period.
Full details of the planned airspace restrictions, including maps, can be found on the Airspace Safety Initiative website at: www.airspacesafety.com/Olympics.
It is not expected that any airports will need to close as a result of the planned measures. There should be no impact on scheduled air services, and a significantly reduced impact on most other types of operation within the Prohibited and Restricted Zones as a result of the changes made to the design and duration of the restrictions.
The Government’s paramount objective is the delivery of a safe and secure games for all. We are confident that the measures announced today are a proportionate approach, balancing the need to put in place appropriate and effective counter-measures against potential aviation based risks to the games with the desire to minimise the impact on the aviation community. However, should circumstances change, the Government reserve the right to implement additional airspace security measures should the need arise.
Commission on Devolution in Wales
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
The coalition’s programme for government includes a commitment to
“establish a process similar to the Calman Commission for the Welsh Assembly”
and the Government’s proposals are now taking shape. I am pleased to inform the House of our plans so far.
A key strength of the Calman Commission was its consensual approach, and the Government are committed to establish a similar approach in Wales. With this in mind we have worked with the Welsh Government and all parties in the Assembly to reach a broad consensus on how we move forward.
An independent commission will be established in the autumn to look at the financial accountability of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. The commission will examine issues of fiscal devolution and accountability in Wales and will focus on building consensus. It will take into consideration the work of the Holtham commission and will make every effort to report on its recommendations in the autumn of 2012.
After the commission has reported and the Government have considered its proposals, the commission will look at the constitutional settlement in Wales in the light of experience. The commission will aim to report its findings in 2013.
Work will continue between the UK Government and the Welsh Government over the summer, and I will look to make further announcements on the process after recess.
The Government are committed to considering all aspects of the Holtham commission’s reports. Separate discussions will continue between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on Holtham’s proposals for funding reform for Wales and they will be extended to include the operation of existing borrowing powers.
Housing Benefit (Supported Housing)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, responsible for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud of Eastry, has made the following statement:
Later today, the Government will publish a consultation paper on proposals to review the way in which housing benefit is calculated for those who live in supported housing. Views will be invited to inform the detailed development of our proposals as we look toward amending legislation.
Many of those who live in supported housing managed or owned by not for profit social or voluntary sector providers have their housing benefit based on more generous rules. However, these rules have been in place since the mid-90s and no longer fit the way that personal care and support are now commonly delivered. These rules have also become complex both to administer and understand.
We want housing benefit to support independence in the community while being fair, affordable and sustainable. Our challenge is to reform housing benefit in such a way that it can more effectively help those people with specialist housing needs who commonly live in specialist supported housing or in adapted housing. Our proposals recognise that the provision of supported housing broadly falls into two groups.
The more easily recognisable types of supported housing such as hostels, refuges, foyers and purpose-built sheltered housing, where residents commonly need less intensive personal care and support to help them remain in the community. For this group we are proposing to pay the local housing allowance but with fixed additions which will continue to recognise the higher costs of providing this type of housing.
The type of supported housing often specifically built, acquired and/or adapted for the individual tenant(s) who have more specific housing needs that can not be met by mainstream or existing supported housing. The detail of the exact funding arrangements are yet to be determined but we propose that decisions on the level of any extra help that an individual may need toward their rent over and above the standard local housing allowance would be made locally.
It is important to be clear that these reforms are not looking to cut expenditure in this sector but to better direct it. In the face of rising expenditure in this area, it is important to find the right balance between protecting reasonable rents and providing effective expenditure control for the taxpayer. Consequently any changes will need to be cost neutral overall.
A copy of the consultation paper will be available on the Department for Work and Pensions website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/supported-housing.shtml.
Copies will also be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
Workplace Pension Reform (Automatic Enrolment)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to be able to publish later today the Government’s consultation document “Workplace Pension Reform—Completing the Legislative Framework for Automatic Enrolment”, and to announce that today marks the beginning of a period of formal consultation on draft regulations relating to automatic enrolment into workplace pension schemes. The consultation period will run for 12 weeks, ending on 11 October.
This consultation addresses the remaining legislative changes needed to put in place the Government’s workplace pensions reforms, which are due to begin in 2012. The “Making Automatic Enrolment Work” review, which took place last year, recommended changes to the proposed requirements in order to make it easier for employers and employees to understand and operate the new automatic enrolment requirement. These changes, together with some minor technical amendments, are set out in the draft regulations published alongside the consultation document.
I would like to thank all those people and organisations who have offered their views and advice in response to our recent informal consultation, and hope that they will continue to do so now that consultation has moved on to a formal footing.
The consultation document will be available later today on the Department’s website at:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/workplace-pension-reform-2011.shtml
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Indonesia: West Papua
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the government of Indonesia to enter into dialogue with representative leaders of the West Papuan opposition.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has long encouraged the use of constructive dialogue to resolve differences between the Government of Indonesia and the credible representatives of the Papuan and West Papuan people. We welcome the Papuan peace conference held in Jayapura from 5 to 7 July, which included discussions between Indonesian government Ministers and Papuan community leaders addressing political differences over regional governance and possible avenues for further dialogue.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am particularly glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the recent peace conference, when more than 500 representatives of different aspects of West Papuan society gathered in order to call for serious negotiations with the Indonesian Government and to appoint five people to negotiate on behalf of the West Papuan people. Will the Minister ask the Indonesian Government to respond to this initiative?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. We are discussing these matters with the Indonesian Government. We know they are committed to trying to carry this process forward. It is a matter of them putting their money where their mouth is because Papua and West Papua receive by far the largest chunk of the regional funds from the central government. They want to carry this forward. I think the message of the noble and right reverend Lord is the correct one and we shall continue to encourage a constructive dialogue, as I have described.
Lord Avebury
Considering that, after many years of struggle and destruction of the economic potential, the Government of Indonesia came to an agreement with the people of Aceh on devolution, will the Foreign Office ask Jakarta to refrain from arresting and imprisoning dozens of people in West Papua for so-called subversion and at least have discussions with the OPM to see how the benefits of mineral exploitation, including BP’s LNG project in Bintuni Bay, could be more widely shared with the people?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On my noble friend’s final point, my understanding is that not only BP but Rio Tinto and other major investors are determined to work out ways in which the benefits can indeed be shared more widely with the people. My noble friend is absolutely right about that. We have raised queries about some of the arrests—there was one over displaying the wrong flag or something like that—and the size of the sentences seemed disproportionate. We are aware of these worries and we shall continue to raise them with the Government.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Indonesian policy in West Papua and Papua—I declare an interest as a regular business visitor there for eight years between 2001 and 2009—is a rather disturbing mixture of generosity—as the noble Lord has explained, those provinces are the biggest aid recipients of transfers of resources within Indonesia—and repression? It must surely be in the interest of the Indonesian Government to strengthen that generous strand and to reduce the repression and, above all, to allow the international press free access to Papua and West Papua so that they can see what is really going on.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is not only in the interests of Indonesia—wherever there is repression, it is not the right way forward—but in our national interest as well. It may seem far away, but the reality is that we are talking about an area mid-way between the Pacific rim and the Indian Ocean, where all the world’s growth, dynamism and accumulation of wealth and influence will be. It is very important that we are constructively and helpfully involved there.
The matter of journalists' access to Papua and West Papua was discussed at the EU human rights partnership meeting with the Indonesians in Indonesia on 5 May. It is one that we continue to raise, because clearly access for balanced reporting would be of benefit to the situation.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, in terms of human rights, it is normally best for representations to be made on behalf of the European Union as a whole so that individual countries are not picked off. What is the position here? Have there been representations by the European Union? Are we fully behind them?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes. I described in my answer to the previous question that on 5 May there was an EU meeting that discussed a number of aspects of repression, including a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite often and rightly raises—the question of the apparent persecution of, and violence against, the Ahmadiyya community and other Christian communities. All these matters are indeed discussed and were discussed at that very helpful forum between the European Union and the Indonesian Government on 5 May.
Lord Liddle
The whole House will welcome the progress—uneven progress—being made on human rights in West Papua, and on human rights in the rest of Indonesia, and will welcome Indonesia’s joining of the UN Human Rights Council, but what positive progress is being made under the EU-Indonesia dialogue? What active support are the British Government giving, particularly in terms of ministerial visits such as that of Mr Jeremy Browne last year to Indonesia? How do the Government balance their proper concern for human rights with their present emphasis on expanding UK trade in emerging markets such as Indonesia?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The answer to the noble Lord’s general question is that we do balance. In many cases, one would argue that the two go together. If we can get expanded commercial and economic activity, effective inward investment and the expansion of trade, this will pave the way for a more open society and a more effective policing of human rights.
Results are a bit difficult to measure. All that can be said is that there is a human rights dialogue between the European Union and Indonesia. We support it fully. Our evidence in this increasingly transparent world is: first, that it is getting more difficult for any country that wishes to oppose and repress human rights to do so; secondly, that we intend to try to make it more difficult for them to do so; and thirdly, that the Indonesian state, whose territorial integrity we fully support, is anxious to carry forward and sensibly settle this and other human rights issues in a good and constructive way.
South Sudan
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile provinces in the context of the Republic of South Sudan’s independence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned by the continuing violence and humanitarian situation in Southern Kordofan. We call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and full humanitarian access. We fully welcome the Framework Agreement on Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, signed in Addis Ababa under African Union auspices, as a step in the right direction, but this needs to be implemented and followed up. We also welcome the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1990 which, together with the signing of an Abyei interim agreement, paves the way for a swift withdrawal of Sudanese armed forces from Abyei and the deployment of Ethiopian peacekeeping troops under a UN mandate.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, my noble friend did not mention the UNMIS report, which has not been published, on the regime’s devastating attacks on the Nuba people in these three territories and, particularly, in South Kordofan where Ahmed Haroun, the governor after a disputed election, is wanted by the ICC for war crimes. Does my noble friend agree that the UN decision to send a mere 4,200 troops to Abyei and none to South Kordofan is woefully inadequate in the face of an incipient genocide of the Nuba people in the whole region? Will the UK remind the Security Council that the responsibility to protect applies in these territories to a far greater extent than it did in Libya?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is right to point to the reports of atrocities. I think he is referring to the report initiated by the UN Mission in South Sudan and these regions, which makes very grim reading indeed. As far as we understand its contents, it is extremely worrying. In fact, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, Mr Bellingham, who, incidentally, is in Sudan at this moment, was at the United Nations a few days ago and urged that the report should be put to the UN Security Council for full consideration. We are fully aware of that aspect of things. As to sending more troops, the problem at the moment is, as my noble friend knows, that the Khartoum Government are trying to veto any further extension of the UN troop mandate of the UNMIS mandate. That has to be overcome, and it is not easy for the United Nations to begin to meet the security needs through adequate troop provision by the UN over and above the Ethiopian mission I have already mentioned.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, when I was in Juba last week for the joyful celebrations of the independence of the peoples of the south, I had the opportunity to meet leaders from Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. They all expressed grave concern over President al-Bashir’s stated policy of turning the Republic of Sudan into an Arab Islamic state. What is Her Majesty's Government’s assessment of al-Bashir’s policies with regard to the ethnic and religious minorities in those areas of the Republic of Sudan and, indeed, in all the Republic of Sudan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The assessment we have is based on the wisdom and experience of the noble Baroness and on the visit of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Juba 10 days ago for the independence celebrations. Our assessment is not at all encouraging. There is a clear attempt to use extremely violent methods and to carry them out in South Kordofan, the Blue Nile area and the Nuba mountains where some horrific things have gone on. This is not at all encouraging. President al-Bashir has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court. The pattern that has been pursued is a mixture. At least he did turn up at the celebrations in Juba, which was a positive act, and one hopes that more positive aspects will appear, but at the moment, there is not much sign of them.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
I wish to return to the leaked UN documents. The report states that 73,000 people have been displaced and that 7,000 people who were not taken into the compound have disappeared. The situation has been described as resembling Srebrenica. There are aerial photographs of mass graves. So why has the UN remained silent about such disturbing evidence? As a member of the Security Council, what exactly is the United Kingdom doing when a sovereign Government in Khartoum are refusing to allow anyone to investigate what is happening and are continuing to obstruct essential humanitarian aid to the very needy people of South Kordofan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Baroness is right and reinforces what I was saying a moment ago. This report is extremely worrying and full of evidence of really serious atrocities. She has further elaborated and underlined that. The question is what the UN agencies, UNMIS itself and the reporting authorities are going to do about it. I have to tell the noble Baroness that as far as the British Government and my honourable friend Mr Bellingham, who was at the United Nations, are concerned, our urging has been that this report should go forward to the Security Council and be fully discussed in the light of the grim and terrible reports that it contains. That is the position so far. I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly what is going to happen next or how it will be handled, but that is HMG’s position on the matter.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, on the report that the noble Lord has referred to and which I sent him a copy of yesterday, he will recall that two weeks ago I sent him a report from Kadugli where UNMIS soldiers themselves were responsible for handing over people who were seeking refuge in the refugee camp there—“like lambs to the slaughter”, according to a witness. What does this tell us about the nature of peacekeeping in Southern Sudan and of the UNMIS force itself? Are we intending to refer these crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court, not least because of the thousands of people who are trapped in the Nuba mountains and suffering from aerial bombardment?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I can only repeat what I said earlier. The noble Lord very kindly sent me a copy of this report, as did a number of other people. As I have already said twice, it makes very grim reading. The noble Lord has rightly raised the quality and behaviour of existing UN troops a number of times. Of course we are worried that there was inadequate behaviour or that troops stood aside while people were dragged from their cars and shot, and so on. We have encouraged the Under-Secretary-General at the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to examine these claims very carefully and to bear them very strongly in mind when and—I regret to say—if a new mandate can be agreed and established for UN forces after independence, the original UNMIS mandate having finished. This is a very serious issue and one which we are watching very closely indeed.
East Jerusalem and the West Bank
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask the Government of Israel to return to its original owners expropriated land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank which has not been developed or is used only for military training.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from my reply on 16 June, we are very concerned about Israel’s policies on developing settlements. It is Britain’s long-standing policy that settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. During his recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories, my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Alistair Burt, stressed the need for the parties to return to negotiations on the basis of parameters set out by President Obama in his speech on 19 May—that is, the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, as well as security arrangements that protect Israel and respect Palestinian sovereignty.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he accept that my Question is a modest attempt to prevent new facts on the ground being created in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are bound to pre-empt the negotiations that he mentions? Are we not already faced with a single-state situation, with Bantustans in Ramallah and Gaza, and will the quartet act positively to redress the most unequal balance?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The quartet, alas, in its recent meetings found itself unable to establish even enough agreement for a statement, so this indicates the continuing difficulty, tensions and disagreements underlying this whole scene. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the creation of facts on the ground, which are obviously an obstacle to a return to negotiations and a serious impediment to the long-term prospects for peace. It is particularly concerning that the building of settlements and these demolition programmes in East Jerusalem, which are illegal, are continuing, particularly the very provocative building and demolition operations going on in the Sheikh Jarrah district. I have to agree with the noble Lord, but these are matters that we keep raising with the Israeli authorities. These are not just UK matters; they concern all countries that want to advance the peace process, including of course the United States.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord said that Mr Burt raised the hope of the United Kingdom Government that there would be negotiations, but he was not explicit about how the Israelis responded. He has implied negativity but has not been explicit. Can he explicitly tell your Lordships’ House what the Israelis did say in response, and, if it was negative, does the noble Lord really believe that there is any realistic possibility of negotiations with a Netanyahu-led Government?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I was not explicit because, as the noble Baroness will know—she is better equipped than most of us in these sorts of areas—what one often gets when making representations that are not welcome to the recipients is a shrug of the shoulders and a polite nodding of the head but no action. I am afraid that the most visible action is of the opposite kind—buildings have continued to be demolished, which gives rise to a question about the prospects for progress.
No one can disguise the fact that most of the responsible world—the Arab world, the western world, the European Union, the United States, the UN—believes that the present fluidity and turmoil in the region provides an opportunity for Israel and a Palestine that we hope is moving towards a united Government, although it is not there yet, to start serious negotiations. That is what we want, but it has to be said that this has appeared not to be the opinion of the Israeli authorities at the moment. Their inclination appears to be just to hunker down and hope that something else will turn up.
It is not a situation in which we are optimistic. None the less, we think that continual pressure and the continuing presentation of the realities of the destructive path on which an Israel that refused to negotiate would set itself will eventually move things, but I cannot pretend that it will happen tomorrow morning.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, my noble friend made much of the fact that the Minister declared that the settlements were illegal under international law, but is my noble friend aware that if the Minister had gone further and said that there might therefore be a case for materials produced in those settlements to be boycotted, he would be in breach of the new anti-boycott law which the Knesset introduced on 11 July? What is Her Majesty's Government’s response to the introduction of that law? Does my noble friend agree that it seriously undermines not only freedom of speech in Israel but even Israel’s credentials as an open, free and democratic society?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I myself—and I think this would be a government view—do not very much like the shape of the boycott law, which seems to intrude very greatly on the freedom even of speech about what can be traded and developed in the relevant areas. However, I understand that the matter will come before the Israeli Supreme Court and has been challenged, so maybe it is premature to make final judgments on it. Generally, we think that boycotts are not the way forward—they impede the sensible development of trade—and we should perhaps not forget that, although much of what I have had to say is gloomy, trade and activity, not in Jerusalem but elsewhere on the West Bank, are developing really rather well, and many people, including in your Lordships' House, are well aware of some of the remarkable enterprises that are springing up in places such as Ramallah and elsewhere.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government believe that there should be no return of land until there is a final settlement? The noble Lord will know that that statement was made back in 1967. Is that still the view of Her Majesty's Government today?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think the noble and learned Baroness is aware that this question has come up very recently in discussion. I believe that that statement was made by a former Foreign Secretary, George Brown MP, many years ago after the 1967 war and the Israelis’ occupation of the West Bank after they were attacked. I do not believe that it forms part of the entirely new and fluid situation that has developed long since then, or of the new realities that we have to face in moving to negotiation. I will check the precise legal status of that statement, which was valid all those years ago, but I do not think it is at all relevant to the way in which we want to go now.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, are not the attitude and policy of the Administration of the United States of America key to a resolution of these matters? Can my noble friend say whether they are pressing as hard as Her Majesty's Government are?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is right to say that the influence of the United States on the situation is major, although it may not be absolutely as final as it is sometimes argued. The European Union has its role and individual nations have theirs. The United Kingdom continues to be able to play an influential role and maybe could do even more. But obviously if the United States is not, as it were, on side, little progress will be made. We all hope that the very fine speech made by President Obama indicates the way he wants to go and that he is allowed to go that way. However, we would be blind if we did not recognise that there are formidable political forces in the United States which seem to stand in the way of sensible progress on this issue.
Finance: Eurozone
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had with other European Union Finance Ministers about financial problems in the eurozone.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly discusses the situation in the euro area with his European Union colleagues, including in bilateral meetings and at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council. The most recent ECOFIN meeting on 12 July, which the Chancellor attended, covered the situation in the euro area, and a number of previous ECOFIN meetings have also discussed this. The Treasury continues closely to monitor financial developments in the euro area.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, the Chancellor was quoted as saying—I hope that the noble Lord does not mind me quoting him—that they should try to obtain a settlement whereby banks are more heavily capitalised. That was a very sensible suggestion, although it might be difficult to achieve. I hope that the noble Lord is not complacent that, if the crisis really hits the eurozone, simply because we are not in the scheme we will be all right since it will not cost us any euros. We would not have to bail out European banks, but we would have to bail out UK banks that got into serious trouble. Does he accept that it would be sensible for the Chancellor to be much more positive about trying to achieve a deal? Indeed, if he can get a sustainable deal that is recognised internationally, he should go as far providing guarantees because that would be a sensible move which would safeguard UK taxpayers from tens if not billions of euros.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the Government are not the least complacent about the very serious situation in the eurozone, as evidenced by not only the continuing discussions around the next stage of the programme for Greece but also the situation of Italy as regards the capital markets and its interest rates recently. The most constructive things we can do are, first, to make sure, as the FSA and the Bank of England are doing, that the UK banks are subjected to stringent stress tests; and secondly that they continue to build up, as they have done satisfactorily so far, their capital liquidity positions. In his discussions with the eurozone, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made it quite clear how supportive the UK is not only of the short-term measures in which we are not directly involved—the Eurogroup discussions around Greece—but also through ensuring that Europe presses ahead with the structural adjustments that are needed to bring sustained growth to Europe. At the same time, we also make it abundantly clear that it is for the eurozone itself to finance further bailouts and that the UK, as has been agreed in the context of Greece, is not going to be a direct participant in these bailouts.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, is it not clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has pointed out, that while we all obsess about Rupert Murdoch and News International, there is a much more serious crisis actually brewing on the European continent? Is it not clear that two paths are open to the eurozone? One is to recognise a default by Greece now; or if that is judged too risky to the banking sector, for the eurozone then to come up with what it has always promised, which is to do whatever is necessary to stop the bickering among the 17 Governments, to stop the arguments for the European Central Bank and to come up now with a comprehensive solution rather than delay it until the autumn, which will be immensely damaging to Italy and not least to other countries both inside and outside the eurozone?
Lord Sassoon
I certainly agree with my noble friend about the relative seriousness of different crises that are going on at the moment, and I repeat that the crisis in the eurozone is extremely serious. As to prescriptions and questions about what the eurozone would do, my noble friend speaks words of wisdom. However, it would not be appropriate for a UK government Minister to lecture the eurozone as to what to do. We shall look with considerable interest at what the meeting of eurozone leaders over the next two days comes up with. It is important that they make further considerable progress.
Lord Peston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us do not believe in exaggerating the problems of the eurozone or using the word “crisis”, which is immensely damaging and should not be used by Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that, overall, the eurozone has been a great success? A vast amount of eurozone paper is held willingly throughout the world and ever more trade is being carried out in euros. Is it not about time that Her Majesty's Government took at long last a more positive attitude both to the eurozone and to Europe in general?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we take as a Government a very positive and pragmatic attitude towards Europe and the eurozone. It is after all where 40 per cent or more of the UK’s exports go. We wish the eurozone success. In the ways that I have sketched out and we have discussed on other occasions, we will be supportive, particularly on completing the single market and putting in place structural reforms. At the same time, it is right for countries to make their decision as to whether they want to be in or out, and the UK has made and continues to make the right decision about where we are.
Armed Forces Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 14, Schedule 1, Clauses 15 to 26, Schedule 2, Clauses 27 to 29, Schedule 3, Clause 30, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 31 to 34.
Renewable Heat Incentive (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008) Regulations 2011
Lord Marland
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13, 20 and 23 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 24th and 25th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees
That the 6th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 170) be agreed to.
Localism Bill
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“( ) In section 209 (liability: interpretation of key terms) after subsection (8) (regulations may make provision for a person not to be treated as a developer in specified circumstances) insert—
“(9) CIL regulations must provide for an exemption (or a partial exemption) from liability to pay CIL in respect of a development where the person who would otherwise be likely to pay CIL in respect of the development is already required to make payment of a sum or sums under a planning obligation under section 106 of TCPA 1990 which is or are applied towards—
(a) existing infrastructure (within the meaning given in section 216(1)), or(b) other existing local infrastructure or matters relating to that infrastructure.””
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that today’s list has a target set at Amendment 170CD—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, might I intervene? It is customary, if one wishes to ask general questions, to do so on the Motion that House do now go into Committee. Last week, Back-Benchers involved in this Bill showed a willingness to move on and to debate the Bill, and not to argue about how it should be arrived at by particular times. Announcements were made. Might I suggest that if the Chief Whip of the Opposition has anything to say, he has the courtesy to have discussions with me first outside the Chamber? If he wishes to proceed now, of course that is his right. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding was supposed to be moving an amendment. I remind the House that it is the normal courtesy to give notice that one wishes to say something on going into Committee. The noble Lord decided not to do so. If he has changed his mind and wants to do it in a different way, it would be helpful to the House if it knew what procedure was to be followed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am normally very courteous in your Lordships’ House and I do not wish to trespass on its time. I am more than happy to have discussions outside the Chamber—that would be preferable—but I draw to the attention of the House that the Government have set a target of 29 amendments. The House is due to rise at 10 o’clock this evening and, with it sitting again at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, your Lordships will wish to know that that permits, on my calculation, only 12 minutes per group of amendments, and some of the groups contain as many as 40 amendments. We are, of course, more than ready to try to make progress on the Bill. It is a serious Bill containing serious matters and the House needs to give all the issues serious and proper consideration. I hope that the House will support that approach— that is how we usually proceed—but, if we cannot reach that target by 10 o’clock this evening, I hope that we will adjourn at 10 o’clock because noble Lords need to come back tomorrow refreshed to carry on with urgent and proper business.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for saying that the Opposition are keen to make progress. We on this side of the House are also keen to make progress. These are preliminary discussions and we will certainly listen to all the debates as they proceed because all Members who have amendments down consider them to be important. The Back-Benchers said again and again last week that they want to get on with scrutiny of the Bill. Let my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding have his moment to do just that.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said “not moved” in relation to Amendment 148ZZC. I do not want to take his moment away from him.
“( ) Where a local authority has a scheme or process of neighbourhood engagement and localised planning that promotes and enables the involvement of the residents and businesses of its area, within their local neighbourhoods, and that process has been agreed by the Secretary of State to—
(a) meet the objectives set out in section 61F, 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Schedule 9 to this Act; and(b) constitute a sufficient process of local engagement to enable the making of neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood plans on the basis of informed involvement and consent,that local authority may make such orders or plans on behalf of local residents without the establishment of neighbourhood forums or the holding of a referendum.”
Lord True
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 148AZZF. We are approaching a critical new section of the Bill and I want to underline that I do not seek to challenge the concept of neighbourhood planning or public participation in it—both are absolutely essential. They have been agreed in Committee and so I could not support amendments which seek to remove reference to neighbourhood forums in any circumstances. However, I oppose a straitjacket being placed on local authorities in relation to how they should go about neighbourhood planning.
The Local Government Association has written to many noble Lords saying that the Bill adds unwanted levels of bureaucracy and Whitehall interference that threaten to squeeze the life out of a fluid, flexible and localist system that is currently in operation. I would not go as far as that but I believe that in its present form the Bill could delay effective neighbourhood planning in many places as much as it accelerates it.
Amendment 148ZZEA is clearly defective in its drafting. It was drafted in this way in order not to leap ahead of another amendment that was later withdrawn. However, I hope its purpose is clear and that the Committee will be able to support its principles. They are that there should be an expectation of every local authority to have satisfactory arrangements for neighbourhood planning and that those arrangements must be approved by the Secretary of State. If those arrangements do not exist—I repeat, do not exist—the ideas set out in Schedules 9 and 10 could have effect. In other words, it seeks to replace a one-size-fits-all approach regulated from the top towards neighbourhood planning with a more open public service framework that enables a range of different local approaches to neighbourhood planning which are suited to different local circumstances. Under a framework like this, a recalcitrant authority that is not involving its local people as it should can still be obliged to do so, albeit with the rather cumbersome machinery laid out in the Bill.
My view is that good local authorities can be trusted to, and encouraged to, trust and involve local people in planning their futures. It has been a frequent thread in this Committee that the Bill’s approach seems too often based on the view that local authorities cannot be trusted and must be made to operate centrally designed systems. We had that in the section on the community right to bid where a sensible backstop system to protect key community facilities became transformed in the writing of the Bill into a potential engine of bureaucracy.
I was moved to put down this amendment after entertaining dozens of dedicated local authority workers who had given up Saturday after Saturday and much other of their spare time to help our local communities in working up neighbourhood plans. One of those local authority officers—with a lot of justifiable pride in her case because she had done more than most—said to me, “It has been a great experience. People want to take part. They welcome it so much. It is so rewarding to be breaking new ground”. Of course, she was right, although our authority is far from alone. The Local Government Association brief gives us many other examples of innovative activity right across the country. People want more say in local planning and the Bill’s instincts are right. The Government’s interest in it is welcome but—this is a big but—why must it be presumed to be done only in the elaborate way in the schedules to this part of the Bill?
As I have said before, more than 15,000 people have taken part in our neighbourhood planning process. I think the assumption should be that every citizen and business in a village or neighbourhood should be involved in the process, which is why in my other amendment in this group, Amendment 148AZZF, I suggest that the default position should be that all people should be involved in deciding who forms a neighbourhood forum. That is also the effect of Amendment 148AZZFA and other amendments from my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Greaves. Why should it not be the case for all local people, supported and facilitated by a good local authority, and not a selected few—as few as 21 people in this Bill—who may well claim to represent their area but could well be representative of only part of competing local opinions? Why those few and not others? Is not everyone’s voice equal in matters affecting their own area? Indeed, you could argue that good neighbourhood planning should reach beyond established local pressure groups and amenity bodies, which already have a voice, and not go through them.
I ask my noble friends to consider allowing different approaches, without the need for forums or potentially costly referendums in every case. I am not challenging the basic structure of the backstop in the Bill but I am asking for a more permissive approach. Some may say that we have to legislate for all local authorities in the same way. I profoundly disagree with that. As I said at Second Reading, good community engagement and good local planning should be spontaneous and flexible, even anarchic. One size fits all will choke those qualities and good local planning should enable variety from place to place. Surely, the whole idea of localism is that diversity should be encouraged.
While I freely acknowledge that the words of my amendment may not be right, I hope that between now and Report the Government will give active and serious consideration to the approach that I am suggesting: namely, to have an overriding expectation of local authorities to carry out neighbourhood planning but to do it in a way that liberates and supports existing innovation and fits their own area, and for the Government to have powers in reserve to require the same spirit of community engagement from those other authorities which are not as complying as local people might wish. That would be real localism.
I have views about many aspects of neighbourhood planning that are covered in this group but, in the interests of making progress, I will leave it there for now, as other noble Lords have amendments. However, I cannot sit down without at least welcoming the intent behind Amendment 148AA, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hanham, and others in the group which accept points made at Second Reading that an unelected neighbourhood forum, once set up, should not be untouchable for five years, as it is in the Bill. I am a little disappointed in the briefing being circulated that says the removal of a forum’s designation should be a rare occurrence. I do not see why a fixed set of people should remain in place for five years, unelected, when an elected council can be removed after four years. However, the acceptance that a forum may be disbanded, replenished or renewed is welcome. It represents an excellent first step away from some of the rigidities built into this part of the Bill. I thank my noble friend for that and I only hope that we can tempt my noble friends further. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
I start by agreeing with pretty much everything that the noble Lord, Lord True, has just said. I have more than a few amendments in this group—I will speak generally and raise the questions they bring up rather than go through them individually.
Liberal Democrats are supportive of and excited by the concept of neighbourhood planning but we have two practical criteria to apply to this Bill. First, we want it to work; and secondly, we want it to work in the interest of local communities. We are not sure that the Bill as it stands does that. We are into a new world—a new architecture—of a new neighbourhood planning system based on neighbourhood areas and on authorised and qualifying bodies to carry out planning functions in these areas, which may be parish councils; or, in unparished areas, neighbourhood forums. These bodies can make neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood plans. This is quite revolutionary stuff.
I will indicate my recent experience of neighbourhood planning at this stage. In recent years I have been involved, as a local councillor, in several master-planning exercises under the housing market renewal programme in east Lancashire, involving consultation with and participation by local residents and businesses in areas of Victorian terraced housing and local industry. I was also a member of the Whitefield Regeneration Partnership in a similar, but mainly Asian heritage, area in Nelson with special conservation status that started with an inquiry-by-design process run by the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. I was a member of the partnership board which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland.
Issues and questions raised by our amendments include the designation of neighbourhood forums. We question the concept in the new Section 61F(5)(a)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act of a neighbourhood forum set up solely for,
“promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses”.
There is a government amendment to this effect. The question is whether this will mean businesses giving themselves planning permission via a neighbourhood development order. What is the role of residents—both those living in the area, however few they may be, or residents living just outside the area, who may be many—who may be affected by nuisances caused and decisions made?
My noble friend Lord True has already referred to the membership of neighbourhood forums. We are concerned that their membership must be inclusive and their internal processes democratic, so that everyone who lives in the area and all councillors representing the area can take part in neighbourhood planning, and to make sure that the forums are representative of all social and geographical parts of the local community. Similar amendments deal with this issue. This is a central issue for us in this part of the Bill. It is absolutely crucial that we do not end up with neighbourhood forums that are run by a local clique for their own particular purposes. In what ways does the Bill guarantee this? What extra prescribed conditions for possible designation of an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum are intended in new Section 61F(6)? In particular will narrow profit-making bodies be allowed to set up as neighbourhood forums? These are crucial matters, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
On parish councils as neighbourhood areas, new Section 61G(3) says in the case of a parish council the specified area,
“must be one that consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area of the council”.
So a neighbourhood area, for neighbourhood planning purposes, can be the area of a parish council or a part of the area of a parish council. Can two or more parish councils combine to form one neighbourhood area? This is an obvious question in relation to small parish councils that are simply not big enough to do the job on their own. And what happens in areas that only have parish meetings?
Neighbourhood development orders effectively give planning permission outside the normal system. We will be talking about these orders quite lot in the coming hours. What can be done to create democratic legitimacy in areas without parish councils? Is there not a serious democratic deficit if self-appointed neighbourhood forums are able to make neighbourhood development orders and indeed neighbourhood plans? This is a critical issue for us—the democratic deficit at the neighbourhood level in areas that are unparished. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, my Amendment 148AZZC relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has been saying, which I generally support, but is much narrower. It reflects concerns shared by the Royal Town Planning Institute and relates entirely to the purpose of setting up a neighbourhood forum, and hence making a neighbourhood plan.
At Report in another place, the Government amended subsection (5)(a) of new Section 61F so that an organisation can be designated as a neighbourhood forum if,
“it is established expressly for either or both of the following purposes—
(i) furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals”—
I abbreviate a bit—and,
“(ii) promoting the carrying on of trades, professions or other businesses”.
There was very little discussion of the government amendment in the other place.
The purport of “either or both” is that the neighbourhood forum and any consequent neighbourhood plan could be set up purely with the sole purpose of carrying on trades, professions or other businesses. There is no reason for that not to be one of the purposes, but government guidance and most ideas of planning take account of economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. A neighbourhood plan should surely not address one activity alone.
The Government may want to think again and adopt something along the lines of my amendment, which makes it clear that the purpose of the neighbourhood forum is to further the social, economic and environmental well-being of the residents, including carrying on businesses if need be, but would not allow this at the expense of the other factors.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have five amendments in this group and will deal with them extremely briefly, because they are really all addressed to the same issue. I do not find at all clear the relationship between a neighbourhood area that may consist wholly or largely of residential properties and one that has an established business in it. My noble friend has tabled a very important group of amendments to establish that there can be neighbourhood business areas. That is certainly a very considerable advance. But when one is dealing, as one does in Schedule 9, with definitions of bodies that can be neighbourhood areas and areas that they can cover, can that include a neighbourhood area with a business? Can they form a neighbourhood area? Is all that in fact now covered by government Amendment 148AE, which comes in a future group? I and others are not at all clear on what will be the interaction where there are combined communities of businesses and residences. Those must cover a very large part of the country, which might form themselves into neighbourhood areas. I get the impression that the Bill has been designed on the assumption that they are all going to be residential properties, when of course they are not. They may well be small businesses as well. It would be very helpful if my noble friend could indicate how these can work together and form a neighbourhood area.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Greaves—we are moving into an entirely different area here. Quite a lot of local plans have developed around the country, and I will not weary the Committee by reading out a list of them. It seems important that if one is going to have all this new bureaucracy to try to surround this whole area, which is what we are getting in the Bill, the question is whether it can be made to work as successfully as quite a lot of the local plans have been working. I entirely support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord True, but if my noble friend on the Front Bench can give us some indication of how the various components of what a neighbourhood plan would be can work together, that would be extremely helpful. A number of bodies outside will read her words with very great care.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, in what people will no doubt regard as my characteristically generalist way, I rise not to move some clever amendment or ask some difficult questions but simply to express my support for what I take to be the basic thrust of my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, which goes to the heart of one of the tensions in the Bill. This is called the Localism Bill, and it is supposed to promote localism, but all too often we find that localism means what the Secretary of State wants it to mean rather than what people think it means locally. If I am right, I think that my noble friend is saying that there is a risk that the proposed neighbourhood forums—in the case of authorities that do not really want them to work—will simply be formulaic arrangements with box ticking and meetings where they can say who has attended. That is a risk, at any rate; we have all seen it happen. Meanwhile, however, perfectly good working arrangements in authorities such as those of my noble friend are made to be scrapped in favour of doing this other stuff. In other words, if you have a vehicle with four purpose-built wheels that work perfectly well, the Bill would appear to force you to replace them with the Secretary of State’s bog-standard design wheels. I do not see what is to be gained by that. It is not consistent with localism and we need the additional flexibility that my noble friend seeks.
Baroness Valentine
I declare an interest as chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation including infrastructure providers in its membership. I support Amendment 148C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which seeks to exclude development associated with nationally significant infrastructure from the scope of neighbourhood development orders. This refers to infrastructure which gets, or would have got, planning permission via the Planning Act 2008.
A signal box next to a railway track is perhaps a good example. It may not constitute nationally significant infrastructure in the sense that the track does, but the signal box is integral to the running of the railway. If a neighbourhood plan had the ability to set land-use planning policy for the area containing the signal box, the plans could affect the running of the railway. It is therefore important that in drawing up neighbourhood plans and the associated development orders, development that is ancillary but integral to the working of nationally significant infrastructure is excluded from the scope of neighbourhood planning.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I follow the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord True, in expressing some concern about the relationship of the various amendments and clauses that will ultimately emerge, particularly in relation to neighbourhood development areas and business areas—if I might use that shorthand term. It seems that we could have a situation in which, under the later amendment that the noble Baroness will be moving, a business area could be declared on the basis that it is wholly or predominantly a business area, which sort of makes sense, I suppose. However, another amendment refers to a situation in which there might be two referendums in the same area because there is a business area and a neighbourhood development area, which implies that it is not just a business area, or that there is some sort of overlap.
I think of a situation in the ward I represent where you have a business area—a shopping street—on either side of which there are two distinct residential communities, both of which regard the shopping area as common, as it were. However, each has its own separate issues which might encourage it—this would no doubt be welcome—to seek area status in a development forum for each residential side of the road, as it were. I do not see how this fits together, particularly having regard to Amendments 148ZA and 148ZB, which the Minister will move later. I mention this at this stage to give her a little time to think, or be advised about, the relationship between these issues. It seems to me that this could lead to considerable confusion because, on the one hand, business areas are supposed to stand alone whereas, on the other hand, other parts of the Bill suggest that they will not stand alone. You might then have competing neighbourhood forums sharing, as it were, a business area. It would be helpful to have elucidation of this rather complex situation and how it might work on the ground as I fear that it will confuse rather than clarify the situation for those occupiers—be they residential or business occupiers—who want to progress with the development of a plan for the area as they see it.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. Good existing relationships ought to be encouraged but where they do not exist the idea that we should have to go the whole hog and create neighbourhoods as set out in the Bill will be a very difficult thing to do, particularly in cities. Where I come from in Hampshire, localism at present consists of the parish council saying, “We’d like this”, and the district council ignoring it. Therefore, I look forward to the full variety of localism down in Hampshire. However, I understand that Richmond may well be a happier and more coherent place under my noble friend’s management. Certainly when it comes to cities, as we will see in some of my later amendments, I very much support the idea that there should be a proper recognition of what you might call interim, less formal neighbourhood arrangements than are set out in the Bill. Beyond anything else, they will be a great deal easier to manage and a great deal less expensive. If the local community can get what it wants without having to go through the whole process of putting a plan together, agreeing it, having it inspected and going out to referendum, but can just do it by means of conversations with councillors and local meetings, that seems to me entirely preferable.
As regards some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves, I say go for parishes. We have a well set-out system in an Act passed by the previous Government to enable parishes to be created in urban areas. If you use that, you will have the democratic structure you are looking for.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, having listened to the other speeches that have been made on amendments in this grouping, it is clear that this is a thoroughly valuable grouping. I am speaking to Amendment 148AZZA, which was prompted by the Heritage Alliance. I was prompted by the UK Association of Preservation Trusts and the Heritage of London Trust. The amendment is supported by a rainbow alliance in all four corners of the Chamber. This has had one slightly untoward consequence in that, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I have waited on about four different occasions over the past 10 days to move this amendment, he eventually ran out of time and asked me if I would take over the gist of his speech. That was a helpful and constructive suggestion, except that I have mislaid the merged article. There will therefore be a slight quality of improvisation to my remarks.
The heritage sector has been arguing for a local approach for the past 11 years, since the publication of Power of Place in 2000—a report that was facilitated by English Heritage and represented the views of a wide part of the heritage sector. It was followed by A Force for Our Future, published by the DCMS and the then the DTLR, which included the observation:
“There is a very large body of research that demonstrates the great economic sense of conservation-led regeneration. As stated by the Government, ‘policy-makers need to regard the historic environment as a unique economic asset, a generator of wealth and jobs in both urban and rural areas’”.
That report was followed in 2004 by Recharging the Power of Place: Valuing Local Significance, published by the National Trust, the CPRE and Heritage Link—which underpins what is now the Heritage Alliance as a whole.
Heritage is a limited resource, and international organisations such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites, once remarkably led by the late Bernard Feilden, recognise it as a fourth component of sustainable development. When the Prime Minister, on 23 November last year, made his speech on the Government’s agenda for well-being, he indicated that the historic environment was a major contribution to people’s sense of well-being. Power of Place research by MORI showed that people consider that,
“the historic environment represents the place in which they live”.
Power of Place and successive reports have had an important effect on the way in which the historic environment is perceived as being local as well as national.
The heritage sector is concerned to achieve a balanced approach to public and private financing of neighbourhood development plans and orders. The Government’s emphasis on economic growth as their particular imperative is totally understood, and is to be welcomed and supported. However, heritage is not a psychological addiction or obsession; it has a practical perspective in these matters.
When I began subscribing to life membership of the various heritage societies some 40 years ago, I recall the chief planning officer of the City of Bath, when criticised for the fact that he had caused to be knocked down a large number of Georgian artisan dwellings, said that he would be happy not to have done so if the city fathers had provided him with a number of Georgian artisans to occupy them, and that since they were not available the redevelopment had to occur. In Northern Ireland, planning regulations were massively relaxed during the Troubles, simply as a stimulus to economic activity. I therefore recognise that there are occasions when you have to eliminate some of the rigour that you would normally have.
However, in the past 25 years, both the Landmark Trust and the Heritage Lottery Fund, in the money that they have poured into the infrastructure of our heritage, have created a great deal of enjoyment and pleasure, as well as constructive economic activity. The churches are a superb exposition of the development of the British, especially English, vernacular tradition in which our heritage has unrolled harmoniously over the centuries. The essence of the amendment to which I am speaking on behalf of the Heritage Alliance is to make sure that there is a consideration of cultural well-being in addition to the considerations that the Government have placed in the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I have no brief from anyone, but I declare an interest in that I am chairman of a very small chamber of commerce. My comments come from my professional experience, and I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord True, who seems to me to have asked a fundamental question about how the decision-making process unfolds which will be of particular importance to our unparished urban areas. A considerable while ago, the Government of the day introduced a class B1 use into the planning system in a town and country planning use classes order. One characteristic of class B1 was that it was intended to be compatible with a residential activity. We all know that urban centres are not segregated, with residential here, shopping there and industrial in some other place—yes, if it is a modern, purpose-built, designed from scratch settlement, but in places that have evolved over many centuries we do not start from there in the majority of cases.
So uses are cheek by jowl with each other. Residents in flats in inner-city areas, some of which may be quite smart and sought after, do not like the sound of bins being emptied in the wee hours of the morning when the local hotel waste has to be taken out or the shop bins cleared from a service yard. We need to bear in mind that in the same areas, there are late-night activities associated with their economic well-being. I can think of many inner-city areas where there are flats, offices, shops and nightclubs that open into the wee hours of the morning and, yes, the odd rowdy drunk being turfed out in the early hours with much noise to boot.
The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about the danger of trying to find a “one size fits all” solution. There is no one size that can be made to work; there is no common template. Where does that leave us? I think it means that powers have to be in place at local level so that the appropriate measures can be brokered to suit the circumstances that arise. We do not know what that mix will be.
I learnt a salutary lesson many years ago about the creeping effects of urbanisation. It related to a town which I shall not name where, over the years, the post-war industrial area, with its rather small, tatty and relatively substandard buildings, had progressively been encroached on by redevelopment which involved the construction of residential properties. Because it was in an area where companies commonly operate 24 hours a day in one shape or form, every time there was a planning application to build an extension, replace something or do anything that required planning consent, a condition was put in about hours of work. Progressively, people in the industrial area found that they were constrained in their hours of work, because no provision had been made to settle the difference between the aspirations of the redeveloped areas turned over to residential use and the pre-existing industrial and commercial activities. If we are not careful, that produces a very unpleasant form of blight and uncertainty that helps no one. There must be local democratic ways to deal with the brokering of such arrangements.
I fear that there is no silver bullet to deal with the issue, but for all sorts of practical reasons I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord True, and others have suggested.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, so as to avoid the risk of upsetting everyone, I promise to be very brief. I want to make a totally different point, having had my attention drawn to it by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, with which I have some sympathy. I should like to know—this is in the Bill—how it can be established that a body is expressly for the purposes of,
“furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of individuals living, or wanting to live, in an area”.
What does that mean? I imagine that everybody would like to live in certain parts of London. Certainly in my county there are villages where everyone would like to live. What does this mean?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 148AZZD and 148AZB in this group, but before I touch on them perhaps I should say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True. I think that he very much set the tone for this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and others have supported him. We need a system which is flexible, and everyone should not be forced to follow the horrendous bureaucracy included in these provisions.
Our Amendment 148AZZD is consistent with those of my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Whitty and also consistent with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, whose improvisation is always a joy to the Chamber. I very much agree with his addition of the word “cultural” to one of the considerations for well-being. Amendment 148AZZD simply reiterates the point that my noble friend Lady Whitaker made—that there are concerns, particularly expressed by the RTPI, that the inclusion of the words “either or both” could mean that a local plan might be focused only on business and not have the rounded sustainable development approach. I am bound to say that concerns over that are particularly reinforced by anxieties generally that the Government are shifting the definition of sustainable development. We could be reassured on that point if we had sight of the NPPF, which I understand is very close to publication —or it was last week. That may be one point on which the noble Baroness can enlighten us when she comes to respond.
Amendment 148AZB is aligned with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, which has not been spoken to. Frankly, I am not enamoured of our wording but the amendment seeks to ensure that when membership of a neighbourhood forum includes individuals who work in the area, they should, like individuals living there, reflect the type and size of businesses in the area to prevent possible domination by large businesses.
Picking up a little on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who asked what on earth is meant by “wanting to live” in an area, perhaps the Minister can help us with the definition of neighbourhood forums being open to individuals who work there. What does that mean? Clearly, if someone has a place of work in a particular area and turns up there every day, that is clear cut and straightforward, but what about a jobbing plumber who may spend part of his time working in the area and part not, or a window cleaner who has part of his round in the area and part not? Indeed, what about someone delivering those free newspapers that we get these days? Would they be included as working in the area? What about someone who works on a construction site which may be in existence for two years, possibly when the neighbourhood forum is part-way through its work? Once work is finished on the construction site, do all the workers on it cease to be members of the forum? There are real issues of definition here which simply add to concerns about bureaucracy and we deserve some answers on them.
I turn to some of the other amendments that have been spoken to. As I have indicated, we very much support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord True, said on his amendment. We obviously support the government amendments which provide the opportunity to withdraw designation from a neighbourhood forum, although how rare that will be remains to be seen. I have indicated that we certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in adding “cultural” to the requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, took us through some of the democratic deficit in his terms and what needed to be done to try to redress that: forums should be open to all individuals and must have all-elected members. We absolutely support that. He also has Amendment 148AZZJ which says that organisations must have zero or minimal charges. That is important because you could have people squeezed out of membership by someone ratcheting up the charges.
There are a number of detailed points on some of the other amendments but the broad thrust of them is to make these arrangements more democratic and more inclusive. We are certainly supportive of all that. I think that the Government should take this collection of amendments seriously and address the issue of why everyone should be forced down the same route that is prescribed in the Bill when, at the moment, there is good practice which could be developed in other ways by a range of local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this immense number of amendments now before us. At the outset, I shall apologise because I know that one or two of them have not been spoken to, but I shall probably reply to them on the basis that I find this system of numbering confusing. Trying to work out my notes against all this ZZZ-ing has been almost impossible. If I overstretch the mark and reply too often or not enough, please forgive me and we shall sort it out at the end.
I think it is reasonable to start with the government amendments. My replies to the other amendments are clustered under various headings, and if I do not respond to them all I shall try to pick up the points that were made.
The government amendments, which are 148AA, 148AB, 148AC, 148AD and 152B, address the issue of what happens if forums fail to continue to meet the conditions and criteria and empower local councils to remove the designation of a forum in these circumstances. That is what noble Lords have pointed to.
Amendments 148ZCA and 148ZMA are intended to remove the ability of neighbourhood forums to bring forward neighbourhood planning proposals. We agree that, where they exist, parish councils will be the appropriate body to bring forward neighbourhood planning proposals. Where parish councils do not exist, we do not think that communities should be prevented from having a say in the future of their areas. Therefore, our proposals for neighbourhood forums are a pragmatic solution with safeguards in place. Those are the government amendments in this part.
Amendment 148ZZZEA, in the name of my noble friend Lord True, would allow local planning authorities to bring neighbourhood development plans and orders into effect. To achieve this, too much of the power to lead on neighbourhood planning, we believe, would be transferred back from the community to be shared with the authority. I know that my noble friend has already set up his own plans and way of operating. I say to him that neighbourhoods do not have to set up forums; if they do not want them, they do not have to have them.
Government Back-Bench Amendment 148C seeks to expand the definition of development which is excluded from neighbourhood planning. A number of noble Lords have raised this issue, which I will talk about in more detail a bit later on. Our position is that we have excluded development types and classes which, due to their scale and complexity, are inappropriate to be given planning permission through a neighbourhood development order. These include nationally significant infrastructure projects and county minerals and waste applications, which are far too big for a neighbourhood to consider. These amendments would constrain the ability of communities to develop detailed, ambitious neighbourhood plans if they choose to do so. We believe that Amendment 148C would inappropriately widen the range of development that is excluded from the scope of neighbourhood planning and thus constrain the ability of communities to develop detailed plans with major-scale proposals if they choose to do so.
Lord Beecham
What of the case that I put of a business area with discrete residential areas on either side? What is the situation there?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, if they were included in the area, they would be part of that business forum. If it was decided that, percentage-wise, the area was more business than neighbourhood, they would still have to be involved in that. If they were outside that forum, they could make their own forums, but if they were in the business forum area they would have to be included rather than be the totally driving force. Does that answer the question?
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend Lord True asked about the extent to which the regulations would lead to a one-size-fits-all approach. We think it is important that local communities put these forums together in a way that suits them, although the forums will have to be put together in conjunction with the local planning authorities. Those planning authorities will be able to see their plans at the neighbourhood level through the development plan documents, but those documents will influence the neighbourhood plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the designation of the neighbourhood forums. I think I responded to this. The local planning authority will be responsible for designating a neighbourhood area and deciding whether it is a business neighbourhood. It will be left to the local authority to decide whether there is a majority of business people or a majority of local people. The Bill does not allow for overlapping neighbourhood areas, which provides certainty as to which area you are in and which policies apply. As I said, if you are in a business area you are in a business area. Neighbourhood areas outside it will need their own forums.
I think I have responded to most of the questions that I have been asked, and I hope that with those responses noble Lords will not press their amendments to a vote.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I would still like to know how we will define the group of persons stated in the Bill as wanting to live in an area?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, lots of areas are places where people would like to live and where they aspire to live. Neighbourhood forums may know some people like that. It is not a brilliant definition, so if I can get a better answer, I will do so.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on what my noble friend has been saying. I am puzzled as to how business gets involved when a parish is the foundation for neighbourhood planning. A particular example would be this. What happens to the strawberry and cherry growers of Kent? Noble Lords may have a view of strawberry fields and cherry orchards in Kent as they remember them from their youth, but if they went there now they would see polytunnels full of Poles, which tend not to be popular. Well, the Poles are popular locally, but the polytunnels are not. It would be very difficult, under a neighbourhood planning regime, to get permission for a new strawberry field and the polytunnels involved if there was no business influence at all in a neighbourhood planning environment run by a parish council.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have a few brief points. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the debate. Other parts of this Bill and other legislation are probably going to lead to an impetus in some areas for the creation of new parish councils. But it is true to say that over three-quarters of the population of England do not live in a parished area, so there is a serious problem of the democratic deficit here.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her detailed answers to questions I and other Members put to her, but this issue is so complex that I shall have to take her responses away and read them. We will do that, and perhaps we will have the whole summer for it. However, I am not sure that the Government have yet really got a grip on the question of the democratic credibility and legitimacy of neighbourhood forums. The amendments I put down to take away the limit of 21 were not because I want to go back to three, but because I think that 21 is far too small.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend because I know that he has great experience of these matters. However, we are trying to make progress. I know that there are things that he might wish to pursue later, but the Minister has just given an extremely lengthy response which all colleagues will want to read. Perhaps I may suggest that we move on at this point and that these matters can be considered at a later stage. My noble friend may have further questions for the Minister on another occasion. I know that we are in Committee and not on Report, but I know also that the mood of the House is to move on.
Lord Greaves
The Chief Whip is absolutely right. We will have discussions later.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I may say that the mood of the House on this side is not to delay the Bill but to make sure that we do have proper scrutiny of what is a very long and complex Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will answer for himself, but I think he has been done an injustice.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, proper scrutiny is what we are all about, of course. My noble friend has just given an extremely lengthy answer which shows that this Government are also committed to just that.
Lord True
My Lords, we have had a lengthy debate, but this is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of the Bill and it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to put forward proposals and discuss it. I totally respect what my noble friend has said, so I shall seek to be brief in responding to the debate, as I sought to be brief when opening it. However, this is an extremely important matter and, again, it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to grapple with it.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy response, which I will study carefully. However, I hope she will forgive me if I say that she skated a little briefly over the fundamental point of whether there should be a permissive regime or not. As I heard it, there were two responses. One was that the proposal that I put forward might take the process a little further away from the community. My fear is that the process in this Bill will take it further away from the community, which is why I put forward in my amendment the proposal that the default position should be that all members of a local community take part. In responding, my noble friend quoted the Government’s guidance to the Bill, which states that everyone will have a chance to get involved during the process but that one group will lead it in each neighbourhood area. I have to ask why. Who thinks up these ideas? Are not local councillors, elected representatives, the people who should lead the process of forming and reconciling local opinion? Why cannot the local authority simply facilitate these matters? I question whether we need these bodies all over the place.
On my noble friend’s other response, I ask her to consider with her officials before Report her statement that local authorities do not need to set up neighbourhood forums. The Bill states that if a local authority does not set up a neighbourhood forum it must give reasons to an organisation or body applying to be designated as a neighbourhood forum. So a process exists whereby a group can ask to be a neighbourhood forum and require an answer from a local authority, which under new Section 61F(12)(d) of the Act, is then subject to regulations from the department about how the local authority must respond to that group. That might be one representative group in an organisation in an area which differs from another one. There must be some response; there are other regulations, so the response must be made in full council. I do not know whether the officials who drafted the Bill know how often full councils meet or the procedures around them. I ask for some further consideration of that central point between now and Report.
It is not necessary to impose the forums in urban areas. As the Local Government Association said—this is not a personal view—there is a risk of bureaucracy. I do not want to labour the point further, but it is one of the most important points that we have come to in the Bill. I ask the Government to reflect on the wide support that my amendment received across the Committee from almost every Peer who spoke, by which I was hugely encouraged. Having heard what was said, I intend to pursue the matter at a later stage, unless we can reach some more productive agreement during the summer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, when I put down this clause stand part debate, I might have anticipated that the previous group would cover a great deal of the ground that I want to refer to, so I shall be extremely brief. I shall begin with a bouquet to my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is very helpful that she has sent us in her document her letter to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, of 13 July setting out the purpose and thrust of the many government amendments which have been tabled. However, that is the end of my bouquet, because the fact that, on this part of the Bill alone, my noble friend has tabled well over 30 amendments illustrates what I have been referring to during the passage of the Bill; that is, that the Government are trying to micromanage the whole process. I remember hearing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proclaim that the localism legislation would be the end of top-down micromanagement. I just wonder how it has all crept into this Bill in the way that it has.
I shall say two things about this. The first is that I have been sent a large number of amendments by the Local Government Association, which is as appalled as I am by the extent of the detailed bureaucratic interference by central government. It has asked me to table a list of amendments—I have 40 of them. I simply said, “I am not going to waste the time of the House by tabling these amendments. I will send the list of the amendments to my noble friend, so that she can see what they are getting at”.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows well, his remarks are shared by myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We wish him well in his efforts to reduce a great deal of the prescription and the size of the Bill. My Amendment 148ADEA also seeks to remove unnecessary prescription and regulations and to reduce the size of the Bill. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wanted to remove the whole of Clause 101 to Room 101 but, in practice, it is the unnecessary prescriptive parts that we would all like to see go to Room 101.
I have one general question under the clause stand part debate about the funding of local planning authorities. It is clear that, as set out in the Bill, neighbourhood planning will result in extra burdens, extra costs and a need for extra resources for local planning authorities. The Government have given a guarantee to local authorities recently that any extra burdens will be funded. What guarantees are there that the extra costs on planning authorities due to neighbourhood planning will be funded, and in what way will this be done?
The amendments in relation to neighbourhood areas are probing amendments and are not to be taken literally; they are merely to probe the issues. They probe why it is desirable to designate the whole of a parish council area as a neighbourhood area and in what circumstances it may be appropriate not to do so. I think that the Minister has substantially answered that already. I particularly welcome her statement that two or more small parishes could join together, where sensible, to form one neighbourhood area, otherwise the process would become rather ridiculous. That is most welcome. They also probe why it is desirable to maintain the existing boundaries of a neighbourhood area if they are no longer appropriate and in what circumstances it may be appropriate not to do so. Perhaps more substantially, they suggest that,
“where an existing designation includes the whole or part of the area of a parish council any such modification may only be made with the consent of that council.”
In her very welcome statement that parishes could combine in a neighbourhood area where that is sensible, the Minister said that that would take place only with the consent of the parishes concerned. Surely, if the boundaries of neighbourhood areas that include the parish or part of the parish are to be changed, it is only sensible to do it with the consent of the appropriate parish council or councils. It would be helpful if we could have that assurance.
The amendments also suggest an additional consideration when a local planning authority is considering whether to designate an area as a neighbourhood area, which really gets to the core of the matter of whether the area is suitable for the purposes of neighbourhood planning. I was surprised that this consideration was not in the Bill. It seems to me to be the first and most important thing that should be considered. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak specifically to Amendment 148ADBA because it is another aspect of the problem that we have identified about parish councils and the area in which they can sit in relation to a neighbourhood plan. This amendment would remove the restriction on a parish council being part of a neighbourhood area where the rest of that neighbourhood area is unparished.
Parish councils in urban areas have existed since local government reorganisation in the early 1970s, and they can lie within wards of a local authority but may not cover the whole of that ward. As it stands, the Bill prevents such a parished area working with the unparished area when it wants to, to produce a single neighbourhood plan. This amendment simply solves that problem. However, there is a better solution, which is to turn the unparished areas with neighbourhood forums into parish councils. That would give a democratic legitimacy to neighbourhood planning which is then based on the ballot box.
The solution to this problem lies in the public services White Paper published last week. Within that, there are a set of proposals in relation to the creation of neighbourhood councils in urban areas. I noted what my noble friend the Minister said about unparished neighbourhood forums being a pragmatic solution. The difficulty is that I do not think that pragmatism goes far enough. There has to be a democratic legitimacy to neighbourhood planning, which is based on “one person, one vote” and the right to express that view.
A referendum will not be sufficient to do that because the people helping to make decisions should have a democratic base. The solution to that problem lies within the public services White Paper. It would be enormously helpful if in the next few months the aims of the Government in relation to that White Paper and neighbourhood councils could be brought together with this Bill to produce an outcome which enables unparished urban areas to have a parish council structure.
Lord True
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. They are all deigned to build greater flexibility into the Bill and make it operate more in line with the real meaning of localism as I see it and with the opinions of local people, particularly in urban areas. New Section 61G(1)(a), to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by Schedule 9, allows an authority to designate a neighbourhood area only where a would-be neighbourhood forum or parish council has asked for it. That is cumbersome and restrictive.
My Amendment 148ADA would allow a local authority simply to ask local people what they consider their neighbourhood areas to be and to designate them themselves. To quote the Bill, why do they need to wait for a,
“body which is … capable of being, designated as a neighbourhood forum”,
to ask for it? Surely a local authority can do that.
Lord Beecham
Can the noble Lord help the House with a little explanation of the effect of Amendment 148ADA? It indicates that you could have a parish council where,
“the authority has conducted a survey of the residents of its local authority area asking its residents to define their own … village … and at least 5% of the households in the local authority area”.
Does that cover a local authority—be it Richmond, Newcastle or anywhere else—if 5 per cent of the population indicate what their area is in a ballot? You could have a neighbourhood forum where perhaps nobody has responded. Or does the amendment mean that there would have to be at least a 5 per cent response within each area that was to be designated as a neighbourhood area? That is rather different from the wording that is before us.
Lord True
That may be the case and I apologise if the drafting is not clear. What I had in mind is a 5 per cent response across the local authority area. It seems to me that if only a very small number respond to say that they want this place to be designated as an area or village, ipso facto that demonstrates that they do not see it as an area. However, if a significant number do, then they would. Some of these may be small. My Amendment 148ADD would require an authority to take account of local people’s preferences in the survey. Perhaps I could answer the noble Lord by saying he is right—it is not a problem in rural areas but it is an urban problem. My authority, along with others, has conducted surveys. In the survey we had locally, the response level was above 5 per cent and the respondents designated 14 different areas that they defined as the area in which they live, or as their local area. The population size varied from a few hundred up to several thousand. My contention is that, prima facie, that is a community that feels it is a community and can be designated, if we go through this model in the Bill, as a neighbourhood area. Have I made myself clear?
Lord Beecham
No, because you could have 5 per cent of Newcastle or Richmond concentrated in part of the authority. That would then appear to validate the creation of neighbourhood forums in parts that have expressed no interest whatever.
Lord True
I apologise. I am not good at drafting but I do want to press on and let the House make progress.
When people were asked to respond as to what their neighbourhood area was, those areas often overlapped, not just horizontally but vertically. People in an urban area can very easily feel attached to two geographical concepts and at different levels—a community and a town. My Amendment 148ADE challenges what I think is, again, a rigid concept in the Bill that no neighbourhood area may overlap another one. It allows people to be members of and participate in more than one neighbourhood area, if they have said in a survey that they feel part of or influenced by events and developments in more than one area. In the previous group, my noble friend was moving towards that by saying that people outside the area could participate in a referendum. However, people’s perceptions about planning may differ also within an area—two communities may have different views, say, about local parking standards but be united on back-garden development across the whole of the town, or on shops. The last thing I would contest is the guidance to the Bill, which says that there should be a strong assumption that existing ward boundaries will define the neighbourhood area. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also addressed this point.
Anyone who has been involved in representations to the Local Government Boundary Commission will tell you that lines drawn by the commission are frequently strongly contested and often bear absolutely no relation to community realities. Take my own small town, which is covered by parts of three different wards. The neighbouring ward contains two communities that, in the survey I mentioned, self-defined as two separate communities—Mortlake and Barnes. They saw themselves as entirely different. Barnes is actually split between two wards, while Twickenham is covered by four wards. I do not see how you can address neighbourhood planning simply in an urban area without allowing flexibility to stray across these neighbourhood areas, both horizontally and vertically, as I have put it. The concepts in the Bill are therefore potentially too rigid and problems arise only because of that. I shall not press these amendments, but I ask my noble friend to reflect on this point: we should allow communities, where we can, to define their own place, coalesce and differ for different purposes as they wish, and not to be locked into one neighbourhood area for five years. They should be facilitated in doing that by a local authority, which has the flexibility to move the pieces around and bring people together for different purposes. That would be real, active localism and not the rather rigid approach set out in the Bill at this point.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will be brief. First, can I say how much we appreciate the effort that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is making to try to get some of the bureaucracy out of this Bill? We would be very interested in staying in touch with his considerations, with the LGA and the Minister, to see what progress is being made. That would certainly help the passage of the Bill when we come to Report and subsequent stages.
On the separate amendments, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that we should not be in a situation whereby you can designate a neighbourhood forum only if you are asked to do so. There ought to be flexibility for an authority itself to do that, as long as there is sufficient community support. I will not go into the arithmetic of how the 5 per cent works. We support the thrust of that. The idea of two or more parish councils joining together has been supported.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in seeking to deal with overlap with parish councils, made a very valid point. He is right in the sense that the best solution would be for it all to be a parish council, or more than one parish council. But even if that is not the case, I do not see why that overlap could not be part of the flexibility that is around these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wanted a suitability test. I am not quite sure why that is not encompassed within the desirability test, but perhaps we should not at this hour get into the semantics of that. I see what he is seeking to achieve, and I certainly support the noble Lord in seeking to delete a lot of the regulation-making powers in the provisions.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their brevity in introducing these amendments. I do not think that I want to comment widely on what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said in addressing the stand part. It was not entirely to do with this part of the Bill but was a much more wide-ranging discussion on the nature of the Bill and his concerns about it. I am glad to know that he will be able to express them to the Minister who is handling the Bill, Greg Clark, and I am sure that the discussions will be well received, because Greg Clark has been very notable in consensus in the other place. Whether he will be able to be consensual with what is being said, I do not know. Noble Lords say that the Bill is trying to micromanage all the processes, but we do not think that that is what we are trying to do. It intends to provide guidance in regulations and to use a light-touch way to bring in what is in many cases, in many parts of the Bill, a new way to manage local areas and authorities.
I want to address one or two areas that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, has a very great deal of concerns about this Bill. There is not a lot that I can say to reassure him to make it any better. But as regards why the local authority should make decisions, I think that the noble Lord himself, as leader of a council, would be very upset if the council did not have a role in ensuring that neighbourhood forums were where they were wanted by the neighbourhood. He would be upset if they were not properly constructed in a way that the council thought was sensible, as well as the people who lived in that area. On why communities will be taking the initiative in planning their areas and on who will initiate the process of deciding a neighbourhood area, the local council will have an important role in the work of ensuring that they are coherent. On overlapping areas and ward boundaries, the latter are reasonably sensible in towns, being well understood and well designated. They largely cover similar areas and similar problems. However, I do not believe that there is any difficulty in cities. If I am wrong about this, I will be corrected and will come back on it but I see no reason why there should not be two forums within a ward, if that is the way the ward splits up.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I apologise but whatever may be true in towns, perhaps I might give a direct illustration. My wife’s ward on Braintree District Council is called Coggeshall and North Feering. The neighbouring ward is Feering and Kelvedon, and I need hardly say that North Feering almost certainly sees itself as more closely related for most purposes with Feering and Kelvedon than with Coggeshall, which is roughly two and a half to three miles away. The reason for this is that the ward boundaries have been drawn to produce reasonable equality in order to justify the numbers of councillors. They have nothing to do with the sort of things that we are talking about. Again, we are seeking flexibility, not a straitjacket.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I confirm that I was right that wards can divide themselves or be divided into more than one neighbourhood forum, which may pick up on some of the points that my noble friend Lord Newton has made. There is a certain coherence within ward boundaries, but that coherence may be of people having more than one sense of community to come together in a forum within those boundaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the point about the coming together of the public services White Paper and this legislation. I have not read that White Paper in huge depth but I am sure that somebody has. My sensible answer is to say that we will look at that to see whether there are overlaps or differences. Parish councils are going to be the main type of council in the country that has a mandate to undertake a neighbourhood plan because I gather that, by definition, most areas anywhere in the countryside are parished.
Amendment 148ADCAA is intended to allow a neighbourhood area to cover more than one parish area, where two or more parish councils make a joint application. As I think I said in reply to the previous debate, we are pretty content with that. Our position on many existing town or parish council boundaries is that they will form logical boundaries for neighbourhood planning. I appreciate that there is a great difference in the numbers that are in parish councils, but they will be able to divide themselves into one or two if they wish.
I am not going to comment on all the amendments, as I am told that we have to keep to a very tight timetable. I hope that most of my remarks cover most of the sense of the debate. Perhaps I should quickly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He asked whether a neighbourhood plan could be produced covering a parished and a non-parished area. The answer to that is no. The Bill already allows for parishes to work with non-parished areas in preparing comprehensive neighbourhood plans covering both parished and non-parished areas. Neighbourhood forums should be able to become parish councils and we hope that many neighbourhood forums will take the opportunity of producing a neighbourhood plan to consider becoming a new parish council. The Government are required to provide resources to local authorities in respect of any new statutory duty under the new burdens scheme, so the answer to the question of whether there will be financial support is yes.
I hope that with that noble Lords will be happy to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very disappointed that my noble friend is not paying more mind to the amendments of my noble friend Lord True. Life is complicated out there. I know that Kensington and Chelsea are pretty uniform places, but even if she were to stray south of the river into Battersea, where I spend some of my time, she would find that it was very difficult to draw boundaries that will have any sense of agreement. There will be a tendency for fragments of local communities to try to grab territory for themselves in an unco-ordinated way. That will apply particularly in the deeper inner cities where community tends to be defined by origin rather than by geography. Under those circumstances, it would be very helpful to have a local authority—which after all is used to dealing with the coherence of the area and how it works—setting out at least some framework by which people can operate. They can always propose something different if they feel that they need to, but to have that coherence offered by a local authority would be immensely helpful.
As regards overlapping areas, how do you deal with somewhere like Winchester, say, which is obviously too big to deal with as a neighbourhood but needs coherence over that area when it comes to neighbourhood planning? Going back to a point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made on the previous occasion, how do you deal with areas where there is a city or a large town which is confined within boundaries that are too tight and needs to work with its surrounding areas to expand? Under both those circumstances we are going to need to think of local flexible solutions that work with the grain of the neighbourhood and produce the right solutions for those circumstances. We are going to need flexibility. I am very disappointed that my noble friend the Minister does not think that that is required.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a small group. In moving Amendment 148ZZEA, I wish to speak also to Amendments 148ZL and 150ZZA, with which it is grouped. All three refer to national parks. Amendment 148ZL states:
“A neighbourhood development order may not be made in a national park”.
Amendment 150ZZA states that a neighbourhood development plan can be done only,
“with the consent of the National Park Authority”.
That is in a national park, obviously. These amendments seek to ask the Government whether they have thought about the role of neighbourhood planning in national parks. Is the same model appropriate? If it is appropriate, should there be extra safeguards to prevent decisions of local residents, and/or businesses, overriding the national interest? Planning in national parks is different. National parks are different. The reason they are national parks is because they comprise very special areas. Because of this, planning is done differently and is the responsibility of national park authorities, which are a partnership between local interests—representatives of local authorities and parish councils in the area—and national interests comprising independent members appointed by the Secretary of State. National park governance is being looked at by the Government and there may be some changes. However, I do not think that that basic principle will change.
The system of neighbourhood planning set out in the Bill does not seem to cater adequately for the national interest in national parks. Neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood development plans will have to conform to the local plan—the national park plan. I assume that that is the case, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. However, further safeguards are still needed. For instance, a referendum of local residents on a neighbourhood development order does not allow for the national interest to be involved in the referendum decision—and clearly it cannot.
We see a conflict over planning applications in national parks. Very often the recommendations of district and parish councils are not invariably followed by the national park authority. There are good reasons for that—there has to be a balance between local and national interests because they are national parks. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but this is an issue that the Government have perhaps not yet properly thought through. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that the short answer to my noble friend’s question is that I understand that the powers in relation to national parks are extremely different from what we have been talking about. Neighbourhood development orders would be allowed in national park areas, but they would still have to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan. I also understand and appreciate that national parks may cover more than one local authority, and it would therefore depend on which area they were in with regard to the local plan. NDOs would have to be appropriate and have regard to national policy. The national policy framework would govern that, but there is an area within that that we can discuss. The situation is covered, and the fact that NDOs would have to conform with the local plans and the national policy frameworks would be enough to suggest that development orders could be formed in that area.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am not sure that that is a satisfactory answer. I thank my noble friend for it but there needs to be further discussion about this matter and exactly how these new types of local plan will impact on the very special areas that are national parks. There is time for further discussion and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 150E, 152ZD, 152AA and 152BA. As we have discussed, involving communities in planning for neighbourhoods is significant. It provides the opportunity for local communities to engage in shaping their local environments now and in the future. However, I reiterate the concern that others have raised about the complex provisions that have to be grappled with at a time of growing scarcity of resources to local authorities and neighbourhoods. We should also be worried about the potential lack of accountability in the preparation of neighbourhood plans.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Royal Town Planning Institute has set out other options that would not require this additional cumbersome legislation. However, we are where we are. There remains, however, a real risk that the overly complex nature of the proposed system may mean that neighbourhood planning will not be as visionary, widespread or effective as intended. However, we acknowledge that improvements have been made on Report in another place.
Our Amendment 148ZZF defines a neighbourhood development order as an order that implements an NDP or a DPD policy. This is part of the proposition to reduce the complexity of the neighbourhood planning system whereby NDOs are considered within a wider neighbourhood context.
It is suggested that this is necessary with regard to neighbourhood planning to ensure that developments consented to through NDOs and community right to build orders are based on a comprehensive understanding of issues. The RTPI understands that that may be the intention behind the provisions in the Bill, but does not believe that it is clear from the relevant clauses as drafted. The amendment is supplemented by Amendments 152ZD and 152AA, the latter requiring proposals for NDOs to be accompanied by the NDP or DPD policies they are intended to implement.
Amendment 150E again addresses an issue raised by the RTPI, which recommends that neighbourhood plans and the associated referendum should be used to express the community's priorities for investment in the area—for example, the community's priorities for any CIL or the new homes bonus. That would help to ensure that neighbourhood planning is clearly linked with sources of investment in neighbourhoods, such as proposals for the new homes bonus and community budgeting and thinking about community assets, and would make neighbourhood plans more positive and meaningful.
I will comment on the plethora of other amendments in the group in due course, but, in the mean time, I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have more than a few amendments in this group. Again, I shall not refer specifically to them because that would take too long; I will just try to cover the issues in most cases.
One of the most important amendments is about neighbourhood development orders. It seems to us that neighbourhood plans can fit into the existing planning system reasonably well, especially if they have to comply with the broad aspects of the local and national planning guidance. Neighbourhood development orders seem to be more difficult, and could have a fairly disruptive effect on proper planning if we are not careful.
The lead amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has covered the crucial question of the relationship between neighbourhood and development orders and the existing development plan and its components. I think he referred to the national policy planning framework and other national guidance. If neighbourhood development orders have to comply in a general or strategic way with existing plans, is it the same as if they were ordinary planning applications or is it in some way different? Is the degree to which they have to comply less or the same? My second question is whether neighbourhood development orders and plans can be made and adopted if the local plan has not yet been adopted. I recently received a Written Answer suggesting that just over 100 local planning authorities have now adopted a core strategy. That leaves several hundred who have not, and it is not clear how long it will take them—although quite a few more are in the pipeline and have been submitted for examination. That is an important issue, because there will be a hiatus in many places.
New Section 61E(2) in the Town and Country Planning Act to be inserted by the Bill states:
“A ‘neighbourhood development order’ is an order which grants planning permission …
(a) for development specified in the order, or
(b) for development of any class specified in the order”.
One of my amendments, Amendment 148ZZJ, probes what that means. What is the relationship of that word to the usually understood types of planning permission? People talk about full planning permission and outline planning permission. If it is an outline application, it requires a further application for the details. Even if it is a full application, there may well still be reserved matters that require a further application or, perhaps more likely, the written consent of the local planning authority. How will this work with neighbourhood development orders, which are effectively for outline permission? Does it mean that outline permission can be given for, say, housing, perhaps with details of access and nothing more? In that case, how will the detailed application be determined? Will it need another neighbourhood development order and, if not, will the parish council or even the neighbourhood forum deal with it and give consent for the details, or will it then have to be passed to the local planning authority? I cannot work out from the Bill the answers to these questions. Indeed, can the developers just get on with it, with no further permissions required? If so, that would drive a coach and horses through proper planning.
So far as concerns the area covered by a neighbourhood development order, new Section 61E(2) states:
“A ‘neighbourhood development order’ is an order which grants planning permission in relation to a particular neighbourhood area”.
Can that mean just part of a neighbourhood area? Once the neighbourhood area has been defined as a parish or an urban area with a neighbourhood forum, can a neighbourhood development order relate to part of that area rather than the whole area? Again, the position is not clear to me.
New Section 61I(5) states:
“A neighbourhood development order may not relate to more than one neighbourhood area”,
but the boundaries of neighbourhood areas may not relate to a reasonable proposal on the ground. This concerns the flexibility issue that has been talked about. Why cannot two parish councils or two neighbourhood forums co-operate to make one neighbourhood development order for an area which straddles a boundary —for example, an area of disused land, perhaps with former industrial use, old railways sidings and so on—between two clearly defined neighbourhoods where the development site forms a natural marginal border area? Would that not be possible under this system and would there therefore be a need to go for a normal planning application?
New Section 61I(4) states:
“A neighbourhood development order may not grant planning permission for any development in any particular case where planning permission is already granted for that development in that case”.
I do not understand what that means. How exact and specific do the two cases have to be? Is it referring to exactly the same area, exactly the same kind of development or exactly the same planning permission in detail, or do the cases have to be similar, and how similar? The Bill seems to be fairly vague. What happens if there is an existing planning permission and a neighbourhood development order grants permission for a different kind of development—for example, a housing scheme in a place where there is already permission for a retail development? Do the two then stand side by side, with one planning permission and one neighbourhood development order that could be taken up, or does the neighbourhood development order eliminate the existing planning permission?
What is the role of local planning authorities in examinations of neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders? The Bill says that they have a right to appear if there is a hearing but what if there is no hearing? Does the local planning authority have an automatic right to comment on the plan, engage with the inspector or examiner, and make representations and recommendations?
Setting standards for neighbourhood development orders is an area where clear rules are plainly needed. Our amendment says that the Secretary of State “must”, not “may”, make regulations here. This is one area where regulations are clearly needed, otherwise the standards will not exist. If the proposed standards for the preparation of the neighbourhood development order and other documents cover what is in any documents, as well as, under the Bill, the,
“collection, sources, verification, processing and presentation of information”,
it is crucial that this process takes place in a professional, efficient way, and it also costs money.
New Section 61I(6) states:
“A neighbourhood development order may make different provision for different cases or circumstances”.
I do not understand how that will work. Does it mean that a neighbourhood development order can cover a range of different planning permissions for the same site? It seems to mean that. Normally, you get planning permission for a particular project on a particular site in an area, so how will that work?
Finally, there is an intriguing provision in new Section 61K(4) which says that the Secretary of State may issue regulations to make provision for,
“treating parish councils as local planning authorities (instead of, or in addition to, the authorities) for the purposes of the determination of applications for approvals”.
Is this really a practical proposition? What assessment has been made of the availability of professional planning staff to support parish councils as planning authorities? Would it be a general provision or would just a few large town councils apply? What criteria would be applied? Would it make the system more efficient? I can imagine that a town council might demand that every application goes to the council rather than through the system of delegation which is typically used about 90 per cent of the time now in local planning authorities.
I also have a series of amendments calling for less detailed prescription in all sorts of ways, but that matter has been debated and argued very extensively so I shall not pursue it further.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 151 is quite simple. I am interested in the Government’s views on how strong a neighbourhood plan will be. If someone has been left out of a neighbourhood plan and still wants to develop their property, will they have the same scope to go for a departure as they do at the moment, or will there be a strong presumption that the neighbourhood plan prevails?
Amendment 152ZB deals with the way in which neighbourhood plans intersect with development orders. A lot of planning permission goes through under development orders which, quite rightly, a district, a county or a borough will not have a particular interest in, but which a neighbourhood will have an interest in. Neighbourhoods are very interested in the way in which their local shopping streets develop, for example. Many things that can happen to a shopping street can happen under the general permissions given under a development order. I am interested in the way in which those two intersect.
Amendment 152 is a little more complicated than that. Rural and semi-rural parishes, where there is a lot of scope for development, will become wealthy—that is the wrong word; they will have a lot of money at their disposal as a result of this Bill. A typical parish will go round its residents and ask what they want and will also go round all the neighbouring landlords and say, “If we give you the sort of permissions you are looking for, what will you do for the community?”. That is the only way it can work, because if that did not happen, any landlord who had a deal to offer could upset the referendum by saying to people voting in it, “Why are you voting for this and giving Farmer Jones £1 million as a result of the development? If you had asked me, I would have said that you could have had £0.5 million towards the village hall, a new village shop or to subsidise the bus service and that I would require only £0.5 million if you put those houses on my land”.
Inevitably, there has to be that kind of negotiation with all the local landlords. The neighbourhood plan, when it emerges, will be a document which results in a very substantial flow of funds from landlords to the community. In what way they will provide those funds, whether by permissions or by being prepared to build things for the community or subsidise things for the community, will be a total re-establishment of relationships between landlords and the community and a much more equal appreciation of sharing benefits and burdens of development. I reckon that you would probably get the planning game settling down at about 50:50 between the landlord and the community.
Incidentally, this will render entirely unnecessary the argument that we had a few days ago about the community right to bid. Most of my noble friends were worrying about relatively rural communities. They will be in a position to buy. They will have funds potentially sitting around to buy the cricket pitch. They will not be hanging around waiting to see whether they can raise money. They will be well off and have a great deal of flexibility where such things are concerned and anyone wanting to sell local property will start to think of the local community as being a place to find a purchaser. Under those circumstances, inevitably one gets into a position where there is scope for corruption. We have to be careful that that does not occur. In a small community, people by and large know each other's business: but everything ought to be open. It is essential that when one deals with these sums of money—hundreds of thousands of pounds—everything ought to be open for inspection, so that everybody can see what deals have been proposed by landlords, what the basis is for choosing particular deals that have gone into a neighbourhood plan and what deals have been cast aside. Nothing should be hidden, everything should be open. That way, at a neighbourhood level, we will have pretty good insurance against corruption.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Lucas, said on this grouping. My conclusion is that the developer who offers the most money to the community will get his planning permission. It sounds like a Dutch auction, with very little to do with the sustainability arguments that the Committee talked about in the past two days. Perhaps I have got it wrong; I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister says in response.
Lord Lucas
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is being entirely too untrusting of communities and of the structures in the Bill. First, the wider issues of sustainability clearly come in to the examination of the plan. A site on a flood plain, for example, which has been proposed merely because the landlord is prepared to offer 70 per cent of value rather than 50 per cent, will clearly not get through the process. Secondly, communities will make a judgment. Sustainability is a concept that has a meaning for a community that is not there in its wider application; it is how the community evolves and flourishes. There will be many aspects of that which will apply to individual sites and bear as heavily as the amount of money that may come out of the site.
Communities will take a sophisticated judgment on which plans they wish to have. They will be well aware of the advantages and disadvantages to them of putting a development in a particular location. Landlords will likewise be able to see, for example, that this is the obvious place to put houses and so they do not need to give the community as much. If the neighbouring farmer wants to have a development on his land and it is slightly more of an eyesore, he will be asking the community to accept a greater burden in having the development there, so the community will need a greater benefit. That is the fundamental of neighbourhood planning. Under the current system, the farmer gets all the benefits and the neighbourhood gets the burdens. Under this system, the benefits are shared. How great the burden is should be reflected in how great the benefit is.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I will start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Certainly, neighbourhood development orders will be effective within the terms of local development plans. These plans will designate areas for development. Although a neighbourhood development order will be able to point to where the community feels it would be appropriate to have development, it can do that only if it coincides with the local development plan. Therefore, it can grant planning permission only where it is doing that in accordance with what has already been agreed. There are also safeguards in place to ensure that proposals contribute to the delivery of sustainable development. We do not expect communities to plan for an unsustainable future. As my noble friend said, with mega-developments the money will not go directly to the community but will go through CIL, as we have discussed. That will be the charge on the development. The community then will get a proportion of that to help with whatever it is deemed to require.
Neighbourhood development orders have to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan and with national planning policies. We discussed that earlier. We want to make it clear in the Bill that neighbourhood development orders are very flexible. They can permit different types and classes of development. For example—I was asked a question on this—a community could decide that it wants to use neighbourhood development orders to give full or outline planning permission for a specific development scheme, for several types of development schemes across a wider area or to extend permitted development rights more generally across the neighbourhood area. However, that has to be done within the plans that it has already put forward and agreed with the council and the community through the referendum. Legally, a neighbourhood development order can grant planning permission under the terms. A development order can only grant planning permission for development specified in the order and could still permit a whole class of development, for example a change of use.
The Bill’s provisions seek to ensure that a neighbourhood development order cannot grant planning permission for a development that already has planning permission. I think that that makes sense. If a planning authority has already given permission for a development on a site, for example, that planning is already in place and it cannot consequently be changed unless the applicant makes changes to the plans, which then would need to be dealt with in the neighbourhood order.
I have already said that the community will decide whether it wants to use neighbourhood development orders to give full or outline planning permission.
The test of general conformity with strategic policies in the local development plan currently in place in the area covers what I said. I was asked whether the local development plan has to be conformed with, and we have said yes several times.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a short contribution about developers buying off the community. There are crucial safeguards in place to ensure that proposals contribute and are kept within the confines of regulations.
I think that that more or less addresses the questions that I was asked. I will also have to move two government amendments: Amendments 148ZA and 148ZB. I wrote to noble Lords with an explanation of what the amendments do. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I do not propose to go into much further detail. However, I am happy to write to noble Lords on any detailed questions that they may have subsequently. I therefore beg leave to move my amendments, which I do formally.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
Would the noble Baroness allow us to dispose of the existing amendment first? She can move her amendments when this one has been withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham
I ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendments that they have put forward on the basis of my responses.
Lord Greaves
I asked two questions. If a neighbourhood development order gives outline planning permission, which body is then responsible for dealing with the detailed planning permission which presumably has to follow? That was the first question, and the most important one.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I would like to add another question. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as he moved a number of amendments. There is probably not time for the Minister to answer them now, but perhaps she will be able to write to us with a detailed answer to the questions relating to how a small parish council will have the resources to grant planning permission, if it is going to.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I understand that we are under pressure of time and I am totally in support of getting this Bill through. However, that should not reduce us to the sort of Commons Committee stage format we seem to be reaching of no answers being given to amendments that have been moved and spoken to. I do not feel that I have been answered in any respect in any of the amendments that I raised. The Minister has available to her the option of agreeing to write in detail to noble Lords to cover points she has not answered. She also has the option of suggesting meetings between now and Report. I very much hope that she will avail herself of those, because otherwise I shall feel the need to speak at much greater length to make sure that my points are properly recorded.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. The more we got into the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Lucas, and some of the responses that came forward, the more complex this issue became. I am still not clear what the boundaries of the neighbourhood development order will be in all respects and why it could not be used simply as a tool to deliver the development plan policies or the neighbourhood plan policies as a more efficient and effective route of engendering neighbourhood planning. However, I will read the record and consider whether we need to return to this on Report.
The exchange between my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, around financial consideration is extremely important, because we are going to come on to what I think will be quite a substantial debate on Clause 124—I was going to say shortly, but hopefully at some stage before we rise tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made an important point about making sure that transparency is absolutely key for there to be confidence in whatever system we have.
The idea of financial inducements flowing from all of this—as I understand it, and I am not a planning lawyer—takes us down a rather sticky and difficult path. We have issues around CIL and Section 106, the application of which has been narrowed. If this is seen as an opportunity for there to be inducements beyond those related to the development, that is quite a significant departure from where we have been in planning policy since 1947. Perhaps we will have the chance to expand on this in a later debate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“(5) If—
(a) there are two applicable referendums under that Schedule (because the order relates to a neighbourhood area designated as a business area under section 61GA), and(b) in one of those referendums (but not the other) more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the order,the authority may (but need not) make a neighbourhood development order to which the proposal relates.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness a question on this. I am sorry, I think it applies to Amendment 148ZA as well—I think I am in the right amendment here, with all these Zs. I am grateful for the explanatory letter that came with these government amendments, which touch upon issues of non-domestic ratepayers and their involvement with a referendum. Can the noble Baroness confirm that with non-domestic ratepayers we are not just dealing with businesses, we are dealing with a whole range of other organisations which would be non-domestic ratepayers, for example, charities?
Could we have clarity in respect of how many votes somebody gets? Is it one vote per hereditament, even though there might be several hereditaments occupied by the same entity, or is it one per entity, however many hereditaments are actually occupied? The amendment presupposes that there will be more than one referendum in relation to a proposition, although the noble Baroness’s letter referred to there being one referendum at the same time, although the votes will be counted separately. The proposition seemed to be that it was one referendum, not more than one referendum, but perhaps the noble Baroness might clarify that for us.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, if the referendums are on different subjects, I think that is where the duplication came from. Of course, they would be counted separately, they would be carried out on the same day, and they might even have different rules attached to them, depending on what they were about. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question. With regard to votes, there would be one vote per listed non-domestic ratepayer and, as I understand it, there would be one vote for anybody on the electoral register. “Non-domestic ratepayer” is one business and if there was a resident it would be on the electoral register.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If, for example, a supermarket had two different establishments in a particular area, they might be separately rated, separate hereditaments—is that one vote or two?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not know if the scheme we are running can do that. I will check and I will write to the noble Lord, but my gut feeling would be that if they were in the same neighbourhood area it would probably be two if they were separately rated because it is one per listed non-domestic ratepayer. If that is not correct, I will write to the noble Lord.
I will just say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that I thought I had addressed his concern about financial inducements by saying that there could only be an exchange of money around planning on the basis of agreed local development plans and any negotiations that have been done on those to reduce CIL or Section 106. Having said that, I also agree that anything that is done needs to be transparent, and we will make sure that that is the case.
Lord Greaves
On this question of voting, if there is a small business, a corner shop, for example, where the shopkeeper also lives, does that shopkeeper then have two votes?
Baroness Valentine
I support the government amendments but would like to make one suggestion about simplification. There should be two votes in all cases, a business and a residential vote, except where either businesses or residents are a negligible presence in the neighbourhood area. The benefit of that would be that the local authority can test the mood of both residents and business. Where they agree, the vote would be binding, but where they disagree the solution is likely to be a mediated solution rather than a yes/no vote. That is likely to represent a more sustainable solution where the residents and businesses vote differently. My plea would be for there to be a business and residential vote in most situations, with the local authority taking the casting vote. From a civic society point of view, the businesses would never override the residential vote and the default would be for the local authority to take the view.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to add to the Minister’s burdens, but I would like a little clarification. In her recent intervention, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has continued to use the term “business vote”, but as the Minister has rightly pointed out it is a non-domestic vote, which presumably includes the local authority’s own buildings, and indeed government offices, so she might be casting votes up and down the country. However, I have a difficulty—it might just be me, I must confess—with Amendment 148ZB. The latter provision in Amendment 148AE requires an authority in effect to consider whether a business area should be designated as a neighbourhood area, but Amendment 148ZB talks about a situation in which there are,
“two applicable referendums under that Schedule (because the order relates to a neighbourhood area designated as a business area under section 61GA)”.
Am I correct in thinking that there are two applicable referendums because they relate both to a business area and to a residential neighbourhood area? I do not quite understand the reference to “two applicable referendums”. If there are to be two applicable referendums, I come back to the question that I posed earlier about a business area that might adjoin two separate residential neighbourhood areas. I do not understand how this will work for referendums and how proposed new subsection (5)(b) in Amendment 148ZB will operate, because there might conceivably be three referendums: one for the business area and one for each of the two adjoining residential areas. If I am correct that that might occur, the outcome will be somewhat complicated.
Frankly, I do not expect the Minister to be able to give an answer off the cuff, although she may do, in which case I will nominate her for a Nobel prize for understanding daft legislation. I would be very grateful if she could indicate that she will write to me and perhaps place a copy of the letter in the Library afterwards.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have two responses to give. The first response is to my noble friend Lord Greaves, who asked about residential accommodation above business premises. Both would have votes, so there would be two votes. The second response is to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. If he will forgive me, I will write in response to his points about the referendums.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148ZE, I will also speak to Amendments 148ABA, 150C and 152C in the same group. These amendments are basically about equality.
New Section 61E(8), which was inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, says that the local planning authority can refuse to make a neighbourhood development order in the event of non-compliance with “any EU obligation” or with the Human Rights Act 1998. Amendment 148ZE would add compliance with the Equality Act 2010 to these obligations. Amendment 150C makes the same stipulation about a local development plan. Amendment 148ABA states that a neighbourhood forum exercises,
“a function of a public nature when exercising functions under”,
the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. Amendment 152C would require an equalities impact assessment on neighbourhood development orders.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the Minister might say that these issues are otherwise covered in legislation. If they are, fine, but if they are not I certainly support these amendments. If one needs any convincing, one can just turn to the department’s own equality impact assessment. The answer to the questions,
“Which group(s) of people have been identified as being disadvantaged by your proposals?”,
and,
“What are the equality impacts?”,
is people from black and minority ethnic communities. Where any group within the community participates less in the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, for whatever reason, there is a risk that those plans will not reflect the needs or wishes of those people. Those needs or wishes might not necessarily be linked in any way to the particular characteristics of those groups, but nevertheless might concern matters that are properly addressed through the planning system. There is, however, evidence to suggest that members of minority ethnic communities are less likely to engage with the planning system in the preparation of a neighbourhood plan. It is vital that we address that issue, so it is important that we address these propositions in relation to the Equality Act.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his comments. Our position is that the safeguards are in place in the neighbourhood planning provisions. Neighbourhood forums do not exercise a public function, so the public sector equalities duty does not apply. The Bill requires forums to have an open approach to their membership and to have sought secure membership from across the neighbourhood area, so there is more than an expectation that everyone will be represented in the area, particularly if there are ethnic minority groups living together, because there often are. Neighbourhood planning proposals cannot be approved unless they are compatible with human rights obligations, and will be subject to consultation, publicity requirements, independent examination and a community referendum.
We particularly want neighbourhood planning to be an open and inclusive process, and we want the whole community to be at its heart. I want noble Lords to know that we will set out regulations and requirements for consultation with and participation by the public to ensure that this is the case. I hope that with the assurance I have given that the amendment is not totally necessary—we do have in mind the areas that have been discussed—the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for that response, but the answer was not exactly what I was expecting. I thought that the Minister was going to say that neighbourhood forums were exercising a function of a public nature and therefore would be covered by existing legislation. However, she said that they would not be exercising a function of a public nature and so ought not to be covered by the legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to try to make sure that they are covered.
If what the Minister has said is correct, we will have a situation in which neighbourhood plans and development orders are treated differently in parishes from neighbourhood forums in unparished areas. Parish councils are covered by the duties in the Equality Act, and they could not possibly argue that in the production of neighbourhood plans and development orders, they were not exercising a function of a public nature. Everything they do is a function of a public nature. One group will be covered, but in the unparished areas of our large cities and towns, where on balance it is perhaps more important that the legislation should apply because many of the local people may be classed as disadvantaged, hard to reach and so on, it will not apply.
It is difficult to argue that promoting a neighbourhood development order, and particularly promoting and putting together a local plan, is not a function of a public nature. Putting together a plan at any level, whether it be for a district or a neighbourhood, has to be a function of a public nature. I have not been given the answer I expected and I think the response I got initially makes me even more concerned that this ought to be in the Bill to make sure that the Equality Act applies.
For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that we shall certainly want to have further discussions with the Government about this before the Report stage, and I may wish to bring the matter back then.
Baroness Hanham
“(8A) A local planning authority may withdraw an organisation or body’s designation as a neighbourhood forum if they consider that the organisation or body is no longer meeting—
(a) the conditions by reference to which it was designated, or(b) any other criteria to which the authority were required to have regard in making the designation;and, where an organisation or body’s designation is withdrawn, the authority must give reasons to the organisation or body.”
Baroness Hanham
“(ba) suspending the operation of any duty of a local planning authority under paragraph 6 or 7 of Schedule 4B in cases where they are considering the withdrawal of the designation of an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum,”
Baroness Hanham
“61GA Neighbourhood areas designated as business areas
(1) Whenever a local planning authority exercise their powers under section 61G to designate an area as a neighbourhood area, they must consider whether they should designate the area concerned as a business area.
(2) The reference here to the designation of an area as a neighbourhood area includes the modification under section 61G(6) of a designation already made.
(3) The power of a local planning authority to designate a neighbourhood area as a business area is exercisable by the authority only if, having regard to such matters as may be prescribed, they consider that the area is wholly or predominantly business in nature.
(4) The map published by a local planning authority under section 61G(8) must state which neighbourhood areas (if any) are for the time being designated as business areas.”
Lord Lucas
My Lords, since the noble Baroness has not spoken to this amendment, perhaps I may ask a question. Would she regard Kensington High Street as a business area or are we talking about areas like Westfield? In other words, how little interaction has there to be with a residential neighbourhood before it is allowed to be a business area?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, somewhere with as much residential accommodation attached to it as Kensington High Street might not necessarily fit into the business category. We have already talked about areas which are mainly shopping areas, and the noble Lord mentioned Westfield as an example. Practically all of it is a business area rather than residential. That is more what we are talking about.
Baroness Hanham
( ) development that would be likely to harm a heritage asset of national importance or its setting.”
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, this is a probing amendment which has been tabled with the intention of exploring what seems to be a striking omission in the Bill; namely, to take explicit account of the importance in the planning context of the historic heritage, including the archaeological heritage. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, the chair of English Heritage, has authorised me to say that she supports these amendments and would speak to them if she had been able to be here today.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. In due course I shall invite her to make her own observations.
We are told by ministerial sources that the national planning policy framework will soon be available in draft form and that it may be in hand for later stages of this Bill. But that does not help the present situation. It has been suggested in news reports that the national planning policy for the historic environment, PPS5, and in particular the requirement for pre-application archaeological assessment, will no longer apply to local planning decisions. It would be helpful to have an explicit ministerial assurance that the policy will remain in force and have statutory effect. This amendment would go part of the way towards reinforcing that.
Great unease has been caused in the heritage community by a recent speech by a local council leader, Councillor Alan Melton of Fenland District Council, who was reported in the Cambs Times on 22 June. The article stated:
“Regulations governing new developments including the need for archaeological surveys are to be swept aside from July 1 in a purge designed to get Fenland building again”.
I think he may have gone too far and perhaps may have realised that, but this is exactly the point. What are the safeguards which are not on the face of this Bill, and why are they not here?
The amendment, along with Amendment 149A, seeks to ensure that the local planning authority makes a determination as to whether a proposed development might harm a heritage asset of national importance. That it will normally do by referring to the local heritage environment record. The amendment places the onus on the developer to seek such a determination from the local planning authority before proceeding.
The matter is perfectly simple, and the issue is real. If the Minister can give explicit assurance that the amendment is not needed since legislation currently in place continues to have effect and will not be impaired by the passage of the Bill, and if she will kindly specify exactly what provisions are being cited, it will give great reassurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for so beautifully moving the amendment. I only just managed to sneak into the Chamber in time, so I was not here for all his speech. Declaring my interest as chair of English Heritage, I am happy to support the amendment.
The sites that the noble Lord talked about could be designated as scheduled monuments, but they have not been so scheduled for the simple reason that, until now, they have been perfectly well protected through the planning system. We are concerned here with the possible loss of that protection through neighbourhood development.
There are about 80,000 sites of archaeological interest of national importance that could be scheduled, compared with about 20,000 that are already scheduled. The reason for our not having scheduled all the sites historically is that scheduling is a very strict, precise and quite expensive regime to implement. Many sites of national and international importance have not been scheduled because the onerous protection system has been seen as unnecessary as long as they have sat within the planning system. Neighbourhood development orders have the potential to take them out of that protection.
The NPPF may well provide for policies to protect such sites and some policy protection in the event of a normal planning application. The problem to which we return is that we do not yet have the document. I am therefore quite anxious to see whether it is explicit in saying that neighbourhood development should not interfere with such sites. I therefore strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, seeks in his amendment, which is expressly to exclude those sites and put the matter beyond question. That is what the community of people who have to guard and look after the sites want. It is also what every community in the country that is proud of its local archaeology would want.
These sites by definition hold a very important interest that extends well beyond neighbourhood boundaries because of their national significance. There should be no real objection to putting it beyond doubt that they cannot be affected, at least physically, by neighbourhood development orders.
If the amendment is not carried and we lose the protection that it would offer, the pressure will be on local authorities to schedule. That would be an extremely onerous and expensive undertaking, an unintended consequence of which would be that the matter was taken away from neighbourhoods and subjected to the national regime. To put it at its most simple, the system that we have works best. It is proportionate; it is well understood; it delivers the protections that are required. It would be an enormous shame if, inadvertently, the system was destabilised and the protections were lost. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly extend my support to my noble friend. I had better confess that I am in the same boat as the noble Baroness, who got back just in time. I had sneaked off for a while, in the belief that I deserved some respite from this suffering, but I was tempted back by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, having had the same representations from the same groups as he has evidently had. I have not given them such assiduous attention as him, but I express my support for the careful consideration of the purport of his amendments, even if they are not perfect to achieve his objectives.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendment 152ZZA in my own name, which is a probing amendment, before turning to my noble friend Lord Renfrew’s amendments, about which I shall explain my concern.
In order not to repeat the lengthy procedures described in Schedule 10 for the making of neighbourhood development orders, which are set out as new Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 9 inserts into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 new Section 38C(5), which says that new Schedule 4B shall apply to the making of a neighbourhood development plan, but as modified. Paragraph (d) of that subsection refers to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4B, found on page 321 of the Bill, and states that that paragraph is to have effect as if sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) and (3) to (5) were omitted. These sub-paragraphs refer to the need to have regard to preserving listed buildings and their settings, and preserving and enhancing conservation areas.
I cannot immediately understand why the Government think that in drawing up a neighbourhood plan such matters should be disregarded. My failure to understand, and therefore my query, is possibly prompted by my prior constituency experience, which was unusual. When Pevsner published his original two volumes on the buildings of inner London, the first volume was devoted wholly—apart from some buildings in Holborn—to what later became my former constituency of the City of London and Westminster South, while the second volume was devoted to what was in 1950 the 42 other constituencies in inner London; in other words, there was a major concentration of listed buildings in my former constituency. Such listing considerations weigh very heavily in my former constituency’s localisms. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain what is intended. As I said, my amendment is probing.
I turn to the two amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. My noble friend is the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group, in which I am simply a modest foot soldier. However, I once read Greats at Oxford, and I have done archaeology in the vicinity of the Roman wall in Corbridge in collaboration with medieval historian Maurice Keen. He and I went north together and explored mosaics of a Roman villa in a farmyard in Corbridge. I am speaking especially to Amendment 149A, but Amendment 148C is similarly connected.
My Back-Bench experience as Member for my former constituency in the years 1977 to 1979, before my party went into government, was very much influenced by concerns felt by the City of London and the Museum of London about the amount of deep-basementing that was going on and was in the process of turning the City of London into the principal continuous archaeological site in Europe, because so much extraordinarily interesting stuff was being uncovered. That work changed quite a lot of our knowledge about the city’s history. A concordat was reached between the archaeological unit at the Museum of London and the developers as a whole as to how this problem should be handled. It was that, provided there was adequate proof, the developer must always make six months available to the archaeologists to find out what they could, and the developer would pay for the entire archaeological work.
Because so much of this work was going on and was working well, there was a possibility that there would be an occasion when there was disagreement between the archaeologists and the developers. Therefore, eight years later in 1987, both sides being anxious to forestall such a problem, they created an appeal committee of three to deal with a logjam, if it were to occur, of which one member would sit on behalf of the developers, one on behalf of the archaeologists and I—because of my having once been at the Harvard Business School, because of the modest experience that I had had as an archaeologist and an ancient historian, and because I was the local MP and acceptable to both sides—would serve as the chairman. As I was also a Minister, that required permission from No. 10, which, to my agreeable surprise, my noble friend Lady Thatcher afforded me. Even more agreeably, despite the apprehensions which had prompted the creation of this committee, it never had to meet because the arrangements continued to work extremely well.
The arrangements in the City worked well because of the critical mass of the archaeology going on and because of its essential importance. However, this will not always apply across the country. The principles adduced by my noble friend’s amendments are not dissimilar to those I have described in the City, but it is very important that they should apply much more widely and by statute. That is why I support them so warmly. I have addressed my remarks to archaeology but they apply just as readily to the wider heritage scene to which my earlier Amendment 148AZZA was addressed. The fact that this goes so much more widely makes my noble friend’s amendments even more important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been a short but fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that he had left the Chamber for a respite from our deliberations, but the discussion on this amendment has given us all some relief from the turgid stuff with which we were dealing earlier. Clearly each noble Lord who spoke—the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew, Lord Newton and Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lady Andrews—spoke with great knowledge and authority. In this job you learn something every day—and I certainly learnt something from that exchange.
If it is right that the Bill would remove protections that are in place at the moment, it must be right that amendments are put in place to address that. If the Minister in responding can assure us that that is not the case and spell it out—we need to know the detail—all well and good. Part of the problem comes back to the dear old NPPF. The Minister said earlier that it will be with us soon but her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, last week told us that it would be very soon—we seem to be going backwards on this.
My noble friend Lady Andrews made the important point that if there cannot be satisfaction on this, the risk is that a process of scheduling will take place that would involve local authorities in huge expense. It would be a huge capacity issue for them and we should seek to avoid it. We all want to do everything that we can to make sure that heritage assets, particularly those of national importance, are preserved and that the planning system plays its role in doing that. I look forward to the Minister’s response and her justifications of why she believes that that will happen and that we do not need to change the Bill.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are hugely sympathetic to the whole question of heritage. The noble Baroness and I discussed this before at a very early stage. We have been working with English Heritage to ensure that neighbourhood development orders do not weaken the heritage protection. The matters the noble Baroness has raised are not unfamiliar to us and I can assure her and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that consultations are still ongoing to ensure that there is no slip-up and that the concerns raised are addressed.
We recognise the importance of protecting heritage and all proposed neighbourhood development orders must meet certain conditions, which we discussed earlier, before they can be put to a referendum. Most importantly, they must have special regard to the protection of listed buildings and conservation areas. In addition, every plan and order must be appropriate having regard to national policy. I appreciate that that takes us back to the NPPF, but that matter will be addressed when we have a chance to discuss it. The plan or order must also be in conformity with the strategic policies in the local plan. We have made it clear from the outset that the plans must be coherent and will then have to go to independent examination.
We believe the concerns are covered with that procedure alone. All heritage aspects would be covered under the planning conditions anyway but we shall be delighted to have further consultations with English Heritage to make sure that there is no slip-up. On that basis, with those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, I am grateful for the various contributions. I am particularly grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was in her place and made such effective remarks about the undesignated sites, which are a major problem. I am grateful for the support of both sides of the House.
My noble friend the Minister has given some helpful general assurances, but as we do not yet know what is in the national planning policy framework her assurances are vague and do not give much comfort. I certainly do not doubt her good intentions but she did not give a categorical or detailed assurance and she did not make specific remarks in relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
While I shall not press the amendment, I hope to do rather better on Report. It may be that the national planning policy framework will be published by then. I certainly hope so, otherwise what on earth do these assurances mean? If it is not published by then and we cannot find out how it will integrate into the Bill, we may have difficulties on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
Lord Lucas
“( ) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If there is no neighbourhood development plan in force, such documents as the local authority considers reflects the interest of the community.””
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in the group.
Amendment 150 is, to some extent, an echo of the first amendment that we debated today which was tabled by my noble friend Lord True. It looks at ways of dealing with neighbourhood planning in cities, where it will be quite difficult to get the impetus to create communities. In towns and villages, the extent of the planning gain which will be available to the communities and the way in which they care about how their open environment is developed will produce strong motivations for communities to engage with the Bill. However, that is not so in cities. Even in areas such as Battersea it is not so, let alone the poorer parts of cities. In those areas, we need to have ways of creating communities which are more attuned to what is going on in the cities, to the needs of the citizens and to their particular cares.
Amendment 150 and, more particularly, Amendment 167 attempt to produce a structure to allow a local authority to have regard to community views on planning, which are expressed in a less formal way than that set out in the Bill. There would be none of the structure of having to go through gathering all the voices, an examination and a referendum but something much more suited to an area where there is no existing geographical community and where the community will never put together the effort to go through the procedures in this Bill because the gains are too small and its own structures are too weak. Those communities should be able to gain what they can from the direction of this Bill through their more gentle expressions of opinion, which should be taken properly into account in planning decisions. Of my two amendments, Amendment 167 is the one for which I have the most affection.
On Amendment 152ZC—an amendment is never the easiest thing to find in this Marshalled List.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
I think you will find it at the bottom of page 13.
Lord Lucas
Amendment 152ZC looks at how you take the structures of this Bill and produce something of interest to local neighbourhoods. Straightforward planning and dealing with planning permissions, and their outcomes, is not really what a city neighbourhood is about. It is about its environment much more generally. When it comes to the streetscape, it is a question of whether a particular street should be pedestrianised, narrowed or given a 20 miles an hour limit. It is a question of how traffic regulations are enforced. This is a particular plague in some bits of London where councils seem to have forgotten that businesses need trade and that local people sometimes need to park in order to visit shops or neighbours. Neighbourhoods have a lot of interest in the way in which traffic regulations are set out and enforced. If one had that as part of the scope of this Bill—I understand that it may be and I look forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say—it would produce a package which gives this Bill a much greater chance of succeeding and producing the same sort of vibrant communities within cities as I am sure it will produce in the countryside and towns.
My final amendment is Amendment 152A, which picks up on a point that has been made several times; namely, that we should find ways within the procedures set out in this part of the Bill for our neighbourhoods to become parishes. They have to go through an enormous number of hoops and great effort to produce a neighbourhood plan under this Bill, which is much more than is required by the legislation for the creation of parishes, particularly given that, having created a plan and a direction for the neighbourhood, the animal created under this Bill then dies. It is a great shame that all that effort comes to nothing. The Bill should be directed at creating a parish where the people involved want some form of continuity but it should be made easy and obvious how a parish can appear out of a neighbourhood plan in an area which is not parished. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I was discussing this matter when, some time ago, the Chief Whip suggested that I should sit down and that we should move on. I thought that that was a bit unfair but I will briefly make two points. The important point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas is that of linking neighbourhood planning with the formation of new parishes. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Shipley, who is not in his place, said that a mechanism to do that would be extremely valuable. At the moment, the problem with creating new parishes is that it requires a local governance review by the principal council, the district or unitary council, which can take quite a long time.
These principal councils are not always terribly enthusiastic about creating new parishes. If someone comes along with a petition or whatever, they will be forced to have a local governance review but they may not take it very seriously. There are a number of instances where there has been a clear demand for a new parish council on the ground and the principal council responsible has simply blocked it and said “No, you can’t have it”. If this new Bill is to be a stimulus for the creation of lots of new parishes, of which I am certainly in favour, there needs to be a way in which the Government can link that to this legislation, whether in primary legislation or in some other way, and perhaps change the advice that is given to councils about local governance reviews, thus making it much easier to carry out the review and to create the parishes. I say that as someone who lives in a borough which is now totally parished. The fact that it is totally parished is not entirely unconnected with my activities in the past 30 years.
Lord True
My Lords, I support the spirit of my noble friend’s amendments, particularly Amendments 150 and 167, although I slightly fell out of love with Amendment 167 when I read the last few words, which refer to,
“any guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the definition of ‘community views’”.
That might be determined more locally. Otherwise, the light-touch approach was much to be welcomed. I also strongly agree with my noble friend’s point about traffic controls, parking and so on. In my contention, ultimately, we should move towards a position where high street shops and shop owners have a decisive role in deciding how those matters should be policed locally.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I should like to comment briefly on parishes. I can see the strength of the argument that for the purposes of these provisions we have a parish, which deals with issues around governance, probity and the democratic component. I have not thought through, which I guess we need to balance, the consequences of having parishes within an urban or a rural area where you have area committees, a district council or a unitary authority, how those sit together and the consequences of all that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, from his experience will be able to hold forth extensively on that issue. I do not encourage him to do so on this occasion. We need to look at issues around parishes in the round and not just in relation to these provisions, but I see the benefits of parishes for the application of these provisions.
As I understood it, the thrust of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were about not just having formal arrangements to input community views and the wishes of a community but that they must be collected in a variety of different ways, which must be right. I hesitate a little around issues where there are written expressions of community interests. Those must be included and taken up, and one should always be conscious that people communicate and express their views in different ways. Some are very forthright and able at doing it in written form and others are not always in that position. Therefore, we need to take account of that. But the idea that there should be a variety of informal and semi-formal ways for the views of communities to be brought to bear on neighbourhoods is absolutely right and one that we would support.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not aware that there is anything to stop views being gathered up about neighbourhood plans in whatever way. However, ultimately they have to fall into some sort of structure in order for people to understand what is going on. Whatever the observations made during these discussions, ultimately they will form part of the neighbourhood plan and will have to conform with the local development plan. With all the policies in respect of neighbourhood planning there is a great deal of flexibility as to how things are done and how they are brought to bear on it. I have tried to make that clear throughout this afternoon, although I am not sure that I am altogether persuading my noble friends behind me.
We absolutely agree that community views are core to effective planning. They are embedded in the planning system already, and we expect people’s views to be taken into account in whatever way they can be. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires councils to prepare a statement of community involvement and that is precisely what it has to be—the community involvement has to be organised in a way that makes sure that all those community views are put forward on planning matters before any statement is constructed. I do not think the amendment is necessary from that point of view, because, as I say, the flexibility is there to ensure that views—however they are collected—must be taken account of.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of traffic regulations. I hear what he says and know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has views about how things should be done in respect of traffic in particular. However, I am not sure that traffic regulation orders could become part and parcel of the neighbourhood orders. They are, by and large, either controlled by by-laws or by national legislation and create criminal offences, so are probably not something that can just be tinkered with so that they affect only small areas. If the by-laws are used inappropriately, they can have a significantly adverse effect on the local environment, so they should be employed only when all other measures have failed. We ought not to be tinkering with them at a local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the question of parish councils and their creation. That process is probably going to take almost as long as, or longer than, creating neighbourhood forums and making the representations where there are not parish councils, which would be largely in cities. I hope that with those remarks, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am a little puzzled, because the noble Baroness was kind enough to allow me a meeting with her officials a few days ago. I am always capable of misunderstanding things, but I had expected rather different replies from those that she has given today on the subject of how far one could reach in neighbourhood plans in order to affect things related to the local environment; such as the two illustrations I gave of the way in which streets are used, speed limits, pedestrianisation and the way in which parking rules are set out and enforced. I am clear that both those things belong with the local council but I certainly came away with the impression that neighbourhood plans could be written in such a way that they had an influence on such matters. I also came away with a much more positive view on parishing and the department’s attitude to it than the noble Baroness has conveyed today. I am puzzled by that.
Coming back to my general purpose in these amendments, we have to look carefully, if we think this is a beneficial thing—which I very much do—at how we make it beneficial within cities. There is an awful lot to be said for the amendments of my noble friend Lord True in this regard on how local neighbourhoods get designated and the flexibilities that exist as to their extent and overlap, as well as other aspects reflecting life in cities. If we are to have a process that results in a referendum, there is also a great deal to be said for saying there must be incentives for the people involved and those voting, in terms of the referendums being about things they really care about. If we go back to Battersea, what do I care about planning? The place is built up and there is no space to put anyone else. There are only little bits and pieces, which the council deals with perfectly adequately, in terms of access to light and disputes between neighbours. There is no incentive there to go through the whole process that is in this Bill. By contrast, other things about the environment and the way the council interacts with the neighbourhoods that make it up are matters of extreme concern to locals that they will pay a great deal of attention to.
My noble friend’s answers do not encompass any offer of further consultations and do not seem to incorporate the consultations that I have already had. I remain puzzled and not a little bruised as to why the Government think this is for rural communities only. I can see the advantages and importance of that, but where we need community and where coherence and community understanding are important is, by and large, in cities. Villages have pretty good communities for the most part—they can be argumentative or constructive, but villages get together at frequent intervals, in my experience, to celebrate various things or do things together. Getting them together is easy. Within cities it is much harder to do those things and it is much more important to set about creating communities. I am really concerned at the difference between the replies from my noble friend and what I had thought was the underlying direction of her department; and about the lack of interest in using the period between Committee and Report to extend this. I am also somewhat puzzled by the lack of interest from the Labour Party in how one develops communities within cities. Perhaps there is a belief that all wisdom resides in councils.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am not quite sure why the noble Lord concluded that we have a lack of interest in developing communities within cities. I would have thought that we could demonstrate lots of places up and down the country where we have been very supportive of developing communities. I am not sure I have convinced the noble Lord here and now, but I hope to reassure him. I can see that the noble Lord is getting ticked off by his noble friends on the Front Bench—perhaps I ought to sit down or they will start on me soon.
Baroness Hanham
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is disappointed. If he has had consultations that have said something different to the reply I have got, then I think I should offer to have discussions with him between now and the next stage of our proceedings.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am happy to accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(5) If—
(a) there are two applicable referendums under that Schedule as so applied (because the plan relates to a neighbourhood area designated as a business area under section 61GA of the principal Act), and(b) in one of those referendums (but not the other) more than half of those voting have voted in favour of the plan,the authority may (but need not) make a neighbourhood development plan to which the proposal relates.”
Lord Greaves
“( ) In preparing a neighbourhood development plan the qualifying body must—
(a) have regard to the policies set out in the development plan, approved development plan documents and other local planning policies,(b) set out in the neighbourhood development plan the ways in which the policies in the plan differ from those referred to in paragraph (a),(c) comply with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and(d) comply with the provisions of chapter 1 of Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Trees).”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, In moving Amendment 150F, I shall speak to the other three in the group in my name; they are a mixed bag. We are still on neighbourhood development plans and orders. Amendment 150F covers various issues, some of which I think we have dealt with satisfactorily, some of which we have half dealt with and some we have not dealt with yet. It covers the preparation of the neighbourhood development plan and says that it must have regard to the existing local planning documents and explain ways in which it differs from them. I think that we have adequately dealt with that matter and do not have to discuss it any further. The amendment goes on to say—and this links back to the issue that was raised recently by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville—that the neighbourhood plan must comply with the existing legislation on listed buildings and conservation areas in the 1990 Act on those matters, and comply with the sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that deal with trees.
I listened with interest to the discussion about conservation areas and listed buildings and it is worth probing on that a little further. Amendment 153AKD refers to paragraphs 23 and 25 in Schedule 12, which are supposed to be consequential amendments that remove the protection normally given to conservation areas and listed buildings in the case of the neighbourhood development orders. I have only just discovered that bit of the Bill, and I could not find what they were consequential on. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has pointed me in the right direction, because I had not spotted that bit at all.
My noble friend the Minister said, or appeared to say, that it was okay to take all these provisions out of the primary legislation. Schedule 12 does that; it specifically says that in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990:
“In section 66 (general duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions), at the end insert—
‘(4) Nothing in this section applies in relation to neighbourhood development orders’”.
Into Section 72 is added a similar provision in relation to conservation areas, which says:
“Nothing in this section applies in relation to neighbourhood development orders”.
I will not read out what the 1990 Act about listed buildings and conservation says, but clearly it gives the protection that we all understand in relation to planning applications and planning in general.
The Minister seems to say that it is okay to take out those specific provisions in the existing primary legislation because it will be somewhere else in relation to neighbourhood development orders. She read out a duty in relation to neighbourhood development orders to pay due regard—I forget the exact words. I was not clear where that wording came from. I cannot find it in this Bill but, there again, I do not claim to have absorbed every line of the Bill. It would be interesting to know where that is. There is a discussion of the national planning policy framework that is only guidance, so the worry is that the protection for listed buildings and conservation areas in neighbourhood development orders will be in the form of guidance rather than primary legislation. That seems to be a possibility and it is what I am probing further.
I have two further questions about neighbourhood development orders. Can they propose new conservation areas within their boundaries or extensions of existing conservation areas? Can they propose the abolition of existing conservation areas or changes in the boundaries of existing conservation areas?
Lord Best
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 152ZA and 153ZA, which concern the design considerations in neighbourhood plans. This House contains many eminent champions of good design, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who have added their names to the amendment and are in their places today. I would only say, in declaring my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, that my experience of looking after housing projects has proved to me that poor design not only alienates and depresses those who have to suffer it but is wastefully expensive because it does not last.
Contrast the disasters of now demolished council housing from the 1960s and 1970s with the enduring popularity of the homes built many decades earlier in the garden villages of Rowntree’s New Earswick, York, and Cadbury’s Bourneville, Birmingham. Last week the president of the RIBA, Ruth Read, launched an excellent report, Good Design: it all adds up, which the relevant Minister, John Penrose, highly commended. Design matters, so it seems entirely right that neighbourhood plans should be just as mindful of the requirements of good design as the local development plans of local authorities themselves. The first of these two amendments places a responsibility on neighbourhoods when engaging in neighbourhood planning to have,
“regard to the desirability of achieving good design”.
This replicates precisely the existing obligation on local authorities which resulted from an amendment in your Lordships’ House to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in 2004.
Amendment 153ZA would mean that when neighbourhood plans are examined, as they will have to be under the Bill's provisions, the independent examiners would have special regard to the desirability of achieving good design. It may be argued that this issue can be addressed at one remove, through national or local government planning requirements. Publication of the national planning policy framework—when we finally see it—may shed light on the emphasis to be given nationally to issues of good design, and because the neighbourhood plan must be,
“in general conformity with the strategic”
priorities of the local development plan, good design could perhaps be implied through that route. However, the experts tell me that this is likely to be too weak a link.
Ministers in another place have helpfully accepted an amendment that requires the independent examiners to pay special regard to conservation areas and listed buildings. It seems equally important and worthy of an amendment to require the examiners to have special regard to design quality. I know that the decentralisation Minister, Greg Clarke, also favours good design and I hope that these amendments will appeal to the Government.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, in supporting Amendments 152ZA and 153ZA on the crucial aspect of the good design of the places that people live in, which has such wide support from professional and interest groups, I take comfort from the Minister’s undertaking in her letter to me of 20 June:
“We remain committed to promoting the highest standards of architecture and design”.
Indeed, this is what the Government did in also undertaking to honour the provisions relating to design in the previous housing and planning Acts. Those provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, bound local authorities but not neighbourhoods because neighbourhoods did not come into being as the deciders of planning until the present Bill, so it is only consistent that the duty to have regard to good design should be extended to neighbourhoods, as Amendment 152ZA says.
Amendment 153ZA is consistent with the Government's undertaking and I need hardly repeat the evidence of the profound impact that design has on enjoyment, security, amenity, health and leisure. I am sure the Government would agree that communities should be enabled to make good design choices.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have tabled three amendments in this group. I apologise that I missed my amendments in the earlier group, because the Committee is making such breakneck progress on this Bill, but I wish to speak now. However, I support both the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the cross-reference by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to Schedule 12 and the need to clarify the position in relation to conservation areas and the setting and general appearance of buildings, which from Schedule 12 seems not to apply to neighbourhood plans. My amendments attempt to relate neighbourhood plans to the broader planning structure, which still exists. The Government have, of course, deleted any application of regional spatial plans but there are still national policies, national advice and the local plan.
This part of the Bill, paragraph 8 of the new schedule in Schedule 10, relates to the issues which the examiner should take into account when considering neighbourhood plans. It seems to me that under paragraph 8(2), there is a weak relationship between the requirements on the examiner and the reference to national policies. We all know that “having regard to” national policies and advice containing guidance means that you can take no notice of it. Indeed, that is often the case. I am suggesting a rather stronger form of words: that the examiner should consider whether the plan “is compatible with” the national policies and the advice issued by the Secretary of State and that, in relation to the local plan in paragraph 8(2)(d), rather than the order being,
“in general conformity with the strategic policies”
of the local authority’s plan it should be in,
“conformity with the objectives and policies”,
of that plan. It seems to me that general conformity is, again, fairly weak. If the examiner were to find that the plan is in general conformity or had taken into account the Secretary of State's advice but then totally ignored it, there would be problems.
We need to place some tighter requirements on the examiner in this regard. I am all for flexibility and localism but if we are maintaining a structure of planning, there needs to be interrelationship between its various layers. My three amendments in this section, starting with—I get lost in this alphabet soup—Amendment 153ZZA, therefore would attempt to tighten up the form of wording in this section. I commend them to the Minister.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I strongly support the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I shall give an example by going back to some of the things that my noble friend Lord Lucas was saying about Battersea, because in 1967 I bought a small house in Kersley Street, Battersea. When I went to buy it, I was told by the Battersea authorities to be very careful because the mayor of Battersea wished to sweep away all that area. Those houses were built in about 1893 and now it is a conservation area and all that, thank goodness, and is a gem in its way.
To be honest, on this question of design, I am afraid that developers and architects of the 1950s and 1960s have an enormous amount to answer for. There has only very recently been salvation. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the demolition of some of the ill considered, ill designed and ill constructed blocks which were put up in the place of extremely desirable housing for people. One thinks immediately of places such as World's End in the old days. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are as united as we are in making sure that this is protected fully for the future.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, unusually, because I nearly always agree with almost everyone who has spoken, I want to express a note of scepticism which I even dare to hope might be helpful to my noble friend on the Front Bench, if she is looking for that. I am a bit sceptical about this because what is now regarded as dreadful 1950s/1960s stuff was regarded as good design at the time. This is totally subjective and I do not understand how it is going to be interpreted. In any circumstances, people will have regard to design but whether it is good design may depend on whether it is thought to be so at the moment. It may be thought a totally rubbish design in 20 or 30 years’ time, which is exactly what has happened, so what is the point of writing it in?
Baroness Whitaker
Would the noble Lord agree that if local people participate in the choice of the design, as is good design practice, it is more likely to suit their needs?
Lord Newton of Braintree
That is a slightly separate question of what they feel about their area at the time, which clearly ought to be taken into account. It is not necessarily the same as good design.
Lord Marlesford
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that what was lacking in those days was, frankly, design. The object was to put up buildings in a somewhat Leninist style and atmosphere, cramming people into the smallest possible space with little consideration of their welfare and long-term benefit. What we are doing now is emphasising that design should be included where it was not in the past.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will avoid getting into a discussion about design. However, I would like to ask a question which underlies the debate. Mention has been made of the need to be in conformity with the local development plan. I have heard that if there is no local plan in place, or no core strategy, there cannot be a neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood development order. I have not been able to pin this down in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister can help me on that. Given the number of local authorities which are still moving towards fulfilling the provisions of the relevant planning Act that was passed some years ago, this is a serious issue. However optimistic the Government are about the progress that local authorities will make, this is nevertheless a major consideration.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate about design, but I have been prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to do so. I am married to an architect. Before we were married, I took my wife-to-be to meet my parents. My father was a doctor. He started needling her about architecture and design. Eventually, she turned round and said, “That, of course, is the difference between your profession and my profession. In your profession, your mistakes die, in our profession they live on”. That might be a rather flippant way of introducing a note of caution in all this. My view is that we do not allow good architecture to flourish in many respects, partly because we are hemmed in by rules and guidance on good design, which are sometimes rigidly enforced. We have to ask what sort of good design we are trying to promote. Is it, for example, the good design that the Prince of Wales has championed, sometimes controversially, or is it other aspects of good design which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker are championing? We should debate what good design is, but what is good design in one place will not be good design in another. We have to have the flexibility to ensure that communities can respond to this and to allow good architecture to take root and flourish in this country.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I remind my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd that however good or bad we think the Prince of Wales’s views on architecture are, he interfered in a very big planning application in respect of Chelsea Barracks. I do not think that that is right.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
I was not suggesting that we necessarily follow the Prince of Wales, but the very fact that he has provoked that controversy demonstrates, if I may say so, the point that I am making—that what is good design to one person is not good design to another.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, as there was no Conservative name on Amendments 152ZA and 153ZA, I am happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Indeed, I will not argue the toss with him as to which of us is metaphysically adding our name, but it is desirable that it should have Conservative support. Having said that—I have said similar things on many other such Bills in the past—in the context of what my noble friend Lord Newton said, I was confronted, as then Secretary of State for National Heritage, with a decision about a building in Bethnal Green by Denys Lasdun. The building was not listed—the department had the responsibility for listing—and was threatened with demolition by the local authority. No intervention occurred because of the listed building consent issue. We had to decide in the department whether we should list it. It was in our view a fine piece of architecture and design. We eventually decided that we would, knowing that the Secretary of State for the Environment—the noble Lord, Lord Deben—would have to make the decision about listed building consent, so in that sense we transferred the problem to him. However, he had not dissimilar views to ours about architecture. Since we no longer had Chinese walls in the Department of the Environment, he took no decision on giving listed building consent. The local authority had wanted to demolish the building and the only housing association that was interested could not raise the money to take it over. However, a private property company took it over. It is now absolutely packed with private-sector tenants who think that it is a marvellous building. Therefore, it is wrong to be dismissive of buildings constructed in earlier eras just because they were not necessarily in line with taste at that moment.
I have one other thing to say before my noble friend Lord Hodgson gets up. As my noble friend Lord Greaves was kind enough to mention my name in connection with my Amendment 152ZZA three groupings ago, I shall take the liberty of going back to it, unless your Lordships’ House wishes me to move it when we come to it shortly in the proper order of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister did not give me an answer to my probing amendment at the time that we debated it three groupings ago. I was expecting her to say that she would write to me because I agree that the matter was complicated. If it is simpler for her now to say when she replies to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that she will write to me, I would regard that as a wholly satisfactory resolution.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best. He made a powerful statement about the importance of good design and referred to architecture and design. Since we are discussing the Localism Bill, I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me as regards the importance of using local materials and local design when building locally. When I hear about national policies I slightly fear that there will be a national standard of good design which will not reflect the building styles and building standards of different parts of our country.
One of the most depressing aspects of the present situation is that if you were blindfolded and put down by helicopter in a perfectly nice new development, whether it was in Truro, Norfolk or Newcastle, you would not be able to tell where you were because we are now building to standard designs, built by national housebuilders, which do not greatly reflect what goes on in the locality where they are based. Therefore, historic traditions of building which are different across the country are gradually being wiped out to the detriment of local pride and local community feeling. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that when she winds up.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 153. I would be very grateful if my noble friend could enlarge a little on the relevant strengths of “having regard to” and “in general conformity with”. To take a particular illustration, Hampshire has a policy that there should be no new development in the countryside. Does that mean that there is no point in neighbourhood planning in Hampshire?
Lord True
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. On Amendment 153ZC, which relates to the weight given to emerging documents, I think that that has been discussed and I will not pursue it at this point. I have been reassured that emerging documents are given weight. Amendment 153ZD is relevant to the short debate we have just had about design, which strikes me as being a rather pleasant and agreeable way of spending an afternoon in the Moses Room when the Education Bill is not being discussed there. I do not want to detain the Committee on that, but I am absolutely certain that what my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have said must be right because if this Bill is about localism the vernacular should matter. Local people like their vernacular and they like building that is in keeping, whatever the design is, if that design is good. Local authorities as well as national housebuilders have failed in that respect over the years. I do not mind a little cajoling to them in the Bill, but we have to be careful because design, as I think Lewis Carroll said, is probably “what I say it is”. There is a problem there.
Amendment 153ZD is related to that because it is about how the examiner deals with neighbourhood planning orders. A case in our authority involved the Government intervening on our existing core strategy to say that it must include high-rise building. Notwithstanding that there was cross-party agreement against it and that hundreds of people protested against it, a planning inspector imposed an extension of the ugliest building in our borough on the basis that the existing core strategy provided for such buildings. The local authority, with the strong support of local people, is trying to revise its plans. It takes a long time to revise a local development framework and my right honourable friend Secretary of State has said that he hopes to accelerate it.
There will be circumstances in neighbourhood planning where local communities say, for example, “We do not want any more high-rise”. However, if an examiner looks, as that examiner did, at the previous building and says, “Your existing plan says let’s have some high-rise”, then unless we include a provision such as my Amendment 153ZD to allow a local authority to assent to an order that is not in compliance, we may find that neighbourhood planning is defeated. Perhaps I am being oversuspicious, but there might be circumstances where the will of the local community is clear and the examiner should be able to give weight to that informal opinion.
I will deal with Amendment 153ZE very briefly. It refers to the situation in London and the definition of localism. I am simply saying that if an emerging policy is not necessarily in compliance with the higher-authority policy and there is tension between the policies of the mayor and the borough as regards its neighbourhood plans, then the examiner should, in circumstances where those matters are being considered, give greater weight to the more local of the two emerging policies. I do not expect an answer from my noble friend on that or the other amendment to which I referred, but both are significant.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
This has been an interesting group of amendments. I certainly support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty which seek to strengthen the relationship of NDOs with national policies and the strategic policies of the local development framework.
The noble Lord, Lord True, focused on emerging policies, when the local development framework is not in place or is being revised. I certainly see the thrust of his point. How one tests those emerging policies and encapsulates them, when they are in the process of being consulted on, is an issue. However, I take his point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what happens if there is no local development plan in place. Does that preclude a neighbourhood development plan? My understanding is that it does not, and thereby hangs a potential problem. If the only level of guidance available for the neighbourhood development plan is the NPPF, assuming that we see it at some stage, it is inevitably going to be written in relatively high-level terms. That is its purpose. It proclaims the benefits of tearing up a thousand pieces of paper and condensing them into 40 or 50 pages. We shall have to see how many there are in due course. Therefore, the leeway that that gives a neighbourhood development plan is an interesting point. If we were able to embed in the Bill issues around sustainable development and its definitions, it might help.
I support the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about design issues. My understanding is that design is not just about individual buildings and their quality but about the landscape, the environment, the relationships between buildings and how the whole urban fabric works. Although there may be different views on the aesthetics of any particular building, and views may change over time, we all know and can spot situations where design has not properly been taken into account, and you get grotty buildings that the planners and architects often have no intention of living in themselves. The thrust of the argument on good design is absolutely right.
The issue is particularly pertinent because the funding for CABE has, I understand, been withdrawn and only a minority of people from that organisation are transferring to the merged body with the Design Council. Therefore, the opportunity of keeping focused on design is especially important.
The concept of trying to ensure that the neighbourhood development plan must have regard to or relate to the development plan must be right, and the concepts of sustainable development should be embodied in the neighbourhood development plan. That is why it would be good to get those provisions enshrined in the Bill in primary legislation. I hope that those comments from our Front Bench have indicated the level of support that we would give.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, in my excitement over design and Denys Lasdun, I failed to speak to Amendment 152D in my name, relating to Schedule 10. The new national planning policy framework will form an important plank in planning for localism, as well as for the wider planning system. It is therefore important that the new document continues to protect the historic environment. The current suite of policy planning guidance notes and statements is, as your Lordships will know, to be replaced by the NPPF. National policy is a vital tool in the planning processes and it expands and enlarges upon statute. The current planning policy statement 5 on planning for the historic environment was introduced in March 2010. In the short period since, it has worked extremely successfully and has been supported by the heritage and development sectors. The Heritage Alliance, to which I alluded earlier, is responding separately to the Department for Communities and Local Government on the content of the NPPF. National planning policy guidance is referred to at page 321 of the Bill at paragraph 8(2)(a) of new Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires regard to be taken of the NPPG. However, this provision is not strong enough. Development could be approved under the neighbourhood development order process without the current requirement for predetermination, information and consultation. We talked earlier about archaeology. Without predetermination of archaeological work, fewer unknown sites will be identified and, as a result, such sites may be destroyed without any adequate record, and development work may be delayed with additional costs. That is why I and others on behalf of the Heritage Alliance have proposed our amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate. It has circled around a number of areas. Most specifically, the concentration has been on design and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. We believe that design is sufficiently well taken care of and safeguarded in the planning policies. One needs to take account of the fact that design is very subjective. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, made that point. However, nothing within the development of a neighbourhood plan would stop neighbourhoods saying what sorts of designs they would like. It would not necessarily be binding on the inspector but it would be guidance for the future—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, talked about predetermination —when developers were going to develop and had to hold predetermination discussions with the neighbourhood.
I think that I will resist taking it any further today by putting it more strongly in the Bill, as proposed in the amendments. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying; and I understand those who say that this is a very difficult area to deal with because what is good design in one person's mind is not appropriate in that of another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether we would include in the Bill the question of using local stone, and so on. No, but the response I have just made about design probably covers the same. If the local neighbourhood wanted to have Cotswold stone as the only means to use in developments, there is nothing to stop it saying in the plan that it believes that Cotswold stone would be the ideal. It would then have to discuss that with developers before any suggestion of a development order or planning permission was given. Once again, I do not think that that is suitable for the Bill, but it can be taken into account.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I absolutely understand what my noble friend is saying, but she will understand that a local community trying to get a national housebuilder to move off-plan—of its standard houses—will be very difficult. There will be inequality of arms in a local community trying to deal with a national housebuilder. The housebuilder will have its designs and will say, “This is how it works”. No account will be taken of what the locality has produced historically in either design or materials.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that is a rather depressing view of how neighbourhood forums and neighbourhood plans will be developed. The whole point of having a neighbourhood plan is to have the local community say what they would like, how they would like it and how they would want something constructive. The local community is in a much stronger position. We have already discussed predetermination, but developers will have to go to talk to the neighbourhood before they get planning permission under a development order about how they will develop it. The whole thrust and emphasis is that they should be able to have discussions, make plans and carry them out according to what the neighbourhood wants. If the neighbourhood wants Cotswold stone and the developers do not, there will be an interesting battle of arms as to who comes out on top, but as the neighbourhood holds in its hands the development order and the planning permission, I rather suspect that it would be in a strong position.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether communities can promote development outside urban areas through neighbourhood planning. If neighbourhood planning is pro-growth—we want to extend communities, developments and housing—communities could use a neighbourhood plan to promote a higher level of growth than in the local plan, but it would still need to have regard to national policy. Practically all the answers that I give tonight will be that plans have to be in general conformity with either national or local policies.
Baroness Whitaker
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I am not quite clear how the national policy planning framework will bite on neighbourhood decisions. How are they bound by the national framework?
Baroness Hanham
They will be bound by the local development plan, and the national policy framework will impact on them through that. The local development plan must have more than regard to the national planning policy framework, and that will bite through the local authorities’ plans.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
As I understand it, they have to be consistent with the strategies in the local development plan. Do those strategies encompass design?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think so, because I do not think that design is part of the planning consideration, for the very reason that we discussed: design is fairly subjective. I remember that when we were discussing the Planning Bill in 2008 there was a huge discussion on design. Eventually, we came to the conclusion that it could not be a requirement because everyone saw things differently, although we would want to ensure that development was as conforming as it could be.
Baroness Andrews
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I go back to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. It concerns conformity where there is no local development plan or where the local development plan does not contain the policy. Neighbourhood framework plans are required to conform only to the LDF, not the national policy planning framework. Where there is no LDF, they are not required to conform. That is where the problem will lie. That was the problem identified in Amendment 152D, which I think requires further thought and answer. That breaks the link of conformity to the neighbourhood plan. That is a great weakness in the resilience of the planning framework as a whole.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am happy to write on that and to have further discussion, but my understanding is as I have set out. If that is wrong, I will come back to the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked: can you have a neighbourhood plan with no core strategy in place? The answer is yes. That may cover some of what we have been talking about. The national policy would still apply and the examiner and local planning authority can consider the weight to give any local plan policies. Existing local plan policies would of course take us back beyond the local development framework to the unitary development plan if they have not got further than that, so most authorities, even the most dilatory, will have something in place. We have dealt with design and the plans. I will certainly come back on the national framework, although I think that I have now answered on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about consultation with the public and the statutory consultees. Those requirements will be set out in regulation, but they will be requirements. There will be consultation both before and after the submission of the draft plan to the local planning authority with both categories. The noble Lord asked: what protection is there for listed buildings and can neighbourhood development orders change or propose conservation areas? Schedule 4B, in paragraph 8, sets out the protection for listed buildings and conservation areas where neighbourhood development orders are considered. We have already made clear that we take that very seriously. Can a neighbourhood development order propose conservation areas? They cannot change them, they can only propose them.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about tree preservation orders. No, tree preservation orders are covered by basic conditions in relation to national and local policies. He asked: can plans or orders propose new conservation areas? One answer says yes, the other says no.
Baroness Hanham
I will have to come back on that.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, neighbourhood plans and orders will have to have appropriate regard to national policy, as in the past. I will try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this time, because he gets upset if I do not. On neighbourhood planning in cities, the amendments would strengthen the requirement on neighbourhood plans and orders to meet local planning policies. Our test is general conformity with the strategic policies and the local plan. We believe that that strikes the right balance, ensuring that neighbourhood planning proposals are in general conformity with strategic local policies, giving flexibility to determine those issues that are rightly dealt with at community level. I do not think that that answers what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked me and I shall write to him. I hope that I have covered reasonably satisfactorily a number of the points that were made.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Brooke for not having picked up the matter that he raised and I shall write to him.
Lord True
Will my noble friend also very kindly undertake to respond to my point on Amendment 153ZD where neither the local community nor the council wish to have the existing policy imposed by an external authority? I should like a reply on that point but it can be a written reply and I shall be very grateful for it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall certainly do that. With those replies, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her answers. I shall write to her saying what else I need.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it seems a long time since I introduced this group of amendments and it has been a very interesting discussion. I am very grateful to the Minister for dealing valiantly with questions flying at her from all corners of the Committee. I am not sure that she has satisfactorily answered all mine yet but I shall not pursue them any further tonight. I shall read Hansard carefully and take up matters afterwards.
I am not going to get involved in the design argument, other than to say cynically that good design is what I like and bad design is what I do not like. However, that is a cynical view. In many cases you can more easily recognise bad design than good design and get consensus on that, but the important point is that design and style are very different things. You can have good design in almost every style of building and architecture, and that is the crucial point that people often miss.
I said that I was not going to get involved in design and then started talking about it. I shall now shut up and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 150F.
Schools: Funding Reform
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on our plans to reform school funding.
As Members from across the House will know, the current systems for funding schools—both for their revenue and capital needs—are too complex and lack transparency, which is why I want to make the way we fund all schools fairer, simpler and more efficient. I want to turn to capital spending first.
Capital investment is crucial to education reform but, at a time of economic difficulty, we need to ensure that we are getting the maximum value for every penny we spend and we must ensure that tight resources are targeted on those most in need. In order to ensure we could target money on those areas in absolutely greatest need, I had to take the difficult decision last year to stop a number of school rebuildings planned under the Building Schools for the Future programme. In areas where planning was most advanced, more than 600 projects will go ahead, but other projects were stopped, and I recognise the deep disappointment that that provoked in communities where hopes had been raised. But we had to ensure that money was spent efficiently, and the design of the old BSF scheme was not as efficient as it could have been. Specifically, it did not prioritise schools in the worst condition and it did not procure new buildings as cheaply as possible.
In order to ensure we spent money properly, I asked Sebastian James of the Dixons Store Group to review the entire DfE approach to capital funding. His report makes compelling reading and I commend it to the House. He found that the whole capital system was bedevilled by a complex allocation process with multiple funding schemes, a lack of good-quality building condition data, inefficiency in building design, a lack of expertise when it came to improving new buildings, a failure to make procurement as efficient as possible, a lack of clarity on maintenance, and overly complex regulatory and planning requirements.
I am grateful to Sebastian James for his exceptionally thorough work and I wish to accept the majority of his recommendations, subject to a thorough consultation process over coming months.
Specifically, I have accepted the recommendation to conduct a full survey of the school estate. The last Government stopped collecting any data on school condition in 2005, which has made fair distribution of funding much harder. I have also accepted the review’s recommendation significantly to revise the school premises regulations so that a single, clear set of regulations applies to all schools. I intend to consult fully on this in the autumn.
In addition, I have accepted his recommendation to move towards greater standardisation of design. One of the aspects of the BSF programme that Mr James criticised was that each school was separately designed, costing unnecessary millions in consultancy fees and often resulting in buildings which were not fit for purpose. Greater standardisation will reduce costs, improve quality and limit the opportunity for error.
However, I recognise that in the short term schools around the country are facing real and pressing problems. The most pressing problem is ensuring that every child has a school place. In some local areas, there are simply not enough school places to meet rising demand. Local authorities have told me that insufficient attention has been given to this issue in the past. That is why I have already doubled the sums available to meet this pressure, announcing £800 million of additional spending given directly to local authorities to meet the demand for school places.
Today, thanks to efficiencies and savings we have identified, including in BSF projects, I can announce an additional £500 million to fund more new school places in those areas of greatest need. Funds will be allocated this financial year to the local authorities with the greatest demographic pressures so that they can provide enough places, especially at primary schools, in September 2012. Details of those allocations will be provided over the summer and finalised in the autumn.
But that is not all. I am also aware that many of our existing school buildings across the country are in desperate need of repair. I am grateful to honourable Members from all parties who have shown me and my ministerial colleagues schools in their constituencies which need investment. The energy and skill with which so many colleagues have lobbied underlines how effectively so many honourable Members represent the most needy in their constituencies.
We have already made available £1.4 billion this year to deal with maintenance problems. Overall, we are spending more on school buildings every year of this Parliament than the last Government spent in every year of their first two Parliaments. But I want to do more, which is why today I am launching a new privately financed school building programme to address the schools in the worst condition wherever they are in the country.
This programme will be open to local authorities and schools that had been due funding via BSF but, critically, it will also be open to those which, despite real problems, had never been promised BSF funding. I believe strongly that those in genuine need should receive the funding they deserve, and no part of the country should be favoured over any other. Individual schools and local authorities will all be able to apply and I am launching the application process today.
The scheme will be rigorously policed to ensure that we do not incur the excessive costs incurred by previous privately financed schemes. The programme should cover between 100 and 300 schools, with the first of these open in September 2014, and it is expected to be worth around £2 billion in up-front construction costs.
Some of those local authority areas which had experienced the termination of their BSF projects asked for a judicial review of my department’s decisions. In February, Mr Justice Holman found in favour of the department on the substantive matters in dispute. But he found against me on procedural grounds and asked me to look again at the decision in six local authorities. He stressed that the decision to restore all, some or none of the projects was a matter for me.
Over the past few months, Ministers and officials have listened carefully to the case made by the six local authorities and I am grateful to them for the constructive way in which they have presented that case. I have today written to those authorities to let them know that I am minded to indemnify them for contractual liabilities resulting from the stage their projects had reached, but I am not minded to restore their specific BSF projects. They now have a further opportunity to make representations to me before I take a final decision.
I appreciate that the local authorities and their representatives will be disappointed. But let me also be clear that this decision, if confirmed after any representations have been made, does not mean an end to new school buildings in their areas. Those local authorities will all be eligible for support from the new programmes I am establishing to cater for population growth in the areas most in need and the new programme to cover the worst dilapidation. That is central to my reasoning on why I am minded not to restore their projects. I want to ensure absolute fairness in the distribution of the resources at my disposal.
Because the previous Government chose not to collect data on the condition of school buildings after 2005, I do not have the facts to judge how the needs of these schools compare with the needs of other schools around the country. The fairest thing that I believe I can do is to help to meet the costs which might arise from the stage these projects had reached and then to invite the affected schools to apply to the new school rebuilding programme, and be assessed on an equal footing with everyone else, on the basis of need. And, of course, should any of these local authorities have severe need pressures, they are likely to receive a portion of the £500 million fund that I have announced today.
I would now like to turn to schools revenue funding. The current funding system is, of course, extremely complex, opaque and often unfair. Most colleagues will have lived with the inconsistencies for years now, as similar schools in different parts of the country received widely differing and inequitable levels of funding. The problems with the system that we inherited have recently been underlined by concerns expressed over academies funding. Under the system set up by the last Government, academies received money in lieu of services that would previously have been provided by their local authority. But local authorities continued to receive the same funding as if they were still providing these services. That meant that local authorities were being, relatively speaking, overfunded, for duties they no longer discharged. So, at the spending review we announced that, from now on, we would deduct money from local authorities to take account of the fact they no longer provided services to academies.
The huge success of the academies programme, with 803 academies open and over 800 more in the pipeline, has meant we need to look at the issue again. A number of local authorities have asked us to reconsider the amount of money deducted. So today, I am publishing a consultation document for local authorities explaining the basis on which it is intended that this money will be deducted in this year and next. But this area is only one where the funding system we inherited is failing to meet the needs of the 21st century and much wider reform is needed. So today, we are also publishing a consultation proposing a fair and comprehensive reform of the way in which schools revenue funding is calculated overall.
At present, similar schools in different areas can receive very different amounts of funding for their pupils. This is not fair on head teachers, on teachers or on pupils. That is why I am proposing a new fairer national funding formula, with appropriate room for local discretion, in order to have a simpler, fairer and transparent system. The problems with the current system run very deep, and we will not be able to solve them overnight. We want to consult to ensure everyone’s views are heard on how much change schools can cope with. We will not introduce change until we are confident in the new approach and certainly not before 2013, and we will ensure that there are substantial transitional arrangements. But we are determined to start moving as soon as we can towards a system which ensures all children are given the right level of funding to meet their needs.
Taken together with our investment in 100 new teaching schools announced last week, our investment of an additional £300 million in the early years and an extra £2.5 billion in the pupil premium, I believe that we can now begin to ensure that our schools are funded in a way which is modern, fair and just”.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. On capital, some might say that scrapping the most transformational school building programme for decades and replacing it with a survey is not the most convincing evidence of commitment to improving school buildings. However, I welcome the action that the Government are now taking to sort out the mess and uncertainty left in the wake of the Secretary of State's precipitous decision to axe the Building Schools for the Future programme.
High-quality buildings and facilities are indeed essential to high-quality teaching and learning. It is a pity that the Government could not acknowledge what the National Audit Office called the crumbling school infrastructure that my Government inherited in 1997 and the outstanding progress made in rebuilding schools since then. The replacement for BSF, but for up to only 300 schools in the worst condition, is to be private finance. Can the Minister explain the terms of this scheme and what will be the long-term revenue consequences for schools and local authorities of using private sector funding? Does the Minister agree that the full survey of the school estate, to which he referred, should be completed speedily and can he say when that will be published? On the funding for extra school places, can he explain how the allocation of that funding will take account of plans for free schools in the local area and the surplus places that will follow in those areas consequently from having a surfeit of schools?
I turn to revenue, about which the Statement strangely said relatively little. In principle, I welcome the consultation on how best to fund schools and also the decision to consult widely, although with schools breaking up this week they may not feel that they have the full 12 weeks in which to consider this detailed document. The Government say they want to achieve fair and comprehensive reform of the way in which schools revenue funding is calculated. The Minister has also said that similar schools in different areas can receive different amounts of funding and that that is not fair. But does the Minister accept that equal funding is not necessarily fair funding? Does he accept that schools in areas with more social or economic challenges or with more challenging pupils will need more funding in order to give those children a fair chance? None the less, will the move to a national formula ensure that schools with the highest needs will receive more funding?
The Government's proposal to move to a new national funding formula with local discretion is, on the face of it, seductive. It sounds as though it will be simpler and more transparent. However, even a cursory glance at the consultation document this afternoon, which outlines, for example, the proposal to move to three or four funding blocks, the methods for calculating them, the complicated proposal for a new combined area cost adjustment, the fact that local authorities will still receive funding through the formula grant for other education services, to name just a few of the issues, suggests it may not be so simple.
Getting money to 25,000 schools, especially when the Government are pressing as many as possible to come out of the maintained sector, is inherently complex. The devil will be in the detail and the detail will show whether we really end up with a simpler system that schools and parents can understand and support. So can the Minister explain what he expects the outcome to be of moving towards a national funding formula for schools in deprived areas and for schools with higher proportions of children with additional or high needs? With a national formula, what continued role does the Minister envisage for local authorities in ensuring that funding to schools reflects local needs and circumstances? Will the Government now publish the modelling, which they must surely have done, so that we can see which schools will gain and which will lose in the new system?
Indeed, the Minister has acknowledged that changing the system in the manner proposed will result in many winners and many losers, so I welcome the decision not to introduce any changes before 2013-14 and to make transitional arrangements. I hope that those arrangements will include some kind of tapering to ensure a gradual transition to what may be a sizeable change to their budget for many schools. The Government want most schools to come out of the maintained system and become academies and free schools, so the parallel announcement to review academy funding is both necessary and welcome. Does the Minister agree that the funding system should ensure parity of funding between maintained schools and academies, based on need? Does he agree that academies should be subject to the same reporting framework in respect of the public money that they receive?
The consultation proposes three models for academy funding, but gives no bases for respondents to evaluate the different options. Will the Government now publish the data necessary to illustrate what would be the different impacts of those three models? We know that recently the Secretary of State was forced under threat of legal action to agree to a review of funding for academies. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of that review, and how it will link to the consultation that he announced today?
There are one or two notable gaps in the consultation, especially in relation to children with additional or high levels of need, and to post-16 funding. Will the Minister assure the House that the consultation will take account of the responses to the special educational needs Green Paper, as parents of children with special educational needs will have concerns over funding levels as a result of today's announcement? Furthermore, Ministers were silent today about 16 to 19 funding, which is particularly unfortunate as it is the subject of a critical report from the Education Select Committee. Many people are concerned that the changes to post-16 funding and the reductions in funding to school sixth forms could see some forced to close. The Secretary of State has promised a review of post-16 funding. It would make sense to conduct it concurrently with the consultation that he announced today. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Finally, the question of most concern to parents and teachers is how far the Government will protect funding for schools. Despite the claims made today, is it not the case that the Government failed to keep their promise to increase spending by 0.1 per cent in real terms throughout the spending review period? Is it not also the case that simply maintaining a national schools budget at last year's cash level has meant a real-terms cut that many schools are grappling with?
We on this side will work constructively with all parties on the consultation to try to reach the best outcome for children and schools on the funding mechanism. At the same time, we want to see not only fair funding but also sufficient funding to ensure that every child gets the chance that they deserve.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I welcome her offer to contribute to the consultation and to have constructive conversations about the way forward.
I will answer the questions that she asked. I am glad that she welcomed the announcement on capital that we made today. She called the decision taken by the Secretary of State last July to cancel the Building Schools for the Future programme “precipitous”. We had to stop it and act rapidly because of the economic situation that we had inherited. We could not carry on with the programme and, as a consequence of having taken that decision, we have been able to make savings on some of the programmes and projects that have gone ahead, which has contributed to the £500 million that we were able to announce today to help with basic need.
The details on private finance will need to be worked out. The Government believe that they can learn from previous schemes and find ways of doing it better. My noble friend Lord Sassoon announced today that the Treasury has identified £1.5 billion-worth of savings from running current PFI projects, but we will need to work out the details.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the condition survey needs to be carried out speedily. We want to start straightaway. She asked about basic need and free schools. This is a pot of money that will be allocated to local authorities on the basis of demographic need, where the need for new places, particularly primary places, is greatest.
I accept the noble Baroness's point about revenue. She said that some schools need more than others. The principle that we are striving for, which I am sure she shares, is that schools in similar circumstances, with similar conditions and similar pupils, should be funded on an equal basis. However, I accept her underlying premise that some schools will have different needs. I also agree with her that moving to a national funding formula may not be simple. The system is inherently complex. That is one reason why we will do this very cautiously—which the noble Baroness welcomed—rather than rush it; we will have a lot of consultation, make sure that there is proper transitional protection in place and not implement it before 2013-14 at the earliest. As the noble Baroness knows, one of the questions in the consultation is whether we should do this on an even longer timescale.
On the question of academies funding, I am absolutely clear that the principle to which we are working is parity of funding. We are having this consultation because of the views expressed to us by local authorities, and the concern that they expressed about the decisions that the Government reached at an earlier point about the basis on which funding would be taken from them, to stop the double-funding that had been going on.
The noble Baroness asked about special needs. It is very much our intention that everything we do should be compatible with the direction of travel set out in the Green Paper. Another proposal out for consultation is that we should have a special block of money for high-needs pupils to make sure that their needs are properly protected.
The subject of 16 to 19 funding is extremely important. We propose to look at that, too, and see whether we can simplify it, on the same lines as we are trying to simplify schools funding. We will run a review on that, which will start in the autumn.
On overall funding, I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of maintaining funding in schools. In difficult circumstances, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State managed to protect funding for schools at flat cash levels with the pupil premium on top. In the circumstances, that was a good settlement for the Department for Education. On our announcement today about capital and about basic need, I am the first to concede that it is not the answer to everything, but it is a step in the right direction. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed our announcements on capital and revenue—with the caveats that she expressed —as a step in the right direction.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, mentioned her concerns about funding for 16 to 19 year-olds. The Minister will be aware of my concerns about young people with ME who have been learning through the Nisai Virtual Academy. The funding continues through local authorities until they are 16, but it is now being cut off for 16 to 19 year-olds. At a vital stage when they are taking their exams, they find that they can no longer continue with their education.
I understand that Harrow College is funding existing students through their courses but will take on no new students. The Minister may agree that, as ME causes more long-term sickness absence in schools than any other illness, and about two-thirds of children on home tuition have ME, this is a very important group of children. Many of them are high achievers who are very frustrated because they cannot get on. Will the Minister give us hope that there will be funding? The virtual academy—it is virtual because it uses the internet—cannot tick the boxes for Ofsted and the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance because it has no bricks and mortar. Will the Minister help?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am very sensitive to the noble Baroness's point about children with ME, for a variety of reasons. I will look into the case that she mentions. Perhaps we can talk about it and take it forward.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I heartily welcome the fact that the Government are grasping the nettle of the complexity and unfairness of school funding, which the previous Government did not do in 13 years—indeed, they compounded the complexity problems.
First, I will say a word about capital funding. I notice from the Statement that the Secretary of State has accepted Mr Sebastian James’s recommendation to move towards greater standardisation of design of school buildings. Casting my mind back to the debate during the Localism Bill, I am sure the Government would not want a set of cloned schools all over the country. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a set of standard designs from which local communities can choose the most appropriate for their particular needs, not just one size fits all? That would not be in line with what this Government are trying to achieve. Will he also say whether energy efficiency, including microgeneration, will be included in those standard designs because, moving forward, that is going to be a very important issue?
On revenue, I welcome the consultation on moving towards a fairer national funding formula with appropriate room for local discretion—that is particularly important to those of us on these Benches—and the move towards a simpler, fairer and more transparent system. Schools need to know what to expect. From what the Minister said, I am sure he accepts that if you have a very simple system, it is likely not to be very fair, and if it is a very fair system, it is likely to have some complexity. I am sure that the Government’s consultation will allow for that. I also particularly welcome the Government’s determination to iron out the inequalities between areas and between academies and local authority schools.
On the subject of academies, I welcome the fact that the Government are publishing a consultation document for local authorities explaining the basis on which they intend that the money will be deducted this year and next. Does this mean that local authorities with no academies will have no deductions? Does it mean that there will be a standard costing for the services that academies will provide which local authorities will no longer provide? Finally, will he tell us a little more about how special schools will be treated?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Like my noble friend, I sat through the previous debate on design, and I thought someone would ask me about it. I was expecting the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to be in her place, but my noble friend has asked the question instead. Coming to listen to another Bill going through its Committee stage and being subjected to some of the same kind of scrutiny to which I have been subjected in the Moses Room makes a nice change.
On design, the Government want to get a balance between delivering savings through a common sense approach and not reinventing the wheel every time. I agree about not having a one-size-fits-all design that can be rolled out across the country. There clearly needs to be proper discretion about the set of standardised designs—plural—that we would work up. In that context, building schools and other buildings that are energy efficient is extremely and increasingly important.
I agree with my noble friend about the importance of local discretion in thinking about revenue. She put the point about simplicity, equity and complexity very well. It is precisely those issues that we will need to tease out in the consultation to try to get to a point where there is more transparency and openness but there is still room for people to make sensible judgments on the ground. As she also said, we want to iron out some of these inequalities across the country. The points she raised about academies and academy funding are the sorts of issues that we will be discussing with local authorities and their representative bodies to try to resolve this issue.
Special schools, like all schools, will be able to apply for funding to help with their condition because we know from the work we have done that, just as with other schools, there are special schools in great need of help with dilapidation, so they will be able to apply to the same fund.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. Can my noble friend help me with a couple of details on the capital side? First, possibly in parallel with, rather than in sequence with, the study that he is to undertake into the state of school conditions, will he be giving some thought to building up a matrix that will aid him in deciding which schools have the greatest need for capital work so there is a principled basis for doing it?
My second point is something of an extension of the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. It is in relation to the cost of building projects. Will he make sure that the costing takes into account the whole-of-life cost so that the building projects are sustainable, rather than simply the cheapest at the time?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the point of carrying out the condition survey is precisely to arrive at the point, to which my noble friend referred, where one can make a fair comparison between schools across the country to work out which of them have the greatest need and are most in need of having their condition improved. He is obviously right about that.
So far as the cost of the building projects is concerned, my noble friend makes a good point. One of the things that we will be looking at is how to try to secure the best possible value in a number of different ways, perhaps by grouping schools.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the noble Baroness is a very distinguished Member of this House, but I think Labour Back-Benchers are the only group who have not had a turn so far. We have a certain amount of time.
On design, did not the Victorians produce some extremely distinguished school buildings that have stood the test of time on the basis of just three or four rather standardised models? I hope the Minister will look at that example and perhaps be inspired by it.
On revenue funding, at first sight, one sees that it appears very just and sensible to cut back proportionately revenue funding to LEAs where a portion of that funding is earmarked for services that are now being paid for directly by funding academies. However, is it not the case that there are very considerable economies of scale in education, including in the operation of LEAs, and that the administrative and other fixed costs of those LEAs in providing those services will now, under this new system, fall on a reduced volume of funding for the LEA schools and therefore be a higher proportion of that funding? Therefore, schools that remain within the LEA system, will lose out, simply because there are academies in that area, and they will lose out more, the more academies there are in that area. Surely that is not fair either.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the noble Lord about Victorian schools. I am not an expert, but I think one of the reasons why, when one goes around London, they all look quite similar is because they were procured by a board. He is absolutely right about the question of how one goes about doing that. That demonstrates that it is possible to have something that looks recognisable but is also good quality and stands the test of time. My observation, as someone who gets sent around academies quite a lot, is that they all had fantastic architects and a lot of expense, and they all pride themselves on how original they are, but they all look quite similar if you look around the country. Going back to our earlier debate, I think the point about how design is accepted at a time is well made.
I understand the noble Lord’s point about economies of scale and academies. It is obviously the case, and it is indeed happening, that many academies are choosing to carry on buying services from the local authority if they think they are good quality local services and that they are delivering what they want. It is also the case that some local authorities are embracing, if that is the right word, a different role and are thinking that they want to be in the business of becoming commissioners and selling their services to a range of schools across broader areas. A number of different approaches are developing. I accept the underlying point he makes, but there is a varied response going on across the country.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I want to add to the design debate. First, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. Energy efficiency is also very important, but please let us have a design architectural competition to choose some of the best experts in that area. Secondly, the repairing of the older schools is terribly important because, again, pride in your school requires you and enables you to keep it in good order. The less well cared for a school is, the more likely it is to get kicked about and made even worse. Thirdly, and anticipating a debate we might have tomorrow but which sadly I can no longer take part in as I shall not be there, the involvement of the children themselves in the design of these schools and what is required there is crucially important. I have seen it in action with some young children advising student architects on what they should incorporate into a design. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he is thinking of student governors.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will not be joining us tomorrow but I am looking forward to our debate on school governors. I agree with all her points. I agree that involving the children or the students in what is going on in a school is jolly important. Her point about the upkeep of it and people taking pride in it is also obviously right. Getting input from architects will also be extremely important when we are trying to come up with our standardised set of designs.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was not entirely right to say that it was only the Labour Benches that had not yet contributed. We do not like to be overlooked too much, small though we are. I have another question for the Minister about new buildings, and about the procurement process. I speak as the chair of a new academy that has gone through the procurement process for new buildings. I have been struck by just how complex it is and how the costs of that must be built in to the end cost you have to pay when you get to the final preferred bidder. I agree that simplification in the design process should not go too far, but could that simplification also be applied to the procurement process?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The remarks made by the right reverend Prelate echo my almost daily plaint. I agree with him entirely. It is our hope that with the new scheme we will be able to deliver it faster, perhaps up to 12 months faster, which will obviously save money. I agree that these processes can seem extremely complex. If he has experience from the academy with which he is involved, I would be interested to talk about that because we are keen to learn and try to do it better.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, I want to highlight a couple of things in the Statement, but first I must say that I think it was quite a mean-spirited Statement in its very negative description of the approaches taken by the previous Government. Even in the paragraph on academies, there is no recognition of the success of the academies programme, which started under the previous Government and has carried on under this one. It is probably the most negative Statement that I have seen for quite some time in this House, and I just want to put on record the fact that I am very disappointed about that.
I have some questions about university technical colleges. Where do they fit into all this? What is their relationship to the academies? What is the funding for them? I am quite surprised that the Statement does not refer to them as the way forward. Noble Lords will know from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that they are very much the future, as I know from my involvement with some of the FE colleges that are going in that direction. Where are the university technical colleges going to fit in terms of revenue and the whole process?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords who have been subjected to me talking about academies would say that I have always been very quick to make clear the huge contribution that the previous Government made to academies. I have said from the beginning, although this might not always be an altogether welcome message for those on the Benches opposite, that I see my job as trying to build on what the previous Government did and what they intended to do in 2005. We are taking that forward; I am very clear about that. I am also very clear about Building Schools for the Future, having met a lot of the schools, children and heads who were involved with it. I absolutely share the previous Government’s intention to improve the building estate. I know what they were trying to do, and I understand why they did it, so I am sorry if the noble Baroness felt that the Statement was mean-spirited.
We did not mention funding for the UTCs in the Statement, but the noble Baroness will know that the Chancellor found some more money in the Budget to—I hope—double to 24 the number that we were aiming for in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is in place, and is not affected by anything that we have announced today. Given that these are new institutions, I guess that by definition the pot for dilapidation is not going to be relevant to them. As she will know from her conversations with FE colleges, there is a lot of support for them. We have had a large number of applications, which we are considering, and we will in due course make announcements on those which I will be very happy to share with her.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
May I press the Minister a little further? Where does the pupil premium fit into these proposals? As I understand it, there will be an allowance for deprivation and so forth on top of the basic amount, and I assume that that is where the pupil premium will come in. However, given that the local schools forum will still play a part in allocating resources at a local level, how can schools be guaranteed that they will actually get the money that they need from the pupil premium?
Lord Hill of Oareford
That is an extremely good question. Our approach to the pupil premium has consistently been to put it on top of other funding that is made available so that people can see very clearly where it sits and will over time be able to calculate its effect as we build it up. Our intention is that it will continue to be identified separately and go to schools, which over time will report on and account for the purposes to which it is spent.
Localism Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) a statement of consultation undertaken on the proposals in the preparation of the order, including particulars of how paragraph 3A of this Schedule has been complied with, any responses to consultations received and the account taken of those responses.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I shall speak also to Amendments 152BA and 152BB. These amendments propose that those undertaking a neighbourhood plan should have a duty to engage with people in the neighbourhood area at an early stage in the development of the plan. Of course, the plan has to be tested by a referendum in due course, but that is at the end of the process when the effort and expense have largely been incurred. Amendment 152ZE requires that proposals for neighbourhood development orders should be accompanied by a statement of consultation covering the responses received and how they have been taken into account. Amendment 152BA imposes a requirement to consult. This should be in the manner which the local authority considers to be consistent with good practice and, where relevant, the local authority’s statement of community involvement. These are straightforward amendments and I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I have an amendment in the group which has nothing to do with the Bill, and I apologise to my noble for inserting it. However, it relates to a long-running campaign for the age of voting to be lowered. When it comes to what is happening in their own community, children as young as 14 not only have a real understanding of that, but are also participating in what is going on and have an interest in the things a community might be doing to improve itself. We should look for ways of involving them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 153ZAKA in this group. It is probing in nature and probably does not require an immediate answer. Your Lordships are unlikely to remember that at Second Reading I expressed a concern that bad neighbour developments might possibly end up in neighbourhoods or parishes where the opposition to such a bad neighbourhood development was likely to be the least vocal. I gather that this is a phenomenon which happens even today, and with a neighbourhood planning system is probably more likely to happen in the future. The reason a neighbourhood is not vocal may be that it is already a deprived area or it is one which for a variety of reasons lacks the capacity, the personalities, the knowledge or possibly just an understanding of this new system and the way things work. It may also lack the funding to commit itself to the preparation of a neighbourhood plan or organising a referendum and so on. Even without the threat of a bad neighbour development, it is likely that many parishes and neighbourhoods lack the time and capacity to organise a cohesive plan which, it is hoped, would promote development and progress. I do not believe that these sorts of communities will be able to compete within the new system.
I was struck by some briefing that I received from the Highgate Society, which, albeit in a completely different context, said—I paraphrase—that people have jobs, children and lives to manage and do not want to take responsibility for what they pay their taxes to government, particularly local government, to do. This applies particularly to deprived neighbourhoods or to people within rural parishes who do not necessarily have the ability to counteract either an articulate middle class who might share their parish or someone with a bee in their bonnet who does necessarily consider the effects of their grievance on the whole community. Perhaps I may paraphrase, or plagiarise, a Chinese proverb—I am not quite sure that it is a Chinese proverb, but, if it is not, it should be: a man with a job or income that pays for more than his basic needs has many choices as to how he spends his time, but a man who struggles to earn his basic needs has only one choice. Very often in rural communities, the poorest people do not get involved because they focus on other needs.
Although the whole localism agenda is a very worthy cause, many people will need a lot of help to play their part. It is vital that the Government devote considerable thought and resources to working out how they help all communities to do that. It is the very communities who are least likely to play their part and pick up the baton who are probably in most need of the localism agenda. I hope that the Government will be prepared to spend a lot of time and resources on developing capacity in those neighbourhoods. It would be good if they could respond positively and state exactly how they are going to set about this.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may comment on the amendments which have just been moved. I thoroughly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Issues around capacity are vital, not only to the planning aspects of the Bill but to the whole issue of localism and whether people can make a reality of it. The impact assessment sets out the range of figures that might be involved in developing neighbourhood plans and holding referenda. Those are not small figures—I have forgotten what the range is, but it is not insignificant.
If there is not proper capacity building, proper training and proper funding, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, the people who will be able to take advantage of these arrangements will be the better off. They will inevitably—from their point of view not unreasonably—use them for their benefit and not necessarily for the benefit of the community as a whole. We should guard against that.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he wishes for people to be involved in the referendum from the age of 14. I do not disagree with that but, as the schedule is constructed, to be able to vote in a referendum you need to be able to vote for your councillor in the first place. You therefore need to be 18 years of age and so he might need a slightly different amendment. However, the concept of involving young people in their neighbourhood is absolutely right and I support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I can be reasonably helpful over all of these amendments. On the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is concerned about putting a requirement for consultation in the Bill. That is not necessary. We do not believe that it ought to be in primary legislation, anyway. The right place for consultation is in secondary legislation and the Government have appropriate powers to do this. I say that the amendment is inappropriate not because the provisions are there already but because consultation is about to take place in this area. We shall congregate in the summer and I hope that by the time we meet again we will have some views on the issue. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
On Amendment 153A, our approach has already been to encourage consultation and participation as early as possible. Proposals can only proceed to examination if they have been the subject of consultation with the wider community and it has to be made clear that that has been done. However, as I say, there will be more consultation on consultation over the summer.
As to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the Government have already undertaken to implement a package of measures to ensure that neighbourhood planning is successful and to strengthen people’s ability and understanding of how to do it. In order to help with this, we have already given more than £3 million to four organisations which are tasked with providing the training, back-up and experience for neighbourhood forums to access so that they receive the support they need. We are also considering whether to provide direct financial assistance to neighbourhood forums for very much the same purpose. The intention is there and it is well understood.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it is a requirement that those who take part in a referendum have to be entitled to vote in a council election on the day of the referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, someone aged 14 is not entitled to vote in a council election and, therefore, they would not be entitled to vote in the referendum. We believe that it should be only people who are eligible to vote in council elections. These are the people who elect local councillors—and the local councils then go on ultimately to make the final planning decisions —and we believe that it is right that only those aged 18 and above should be involved in these referendums.
With those explanations, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. We look forward to the consultation on the consultation when we return after the Recess, which we hope will deal fully with the point. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(2) If—
(a) a proposal by a qualifying body is made by an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, and (b) the designation is withdrawn at any time before the proposal is submitted for independent examination under paragraph 7,the proposal is to be treated as withdrawn by the qualifying body at that time.(3) If the withdrawal of the designation occurs after the proposal is submitted for independent examination under that paragraph, the withdrawal is not to affect the validity of the proposal.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“14A (1) The additional referendum mentioned in paragraph 12(4) must be held on the making of a neighbourhood development order if the draft order relates to a neighbourhood area that has been designated as a business area under section 61GA.
(2) Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 14 is to apply in relation to the additional referendum as it applies in relation to a referendum under that paragraph.
(3) A person is entitled to vote in the additional referendum if on the prescribed date—
(a) the person is a non-domestic ratepayer in the referendum area, or(b) the person meets such other conditions as may be prescribed.(4) “Non-domestic ratepayer” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Local Government Act 2003 (see section 59(1)).
(5) Regulations may make provision for excluding a person’s entitlement to vote in the additional referendum.”
Baroness Hanham
“(5A) In consequence of the provision made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of this paragraph—
(a) paragraph 12(7) to (9) of Schedule 4B have effect as if the words “(or referendums)” were omitted, and(b) that Schedule has effect as if paragraph 14A (and references to that paragraph) were omitted.”
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. These amendments are about charges for neighbourhood development orders and would amend Clauses 102 to 105, which are about charges for meeting costs related to neighbourhood planning and financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning.
The Bill states:
“The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury make regulations providing for the imposition of charges for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred … by local planning authorities”,
relating to neighbourhood planning functions. As regards the phrase:
“The Secretary of State may … make regulations”,
we say that this should be “must”. Without being able to levy charges, local planning authorities risk being seriously out of pocket. Will the Minister confirm that the expenses which will be reimbursable through these charges include the cost of organising a referendum?
An important question is when the charges have to be paid. The Bill says that it will be,
“when the development is commenced”.
But that means that all the costs of the local planning authority, including the cost of a referendum and examination, may never be recouped if the development does not take place. We are proposing amendments that suggest that the charge should be paid when the draft neighbourhood development order is submitted to the local planning authority by the parish council or the neighbourhood forum, as with an ordinary planning application. Why should this be different and why should the local planning authority, the council, have to carry this cost, perhaps for ever?
An alternative amendment suggests that the cost should be levied when the local planning authority resolves to hold a referendum—in other words, the costs begin when it is really serious and after the decision has been made whether it should go ahead to a referendum. Again, the risk is that the local planning authority is seriously out of pocket due to things that are completely out of its control. This could make a very serious hole in its budget, especially if it is quite a small district council.
The second issue in this group relates to financial assistance by the Secretary of State in relation to neighbourhood planning. The amendments suggest that the first need is to publicise the changes in the planning system. What will the Government be doing to tell people about the changes in this Bill, if and when it becomes law?
The main amendment is to probe who the Government intend should receive this money and how much is involved. The Minister has mentioned that some money has already been paid out to organisations to provide support and training. Forty pilots have been announced and have been funded to the tune of a relatively small amount of money. The Minister can no doubt tell us what that sum is. Why, therefore, is this provision needed, if money can already be provided to pilots? Why do we have to have a separate provision in this Bill allowing this money to be spent? What extra things will it be spent on that it could not be spent on at the moment?
The Bill provides for,
“the provision of financial assistance … to any body or other person”—
which may involve,
“the making of agreements or other arrangements with any body or other person”.
Who does this refer to? Does it include parish councils and local planning authorities, or is it restricted only to neighbourhood forums? Clearly, we are back to the difference between a parished area, with a parish council, and an unparished area with a neighbourhood forum. What kind of bodies are likely to get this money and what are they expected to do with it? What are the processes for handing out this money? How is it going to be decided who to give it to? If neighbourhood planning takes off in a big way, one assumes that the amount of money that the Government have available will not be sufficient to seriously subsidise everybody. Therefore, they will have to choose one way or the other. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised a series of what seem to be quite pertinent questions and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will just comment on two of the amendments. In Amendment 153ZZAKA, the noble Lord suggests that there has to be a “must” in respect of making regulations—although I see the force of the argument that most, or all, local authorities would be daft not to, we are dealing with localism and I do not see why the discretion should not be with the local authorities. I may have missed it, but I think that Amendment153ZZAKF deletes a right to enforce in the case of death or insolvency. I think that is the thrust of the amendment, but I was not quite sure what it was about. Perhaps I misunderstood but it would be helpful if the noble Lord could clarify that.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, without actually going back to it and looking it up, I do not think so. If that is what it says, it was a mistake. Perhaps it is the wrong line.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can probably enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on what his amendment was about when we get to it. Amendments 153ZZAKA to 153ZZAKF all relate to the provisions on charges that we started discussing in the last group. Amendment 153ZZAKA would make it a requirement for the Government to introduce regulations imposing such charges. It is our intention to introduce charges that would be payable by developers on development that has been given permission by a neighbourhood development order. However, that is not to say that, in future, a decision could not be made to meet some of the costs of neighbourhood planning in a different way. We do not, therefore, wish to tie our hands by making it a requirement to regulate in this way. Having said that, before the next stage I would like to test out the business of when the charges are paid so that I can have a sensible answer about it. It is very late for a charge to be made at a time when permission has been given and just before development.
Amendment 153ZZAKB would specify that the costs that can be covered by such charges include the cost of holding a referendum. That is already implicit in the current provisions, and specifying a single cost like this could be taken to imply that other costs have been excluded. They have not, and that would be included.
Amendments 153ZZAKC and 153AKD both relate to the point at which any charge should be made. I am sorry—I leapt in on the previous amendment with what I should have said on this one. Our view is that developers should pay a charge when development commences. We just need to get a little more advice on that, and as to why it is there. It would be more helpful if the fee and charge were made earlier. I will come back to that.
Amendment 153ZZAKE says that, when charges are imposed in relation to a local development order, the charge must be made before the authority takes any further action in relation to that order. The provisions do not extend to local development orders. In the case of neighbourhood development orders, if full permission has been given for development, there may be no further action for a local planning authority to take. So this provision would have no teeth.
Amendment 153ZZAKF would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations about the collection and enforcement of charges on a neighbourhood development order. This was the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, could not quite remember. The consequence would be that charges would still apply in relation to neighbourhood development orders, but the collection and enforcement of those charges would be constrained. These powers are designed to ensure that the regulations can deal flexibly and efficiently with changes in circumstances or with problems which become apparent in the future.
There were five amendments on financial assistance. Amendments 153ZZAKG, 153ZZAKH and 153ZZAKJ relate to the provisions on financial assistance for neighbourhood planning. Amendments 153ZZAKG, 153ZZAKH seek to prevent the provision of financial assistance for promoting the benefits of neighbourhood planning, and Amendment 153ZZAKJ seeks to prevent assistance being given to other bodies or individuals. We believe that, in addition to central government funding to local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning functions, communities that wish to engage in shaping their future should receive support. This could be achieved through funding an independent advice service, through direct funding of neighbourhood groups or through a mixture of both approaches. We would not want to rule those out. The amendments would limit our flexibility.
I recognise the concerns behind Amendments 153ZZAKG and 153ZZAKH. It is certainly not our intention to finance reams of propaganda in support of neighbourhood planning. But we do want to ensure that communities, especially those communities with little prior knowledge of the planning system, can understand what neighbourhood planning can do for them. This is what this provision is aimed at. Similarly, Clause 105(2) would allow us to enter into contracts with training providers or to give grants to voluntary sector organisations to work with communities to help them realise their goals. That reinforces what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, under previous amendments. It is important that when these neighbourhood forums are set up they have the support they need to enable them to do the job that has been put before them. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply but it does not really take us much further than we can deduce simply by reading the Bill. Concerning financial assistance, I am trying to find out how it is going to work, how much money there will be, who will be responsible for handing out the dosh, how people apply for it and who then makes a decision between the different people applying. Perhaps the Minister does not have any of that information, but that is what I was really trying to probe. Does she agree that somebody can write down what the Government’s thinking is, as far as it goes, together with who has had the money so far and on what basis they have been chosen? Would it be possible to write about that?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I will certainly write. Regarding the four organisations that have already received the money, I think there was a full tendering exercise but I will certainly ensure that the noble Lord has the details he asked for. I regret that, both when listening to him and reading his amendments, I was not aware of quite the details that he was looking for but with him having made them clear now, I will make sure that he has answers to them.
Lord Greaves
That is fair enough. When you put down amendments to delete pieces of Bills to probe things, it is sometimes difficult to get through exactly what you are trying to get at. Concerning the charges, the amendments that I put down should be seen as a whole. Individually, they make no sense at all but, taken as a whole, I am trying to suggest that the point at which the charge is being levied is too late at the moment—the Minister had some sympathy with that and is going to look at it—and that it should be paid upfront. People should go in and hand their money over the counter, or however they pay, rather than being sent a bill and then having all this chasing and enforcement procedure. In the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, did not understand, I was just taking out all the chasing-up-the-money procedures. If you take a planning application in and do not hand your money over, your application is not dealt with; it is as simple as that. It seems to me that the same thing should apply for this.
However, the Minister said that she would look at this other point and I look forward to learning the results of her researches. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“Consultation: code of best practice61W Code of best practice for consultation
(1) The Secretary of State must publish and keep under review a code of practice relating to the carrying out of consultation in cases where—”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I shall discuss with this amendment the three others in the group. I can deal with Amendments 153AM and 153AN very briefly. What is proposed here is that instead of having all these requirements laid out in statutes, where they become rigid and less amended, they should form part of a code of practice. That should have exactly the same effect but can be tailored to suit the changing circumstances of the time.
Amendment 153AM is the paving amendment, as it were, but Amendment 153AN would take out almost a page of the statute. It seems to me that is a sensible way of trying to deal with the requirements on pre-consultation. If one is dealing with the major infrastructure units which will go the IPC or to MIPU, then of course there has to be a very substantial programme of pre-consultation. I welcome the Government’s proposal to extend the same sort of provision to the ordinary planning application.
The last amendment in the group in my name is Amendment 153C. This raises an interesting point which was put to me by the United Kingdom Business Council for Sustainable Energy. That body is puzzled as to why the Government have decided that the relevant measure must be statutory. The Government have stated in the past that it is for the developer to decide what level of consultation is proportionate and appropriate. However, Clause 107 amends Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act by adding a range of provisions, including new Section 61Y, headed “Power to make supplementary provision”—my amendment proposes to take that out—which allows for local authorities to make a development order to set out publicity and consultation requirements which the developer will be required to follow. There is clearly a contradiction between these two requirements: the Government having stated that it is for the developer to decide the level of consultation, and the Bill stating that the development order will set out requirements in that regard. Therefore, Amendment 153C is a probing amendment to explore the divergence between what appeared to be the Government’s stated objective of allowing developers to decide what is proportionate and this new facility for local authorities to define what must be done through the new Section 61Y powers. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 153B, which is grouped with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, although it is on a rather different theme. I believe that this amendment has the support of most of those concerned with the cultural heritage of this country, and certainly of those concerned with the understanding of the prehistoric and early historic past of our land. It is needed to ensure that the Bill ensures that heritage issues are not ignored in the course of development.
Members of your Lordships' House will recall that the Heritage Protection Bill, which was supposed to be given consideration in the previous Parliament, had the intention of placing the maintenance of the historic environment record as a statutory duty upon local planning authorities. That did not happen, nor is it proposed here, but it is imperative that all developments have some regard to the historic environment and take steps not to damage it, or at least to do so only after careful consideration and with any necessary actions by way of mitigation.
These obligations do not appear on the face of the Bill and it seems very desirable that they should do so. It seems that as part of the new neighbourhood development plan process there will be no opportunity to carry out pre-application assessment in the same way as for other development under the normal planning application process. This is all the more serious since most archaeological sites are undesignated; that is, they are not scheduled monuments or otherwise protected. This point was discussed earlier in relation to Amendment 145B. This leaves a glaring loophole in the Bill.
My amendment is drawn up in such a form as to place on the developer the obligation to seek the advice of the local planning authority about the historic environment. That implies that the local authority must have access to the relevant historic environment record. This amendment deliberately sets no obligation upon each local planning authority to maintain such a record. Ideally, each will have its own record, but there may be cases where two or three local planning authorities can share a single historic environment record. We are not setting out to be prescriptive in that respect, but it is implied in the amendment that the authority shall at least have access to such a record. Is it conceivable that development should go ahead without the local authority giving consideration to the historic environment on the basis of good and up-to-date information?
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 153AM and to express some sympathy with it. I very much welcome the principle of pre-application consultation in a range of applications, particularly for major projects and so on. It has been working in Scotland and there are some benefits to that because there is the ability then to take into account at an early stage the product of that consultation and to feed it back in.
My worry is the one expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the rigidity that can creep into the statutory provisions that can sometimes provide a hurdle for developers to get over—and, frankly, they cannot do without lawyers’ advice. While I am more than happy for lawyers to be employed on this, there are limits.
I ask the Government to see whether or not we can get a system that puts the principles into the statute but leaves a lot of the way in which it is done to guidance, and we should not thereby get into a situation where applications fail because one person who might have been expected to be consulted has not been—or something of that nature. That is not to detract in any way from the principle that there must be adequate consultation and, within it, an obligation on the individual developer or applicant to respond positively to the consultation exercise. Let us not get into a rigidity.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, about local planning authorities having access to the relevant historic environment records. That must be right, and it follows on from our earlier discussion. I do not know how practical or easy it would be to put in place, but it is something we should require and strive towards.
As to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, he posed a conundrum about the operation of proposed new Section 61Y, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I thought that I was sure of my ground on the first amendments relating to retaining in statute the issues about requiring pre-application consultation. It is therefore with some hesitation that I disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd. I can understand the need for a degree of flexibility, but I do not see within the amendment something that is unduly rigid, although I am prepared to be swayed on that issue. However, I would need some persuading that we should adjust the Bill in that respect, but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has raised an interesting point on new Section 61Y and the possible conflicts therein. I wait to see how that is to be resolved. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this series of amendments. Clause 107 sets out a light-touch set of requirements for prospective applicants for planning permission to publicise their development proposals so that members of the community have an opportunity to comment or collaborate on the design at an early stage. Instead, the amendments would require a prospective applicant to have regard to a code of best practice for consultation set out at the national level by the Secretary of State. It is not necessary or appropriate to set out detailed national standards. There should be flexibility for each consultation to be tailored to the unique circumstances and characteristics of the development proposed and the host area.
Lord Greaves
Before the noble Lord does so—this is a slightly cheeky intervention—my noble friend said that the Government did not believe in telling people in great detail how to carry out consultation because they were not experts on it and because it is a fast- moving area. Why do they, therefore, in so many parts of the Bill take a very different view when it comes to consultation by local authorities?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I have to say that during discussion on the Bill, noble Lords are constantly saying that the Government are being too prescriptive, on the one hand; or, on the other hand, that the Government need regulations or some backstop somewhere. It seems to me that there is balance in all things. What I have read out is the balance perceived at this point. This is Committee, so, as always, the comments of noble Lords will be taken into account.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful for that last comment and most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, for his support for my amendment. It is extraordinary how differently those of us on the Back Benches and my noble friends on the Front Benches can view the same proposal. In my innocence, I thought that a code of practice was rather simpler than a substantial statutory provision. Obviously, my noble friend Lord Shutt does not think so. We will look to see whether it is necessary to come back to this; I will certainly take advice. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Notice requiring application for planning permission for development already carried out
After section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“70A Notice requiring application for planning permission for development already carried out
Where, in view of the planning authority, there is a breach of planning permission or the local authority’s planning policy, the planning authority may issue a notice—
(a) requiring the owner of the land in, on, over or under which the development has been carried out to make an application to them for planning permission for the development;(b) describing the development in a way that is sufficient to identify it; and(c) specifying a date by which the application is to be made.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 153D concerns retrospective planning permissions. It says that, where there is a breach of planning control, the planning authority must issue a notice,
“requiring the owner of the land in, on, over or under which the development has been carried out to make an application to them for planning permission for the development … describing the development in a way that is sufficient to identify it; and … specifying a date by which the application is to be made”.
While the purpose of the clause is, at face value, good, it is suggested that it will not significantly shorten the timescale for inappropriate unauthorised development to be removed. Although the clause seeks to prevent developers running a ground (a) appeal and a retrospective planning application at the same time, it should be borne in mind that, in the event that a retrospective application is submitted closely followed by an enforcement notice, a right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission will still exist. If the intention is to retain this right of appeal, then any appeal, including the appellant’s statement, should be submitted within 28 days of the date of refusal. The appeal should then be automatically converted to a ground (a) enforcement appeal so that in essence only one appeal is running.
However, Clause 108 still fails to deal with developers who carry out unauthorised development and who refuse to submit a retrospective planning application to regularise such development. Where the development is inappropriate, it can be dealt with by a notice. However, where it would not be expedient to take formal action, there is no sanction. This causes problems, especially where neighbours have done the right thing and applied for permission while they see a developer cocking a snook at the system and getting away with it.
The planning system should be an open and transparent method of regulating development. Many of the people who decide to circumvent the system avoid the public consultation process, and that must be contrary to the aims of localism. In addition, it puts an onus on the local authority to investigate and evaluate the proposal at the authority’s expense when the developer is making a gain. As one planning enforcement officer affirmed, it is important that the public have confidence that the system does not allow rogue developers to continue to take advantage. We suggest that any developer who has carried out unauthorised development should be compelled to submit a retrospective planning application, with a suitable sanction by way of a fixed penalty notice for double the appropriate fee if they fail to do so, and this amendment should be incorporated into the Localism Bill.
I am advised by the RTPI that the amendment is based on Section 33A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 154, which is grouped with Amendment 153D.
Clause 108 inserts a new Section 70C into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and gives the local planning authority the power to decline to determine a planning application if the grant of permission would involve granting, whether in relation to the whole or any part of the land to which an enforcement notice relates, permission in respect of the whole or any part of the matters specified in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control.
We had a brief discussion, interrupted by a Division, with the Minister and her advisers on new Section 70C a couple of weeks ago, and I hope that in the light of that discussion, the Minister will have had second thoughts about the consequences that it might have.
I should like to make two preliminary observations. The vast majority of retrospective planning applications are not made by Gypsies and Travellers, but power conferred on local authorities by Clause 108 is discretionary. In the discussion that we had, it was clear that we all envisage that it will be used predominantly to put a stop to appeals by members of those communities against refusal of their planning applications for unauthorised developments.
The Secretary of State said on 29 August last year, referring to the CLG's announcement of that date, that he was looking at ways to strengthen the powers available to councils to more effectively tackle unauthorised development and that these developments have caused tensions between Travellers and the settled population. The announcement was not about unauthorised development in general. Yet I think it was also agreed at our meeting a couple of weeks ago that it would have been unlawful for the Government to have designed this clause with Gypsies and Travellers as a target, as Mr Pickles made clear they did. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on this difficulty that I have with the clause.
The proposal in new Section 70C of the TCPA 1990, to which this amendment relates, when taken together with the amendment to Section 174 of the Act relating to appeals against enforcement notices, goes far beyond the stated intention of preventing delays caused by the running of concurrent or consecutive appeals. If these provisions become law, a local planning authority would be able to use the new power in Section 174(2)(a) to issue an enforcement notice within the period specified in Section 78(2), which I understand is eight weeks, after receiving a planning application for retrospective permission for a Gypsy site, and then use the power in new Section 70C to refuse to determine the application. The applicant would then be estopped from appealing against the enforcement notice, given the wording of Section 174(2)(a), and would have no ability to argue that the planning merits justified the grant of planning permission for the development. Instead of there being no second appeal on the merits, there would be no appeal at all. The applicant could go for judicial review of the decision not to determine the application, but the local planning authority would almost certainly defeat any such challenge by relying on the legislation.
It may be that local planning authorities will decide not to use their powers or will fail to do so within eight weeks, but experience suggests that enforcement powers will be used enthusiastically by local planning authorities in Gypsy and Traveller cases. It is possible that where no enforcement action has been taken before a site is developed, Travellers could decide not to make a retrospective planning application but instead simply wait until an enforcement notice is issued and then appeal against the notice. The amendments to the 1990 Act in this clause will not debar a ground (a) appeal in such circumstances. However, local planning authorities often do not bother to issue enforcement notices; instead, they simply apply for an injunction under Section 187B of the 1990 Act against unauthorised developments.
In most cases, the target family's best way of defending such a claim has been to show that they have sought planning permission and that their application has a realistic chance of success, but given the provisions of Clause 108, such a course may not be open to them. The only recourse would be to argue that the authority should serve an enforcement notice before seeking an injunction, giving them the opportunity to appeal and have their case determined on the merits. However, the chances are that such an argument would be unsuccessful and if the court accepted it, the ensuing delay would be contrary to the Government's aim of stopping retrospective applications whatever their planning merits.
So, this amendment provides that the enforcement notice must not only have been issued but also have taken effect. Clause 108 could not then be used by planning authorities to issue an enforcement notice after an application for planning permission has been made, thus preventing any appeal on the merits of the development being heard. Secondly, it would prevent appeals only for three years after an enforcement notice took effect, so that land would not be permanently sterilised, and changed circumstances would be arguable at a planning appeal brought more than three years after the enforcement notice was issued. We had a brief discussion in the meeting two weeks ago about this time limit and I would not be absolutely committed to it if the amendment is otherwise acceptable to the Government.
The reason why Gypsies and Travellers have resorted to lodging retrospective planning applications is that there is no land in the whole of the country designated for their use by local planning authorities. This is in stark contrast to the Government's intention, in the national planning policy framework to be published later this month, for a housing bonanza for developers in the green belt, according to Ben Webster, the environment editor of the Times, who has seen a leaked copy of the document. With 20 per cent of those who live in caravans being statutorily homeless, they have had no option but to buy a piece of land that they can develop as a site and then apply for planning permission. The consensus among academics and lawyers who know about these matters is that something like 75 per cent of successful appeals are for retrospective applications. Taking the statistics from the work of Dr Jo Richardson, that would equate to around 100 a year.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 154, I have very little to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who covered the main ground. I emphasise that at the moment the legislative proposal does not apply only to Gypsies and Travellers; the double whammy covers everybody who is caught in that situation. I am most grateful to the Minister for the meeting we had earlier, at which I think it was registered that there is a certain amount of confusion between the intended and unintended effects. If the legislation is not amended, not only will there be more confusion, but there is likely to be more contentious litigation and the prospect of a challenge to the legislation's compatibility with human rights.
As the Minister will know, previously the UK Government defended the reliance of the planning system on the right to be heard by an impartial planning inspector. This legislation does not match up to any of that. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, my Amendment 155 is in this group. After listening to the complexity of the last amendment, I must say that mine is extremely simple. However, it is not quite what I intended to table. It is headed, “Requirement for consultation on retrospective application”, which is exactly what I believe should happen. However, it says that the local planning authority may require an applicant to do this. My view is that the council planning authority should do this.
I have had personal experience in two parts of the country. In my village, local people supported an application to convert a barn opposite into a home and to build a wall two metres high. Suddenly, we found that we were faced with a wall at least two to three metres higher than originally proposed. When we said that we were not consulted, we were told that the builders of the wall had been given retrospective permission. However, it was given without any of the people who had taken an interest in the application, and in many cases supported it, having any idea that the thing had gone back for retrospective permission. I believe that anyone who sent in comments on the original application should certainly be consulted again, but I do not think I intended it to be the applicant doing it. I intended it to be part of the planning procedure. It is a very simple amendment. It cut out the lovely view we all had of the village green, the only unspoilt part, where there are sheep and so forth wandering around. Instead, we have got a wall three metres extra in height. I think this sort of thing is happening to people everywhere, and it should be covered.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have the fourth amendment —Amendment 170CH—in the group, which is a bit of a mixed bag. I also added my name to the first amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and support everything he said about it.
Amendment 170CH is another amendment which originated with the RTPI. I am also grateful for help with it from Vivien Green, who is a planning consultant who lives not very far away from me in Pendle. The amendment would add two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The first would be new Section 106D, “Notification of initiation of development”, the key part of which reads:
“A person who intends to carry out development for which permission has been granted or for which a local development order, a neighbourhood development order or a community right to build order has been made must as soon as practicable after deciding on a date on which to initiate the development inform the local planning authority of that date”.
It also requires the local planning authority to draw attention to this provision when it gives permission for development.
The second new section, Section 106E, “Display of notice during development”, states that,
“A person carrying out relevant development must display a notice containing prescribed information while the development is taking place”,
and gives some more details about the classes of development to which this applies—it obviously would not apply to small developments or simple changes of use—and to some other provisions in relation to it.
There is no doubt that there is a general problem with enforcement. In general, enforcement is something that local planning authorities do not always do as well as they do some of their other tasks. It is seen as something that you do when you have a bit of spare time, perhaps, and it does not get the same resources put into it. That includes enforcement of conditions and of compliance with the details of planning applications. It is our view that a provision that developers and people with planning permission should have to inform the local planning authority when development starts would be of help in this respect.
Such a provision would ensure that checks can then be made on pre-commencement conditions and subsequently that development is proceeding in accordance with approved plans. It is already a mandatory requirement for developers to give 48 hours’ notice of intention to commence work under the building regulations. Of course, developers may use someone other than the council to provide building control, but, nevertheless, many still use the council. Even if a developer is going to use a council building inspector, in a number cases the development can commence by the actions of the developer long before a building control notice is required.
I have been provided with correspondence between the Member of Parliament for Pendle, Andrew Stephenson MP, who was originally contacted by Vivien Green to take this matter up, and Bob Neill, the Minister, whose letter puts the argument about why the Government are not happy about this, which is perhaps what the Minister is going to say. The letter says:
“However, I would be reluctant to impose a further statutory requirement of this nature on developers, in addition to those that apply under Building Regulations and the Community Infrastructure Levy system, particularly when we cannot know whether local planning authorities would be likely to use the information routinely or only exceptionally. If a developer is suspected of having failed to comply with any pre-commencement condition, the local planning authority’s enforcement team is still able to take action”.
However, I think the argument that it is onerous should not be taken too seriously. Filling in a simple form, possibly a prepaid one, to notify the council of the intention to start development is not a great burden and is definitely not in the same league as the CIL system. Where developers are using the local authority for building control purposes, they have to notify them under the building regs. It would be perfectly possible to have a joint form so that there would be hardly any extra work. It has been a statutory duty to notify the planning authority in Scotland since 2009, and developers did not raise this requirement as an issue or a cost when the impact of those changes was assessed recently by the Scottish Government. It is a relatively minor thing for people to do but it could have a significant effect in improving the system of making sure that people are adhering to conditions and to the planning application that has been approved. In our view, it would be a useful small reform. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate as we enter into the enforcement chapter of this part of the Bill. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his Amendment 153D, which at first hearing seems attractive but is, I think, unworkable. As the noble Lord pointed out, the problem is that there is no sanction if the person required to submit a retrospective application does not do so. I doubt whether failing to make a planning application could be made an offence, given that the authority has the sanction of enforcement action. In any case, a fine and conviction would not generate a planning application. In practice, the planning status of an unauthorised development is often regularised when the property is to be sold, in order to reassure the prospective purchaser. The developer will either make a retrospective application of his own volition or apply for a lawful development certificate, depending on whether the time limits for taking enforcement action have expired. Both of these carry a fee, as noble Lords will know.
In speaking to Amendment 154, my noble friend Lord Avebury, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has made interesting points about a possible ambiguity in Clause 108. I can assure my noble friend that it is not our policy for both limbs of Clause 108 to operate on the same case. We see Clause 108 as an either/or process, depending on what happens first. If enforcement action has been taken, the council can decline to determine a retrospective planning application. If a retrospective planning application has been made and the council takes enforcement action in time, there could be no appeal on ground A. The aim is that if someone is seeking to obtain planning permission for an unauthorised development, they should have one bite of the cherry—not two, but they should not be denied their one bite. They must follow the first path that they take, to avoid the ambiguity that can occur.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, reported that they had met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hanham, last week and these concerns were discussed. I am not sure that the three-year time limit proposed by the amendments will necessarily solve the problem identified. However, my noble friend Lord Avebury can be assured that we want the same outcome and we shall continue to consider the points that he has made.
My noble friend used the illustration of Gypsies and Travellers. I emphasise that none of the enforcement provisions in the Bill is aimed at any particular group. It would be invidious to suggest that any particular section of the population was especially prone to breaching planning control.
Lord Greaves
The problem with enforcement is that it is inevitably reactive when it depends on people making complaints. However, there is no need for it to be reactive in the case of new developments. We all know just how much annoyance is caused when someone in the street is seen to get away with doing various things for which other people apply for planning permission and pay fees. We all know how someone can do it; they can stretch the system out for quite a long time if they want to do so. A system under which there was automatic notification and inspection of the work would seriously cut down on development that did not have planning permission. As I have said before, the Government say that it is a major imposition to ask people simply to say when they are starting work, but that is not true. The Minister said that we cannot know how many authorities would use this provision. Perhaps the people who are promoting this amendment might try to find out.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He said that he did not think my amendment could be made to work because it had no sanction, but when I moved the amendment I suggested that one could impose a fixed penalty sanction for failure to comply, which hopefully would deal with his concern.
I support Amendment 170CH, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. In fact, had I got round to it I would have put my name to it for the reasons that he gave. It seems to me that there could be three notifications: building control; the one that the amendment seeks to introduce; and CIL, which is triggered by the commencement of a development. I offer this to be helpful to the Government. Surely those three regulations could be rolled into one to satisfy the requirements in the noble Lord’s amendment: you could have two out and one in, so you would be ahead of the game.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and supported by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, I should like to read the record of what the noble Lord said because at this hour I did not follow it in great detail. Certainly I would be very concerned if the perception and the reality were that this clause was principally in place to deal with Gypsy and Traveller families. I know how committed both he and my noble friend are to ensuring that those families have justice. For a brief while when I sat in the noble Lord’s position, I remember answering a Question on this. If I am right, across the country something like the extra provision of one square mile of land would be sufficient to deal with the issue. It is undoubtedly the case that local authorities have not fulfilled their duties in making enough provision. However, I should like to read the record so as to understand better the technicalities of the point made by the noble Lord. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I thought that it would be useful if I also spoke to the other amendments grouped with it. The need for Amendments 155A to 155C has arisen in the light of case law and difficulties encountered in some recent experiences. Although there is no doubt or disagreement that Clause 109 should be aimed only at the worst cases of concealment—I am sure that all noble Lords know about the case of the house in a barn in Welwyn Hatfield recently decided by the Supreme Court—the Law Society thought that the current drafting could be interpreted more widely. The Government also think that it is important that local planning authorities should be able to reassure landowners who are not responsible for breaches of planning control on their land that they are not in danger of prosecution. My noble friend Lady Hanham has written to noble Lords with an explanation of what the amendments do. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee I do not propose to go into further detail today, but if there are questions, I am happy to write to noble Lords.
Perhaps it would be easier for me to respond to Amendment 156 at the conclusion of the debate on this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I shall speak briefly to Amendment 156 concerning the removal of time limits on enforcement. I am not sure whether this is exactly what I was aiming for because I certainly would not want to do anything which would make the enforcement last forever. However, I am quite shocked by the enforcement procedures that have been put in place close to where I am in London. The council has put an enforcement order on a conservation area, but nothing has ever happened. The people have put in French windows and large terraces, and the council was successful in getting an enforcement order. I do not know whether the owners live abroad and I do not know why it has not been possible to get anything done about it, but I wonder whether it might be that despite having the orders, you run out of time and nothing can be done. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether all those enforcement orders last for ever or only for the time limit within which you can apply for enforcement against something. I am concerned that if a breach has occurred and enforcement action is taken but no result is achieved, the person concerned will get away with it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 156A and 156B in this group, which relate to penalty levels. I thank again the RTPI, which welcomes the increase in penalty level proposed in the Bill but considers that it should be even higher. This, it is argued, will help concentrate the minds of magistrates and help focus on the potential seriousness of offences. Amendment 156A is proposed by way of probing the rationale behind the level set by the Government. Equally probing is the amendment to Clause 110(2)(b), which relates to land situated in Wales. Doubtless there is an extensive and constitutional reason why there is a difference between levels of penalty in England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister could let us know how that works.
On government Amendment 155C, it is a bit odd to serve a notice on somebody and then write them a letter and say, “Well, in a sense, we didn’t mean it”. It seems rather a bizarre solution to an issue which I accept has to be dealt with. I wonder whether there is not a more elegant way of avoiding serving the notice on the landlord in the first instance. There may be other ramifications of not doing so, but to serve a notice and then to say, “Well, don’t worry—we’re not going to prosecute”, seems rather an odd thing for government to do.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps I may address first the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Abolishing the limitation for enforcement action would be an extremely radical step for which the Government and planning professionals have no appetite. As we have just debated in the context of Clause 109, the Law Society thought that our original proposals for restarting the enforcement clock would have had a chilling effect on the property market. I fear that this amendment would put the markets into a deep freeze. If the amendment were to be approved, Clause 109 would become redundant; there would be no need to start the enforcement clock if there was no clock to start with. The purpose of having time limits for taking enforcement action is to provide certainty, particularly for purchasers. Excepting cases of deliberate concealment, as envisaged by Clause 109, if an unauthorised development or changes of use have not been notified within the time limits, they are probably not doing great damage. If the owner at the time was liable for an enforcement action in perpetuity, people would be reluctant to buy without a full planning history and the markets would be unwilling to lend against properties. I hope that my noble friend understands that argument.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—Amendments 156A and 156B—are designed as a probe to try to evaluate at what level we can pitch penalties. I should remind the noble Lord that we are already proposing a significant increase in the fine for failing to comply with a breach of condition notice. The maximum fine would be raised from £1,000 to £2,500, which is level 4. This increase should have a considerable deterrent effect on those who are served with a notice and might otherwise be tempted to ignore it. To increase the maximum fine even further, to £5,000, which is level 5 in England, as the amendments propose, would be disproportionate to the offence. Level 4 fines already apply to the offences of displaying an illegal advertisement and non-permanent damage to a protected tree, which are comparable offences in scale and severity. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
I remind noble Lords that this is an England-only provision; Welsh Ministers would have to consent to any change to the provisions in the 1990 Act which apply to Wales. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Assurance as regards prosecution for person served with enforcement notice
In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 after section 172 (issue and service of enforcement notice) insert—
“172A Assurance as regards prosecution for person served with notice
(1) When, or at any time after, an enforcement notice is served on a person, the local planning authority may give the person a letter—
(a) explaining that, once the enforcement notice had been issued, the authority was required to serve the notice on the person,(b) giving the person one of the following assurances—(i) that, in the circumstances as they appear to the authority, the person is not at risk of being prosecuted under section 179 in connection with the enforcement notice, or (ii) that, in the circumstances as they appear to the authority, the person is not at risk of being prosecuted under section 179 in connection with the matters relating to the enforcement notice that are specified in the letter,(c) explaining, where the person is given the assurance under paragraph (b)(ii), the respects in which the person is at risk of being prosecuted under section 179 in connection with the enforcement notice, and(d) stating that, if the authority subsequently wishes to withdraw the assurance in full or part, the authority will first give the person a letter specifying a future time for the withdrawal that will allow the person a reasonable opportunity to take any steps necessary to avoid any risk of prosecution that is to cease to be covered by the assurance.(2) At any time after a person has under subsection (1) been given a letter containing an assurance, the local planning authority may give the person a letter withdrawing the assurance (so far as not previously withdrawn) in full or part from a time specified in the letter.
(3) The time specified in a letter given under subsection (2) to a person must be such as will give the person a reasonable opportunity to take any steps necessary to avoid any risk of prosecution that is to cease to be covered by the assurance.
(4) Withdrawal under subsection (2) of an assurance given under subsection (1) does not withdraw the assurance so far as relating to prosecution on account of there being a time before the withdrawal when steps had not been taken or an activity had not ceased.
(5) An assurance given under subsection (1) (so far as not withdrawn under subsection (2)) is binding on any person with power to prosecute an offence under section 179.””
Lord Borrie
(c) unless an appeal is submitted under subsection (16),”
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I shall speak also to the nine other amendments in the group that stand in the names of myself and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Members of the Committee will immediately realise that the four of us sit in different parts of the House so it is a truly cross-party group of amendments.
It is perhaps less obvious that all four of us have had some involvement in the regulation in this country of advertisements. Three of us have been successive chairmen of the Advertising Standards Authority and the noble Lord, Lord Black, is a member of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance, which raises the finance of the authority by virtue of an impost upon advertising receipts in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who is the current chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, is not able to be present this evening but wishes me to say to the Committee that he fully endorses the intent and purpose of these amendments.
All four noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments are, of course, well disposed to the general value and usefulness of promotion and marketing of goods and services of all kinds. This is essential to the economy and deserves one’s support. However, we are all equally appreciative that advertisements should be—in the phrase that has become common because it is the well known remit of the Advertising Standards Authority—legal, decent, honest and truthful. We accept that all advertisements need to accord with the demands of the environment and of the countryside and need therefore to comply with the requirements over the years of the Town and Country Planning Acts, including for those kinds of billboards which may distract motorists from the need for driving safely.
Town and country planning laws have long ensured that local planning authorities have adequate powers to ensure that the owners of billboards on the roadside comply with detailed legal requirements. The Bill seeks, among other things, to update these laws, and that is a fine objective and well worth pursuing. However, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it is important to ensure that the advertiser has an appropriate and proportionate right of appeal for any adverse ruling, such as the issue of an enforcement notice by the local planning authority to remove an advertisement. The trouble with Clause 111 as it stands is that it adopts what I might call the present London position on appeals. That is, instead of a right of appeal to local magistrates’ courts, the only so-called appeal is a claim for judicial review to the High Court—a much more expensive proposition and, even though limits on judicial review have expanded in recent years, not an ordinary appeal on the merits. Our amendments seek to replace what I have called the London position with a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court from an enforcement notice issued by a local planning authority to the effect that an outdoor ad is illegal and ought to be removed. That would be a much more proportionate and appropriate route of appeal and more apt for modern ideas of access to justice and the rule of law. After all, it is the position that has operated outside London for many a long day. Magistrates’ courts are, in my view, a valuable, perhaps unsung, and low-cost local justice resource and should be treasured.
Indeed, in recent years, High Court judges have criticised the lack of rights of appeal in London from local planning authority enforcement decisions. For example, Mr Justice Irwin, in the case of Clear Channel UK Ltd v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham in 2009, said the lack of a normal appeal process is “draconian”. Media owners are reluctant to challenge what may be, after all, an erroneous use of local planning authority power, because the costs involved in the only remedy—judicial review by the High Court—are too great. The word “draconian” to describe the lack of an appropriate appeal mechanism had earlier been used in 2003 in the case of R (on the application of Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd) v Lambeth London Borough Council by Lord Justice Collins, who is now a member of the Supreme Court—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Collins of Mapesbury. In these cases, where seeking judicial review is not commercially viable, natural justice is simply not being served by the present procedures, which I have outlined as the London procedure. Small businesses especially are simply deterred from challenging a possibly subjective or irrational decision by local planning authorities. Of course the local planning authority may get it right; but it may get it wrong, and it is important that a reasonable right of challenge should be provided in the legislation. The ability to access a magistrates’ court would be a fairer and more appropriate procedure.
Finally, this is, after all, a Bill dealing with localism. Magistrates’ courts are a low-cost, local judicial resource that should be cherished and welcomed. They are part of the local scene. I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood
I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and in doing so, declare an interest as the director of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance. I support these amendments—and I talked about these issues at Second Reading—because they will ensure an equitable, consistent, and, above all, local mechanism for challenging enforcement notices across the UK. They would deal with an important point, which is that new Section 225A appears to be the only provision within Part 5 of this Bill relating to planning that lacks any right of appeal. From a practical point of view, this set of amendments is likely to be of benefit to both media owners and local authorities because, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the magistrates’ courts are best placed to provide a quick, cost-effective route to resolving disputes, something that an action for judicial review in the High Court would never be able to provide, especially when issues of fact rather than of law are likely to be in dispute. From the aspect of the principles underpinning this Bill, it would mean that a local tribunal would be able to look at issues affecting a local neighbourhood, not a remote court possibly many hundreds of miles away.
I appreciate that these are relatively technical amendments, but I underline that they are none the less of real importance to local media owners, who are an important part of the local media ecology in towns and cities up and down the country. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for receiving representations from the industry since Second Reading. The importance of this issue is also underlined by the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the signatories to this group include not just the current distinguished chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, but his two predecessors, the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. These colleagues, who have huge experience in advertising regulation, understand greatly the importance of the local advertising industry and an equitable, fair and local treatment for it. That is what this admirable Bill is all about, and I hope that these amendments will help to tidy up this technical but important area.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support these amendments. A powerful case has been made. When I studied the amendments, I thought a slightly different argument might be advanced. As I understand it, issues around remedying persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements in the Bill are the subject of right of appeal to magistrates’ courts. It is just the non-persistent problems and the power to remove structures in Clause 111 that the amendment seeks to bring within the remit of the magistrates’ courts. If I have misunderstood that, doubtless the Minister will put me right. But there is an imbalance between those two situations, which will be remedied by the proposition in the amendment. Quite apart from that, the amendment should stand on its own. There is a proper issue of justice here, and a right to appeal to a magistrates’ court.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing this amendment and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for speaking to it, as well as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We understand the nub of the issue, as the noble Lord Borrie, presented it. It is to provide a speedier and more cost-effective means of challenging a removal notice as empowered under the Bill, especially where consent, or deemed consent, to display an advertisement already exists. But the magistrates’ courts are already heavily loaded with cases, and we should be cautious about increasing the burden on them unnecessarily. We should also be wary of giving any rogue hoarding owners the opportunity to delay the enforcement process by appealing against local authorities for no good reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is quite right. The amendment draws heavily on the London experience. I note that these measures have been operating in London since 1995 without the benefit of a right of appeal. In that time, I understand that there have been only five judicial reviews against removal notices, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand the Government’s reasoning on this issue.
Included in the group is government Amendment 166ZA. It is a minor drafting amendment to page 100, which deletes subsection (3) of proposed new Section 225J. Noble Lords will, I am sure, have observed that the words are very similar to those in subsection (4)(a). They are superfluous and should be omitted.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could the Minister help us out? Why is there the differential treatment in terms of rights of appeal to a magistrates’ court—assuming I am right on that—where there are persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements, compared to those where there is simply the power to remove structures for what may be ad hoc, unauthorised display?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I can summarise it best by saying that they are two different orders of problems for local authorities. The reasoning for these proposals is obviously based on the London experience, which has provided local authorities in London with an effective way of dealing with the larger structure problems that one can have, where displays are put on unauthorised structures and their speedy removal is in the public interest.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his support for this amendment and for that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton on the opposition Front Bench. I am bound to say that I am a bit disappointed by the Minister's response, most especially when he said that in London, which is the route followed by the Bill itself, there have not been that many judicial review claims—I think he mentioned five. A great substance of my argument is that judicial review is a most unattractive route for anybody concerned about a decision against them by the local planning authority, because it is expensive and very challenging. It is not a real right of appeal.
The rest of the country has a real right of appeal. The anomaly that exists at present—recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and by my noble friend Lord McKenzie—is not recognised by the government Front Bench. It is an anomaly to have a difference between London and outside London especially, in my submission, in the context of a Localism Bill. When the emphasis is on local government and local associations, it would be so much better and simpler to have a magistrates’ court appeal. The noble Lord has said that magistrates’ courts are very busy, but he will know that that partly arises because there are many closures of them by government decision. That is undoubtedly the case.
That decision may be supported on the basis of saving money, and in some towns and areas I would accept that there is an argument for saying, “The magistrates’ court here is not fully occupied, so it could be closed down”. However, the Minister’s point is that magistrates are already overloaded with work and cannot take on what would be very sensible new work, providing access to justice for those who feel that they needed to appeal against an unfair, unreasonable or difficult local planning authority decision. Of course, I withdraw my amendment at this stage but I think the Minister will realise that we are not happy with his decision, and I hope that he will rethink the matter in due course.
Baroness Hanham
Lord Jenkin of Roding
“(3A) After subsection (2)(b) insert—
“(ba) in the case of an application for an order including provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of statutory undertakers’ land, the effect of the compulsory acquisition on any such statutory undertaker,”.”
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in moving Amendment 166D, I wish to speak to a large number of amendments in this group. With this amendment we turn to Schedule 13, which covers amendments to the Planning Act 2008 dealing with the new arrangements to replace the Infrastructure Planning Commission with a new process whereby the members of the commission are transferred to the planning secretariat. However, the decisions on these major infrastructure projects will be made by a Minister who is accountable to Parliament. At Second Reading, I remarked briefly that I was extremely pleased with the way that the members of the IPC have conducted themselves and with their readiness to accept the new process. However, there is still a lot of anxiety which has been expressed to me by the CBI and by lawyers at a City firm in London who have expressed considerable doubts as to whether the Bill adequately provides a seamless transition from the old process as set up in the 2008 Act to the new process set out in Schedule 13 to the Bill.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that I will not discuss this large group of amendments in detail. I have discussed the matter with my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is clear that she and her department are well aware of the arguments that have been advanced. I have been given an assurance that she and her department are very ready to speak to those who have put their views to me and which are reflected in these amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is, first, to ensure, as I said, a seamless transition, but it goes wider than that. The amendments also seek to remove the need for parallel and separate consent requirements so that the development consent orders regime is truly a one-stop shop, which was what was originally promoted by the previous Government when they brought forward the 2008 Act.
Secondly, they seek to introduce some limited flexibility regarding compliance with what is currently a one-size-fits-all set of procedures and requirements for applications. Thirdly, we want to clarify the ability to modify draft development consent orders as they are going through the process and to replicate other order-making regimes in terms of what criminal offences development consent orders may include; and generally remove what is regarded as unnecessary gold plating now that decisions are being returned from the Infrastructure Planning Commission—a quango—to Ministers. This was something for which a number of us argued fiercely during the passage of the 2008 Act. I am delighted that it is now being implemented in this Bill. That is what we are aiming to do here.
I shall not go through the details of all the amendments, but I should like to say that I am grateful for the offer made by my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government will consider this matter. I am sure that we will be told that the Bill in fact provides the seamless transition from the old to the new. Nevertheless, anxieties remain. It is a hugely important matter that concerns all major national infrastructure projects such as major airports, new power stations, major transmission lines and so on. It is very important that there should be no hiatus in the process that transfers from the existing system the new.
Before I sit down, one amendment in this group also amends the Planning Act 2008 and concerns minor electricity distribution lines. The Act originally made provisions relating to a new transmission or distribution line that was,
“expected to be less than 132 kilovolts”.
My Amendment 166VZA suggests that it should,
“be 132 kilovolts or less”.
It may seem that there is no difference, but there is in fact a considerable difference. I am told on good authority that Ministers in the Department for Energy and Climate Change are wholly in favour of that amendment, and I hope that perhaps it might be accepted.
However, the bulk of amendments in my name in this group refer to the matters that I have described—the need for a seamless and, I hope, simpler transition from the existing responsibilities of the Infrastructure Planning Commission to make planning decisions for these major projects to its different role of preparing the matter and making recommendations; and the Secretary of State will make the decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My name is also associated with Amendment 166U. At one stage, I had thought that I had put my name to one or two of the other amendments and it indeed appeared in earlier versions of the Marshalled List. However, for some reason my name seems to have been disassociated with those amendments. Nevertheless, I support the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I emphasise the need for a seamless transition.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee at this hour of night but I wish to mention two amendments in particular. The first, Amendment 166R, raises an important point of principle on the extent to which a development consent order can deal with all the consents—the one-stop shop that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned. This was particularly important in the setting up of the Planning Act regime. Noble Lords will recall from the debates at that time that the Terminal Five proposals involved 37 different applications under, I think, different pieces of legislation. The beauty of the development consent order is that it was supposed to bring all this together. The problem is that quite a number of consents are outside this process, particularly those involving the Environment Agency and Natural England. For example, under Section 109 of the Water Resources Act, the Environment Agency deals with consent issues where there is construction work in or near principal water courses. Thereby, if a nationally significant infrastructure project is next to a water course, there is a separate application to the Environment Agency.
I submit that that does not make sense. Adequate protection can be given within the development consent order. By way of example, if the Minister is taking this away to think about it, I mention the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008, which was made under a similar process: the Harbours Act 1964, where adequate provision is made for the Environment Agency consents.
I mention a second matter. Amendment 166J concerns Section 114 of the 2008 Act. At present, there is concern among developers that, in effect, you get one chance to get the application right. If you have to make amendments to it, the issue then becomes whether they are substantial and, if they are, there is no way of amending the proposal properly in the process. In effect, you go back to square one. It is a bit like snakes and ladders, except that they all go back to the beginning.
I do not expect Ministers to comment on live cases, but one issue has arisen in the past few days with an application before the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It has refused to allow an amendment to an application. Does the developer then go back to square one to propose a development that the applicant presumably believes is inferior to the one they seek? I ask the Ministers to take that away to see whether they can give any flexibility in the process.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd on these amendments. They are terribly important to help to provide, as near as possible, the one-stop shop for big developments and to give business confidence in the process. As we have said in previous days in Committee, that is one of the most important things: to help get projects developed quickly—and the reason for the 2008 Planning Act and the changes proposed through the Bill.
I shall speak to two groups of amendments in my name. The first is Amendments 166UAA, 166BA, 166 UBB, 166UCA and 166UE, which concern the proposal that the national policy statements should be approved by both Houses of Parliament rather than just the House of Commons. It is interesting that, yesterday, the House of Commons debated and approved the six national policy statements for energy. They have been around for a long time in draft form and been subject to consultation, and it is good that the House of Commons debated them, but I suggest that there is an equal need for this House to debate such national policy statements, because there is a great deal of expertise among your Lordships about issues that are likely to come within the national policy statement framework. It seems equitable that we should debate them too. I am sure that noble Lords will have good contributions to make, and I hope that the noble Lord or the noble Baroness—I do not know which of them will reply—will take that seriously. It should have happened under the 2008 Act, but it did not, so here we are today.
The other amendment in my name, Amendment 166VZB, was proposed to me by Network Rail—which, as the Committee will know, is in the private sector but receives about £4 billion of public money. As the Committee will also know, the Government are rightly putting great pressure on Network Rail to save money. It is involved in a large number of usually quite small investments to create more capacity, meet growing demand and improve network reliability. Of course, many of these investments require planning permissions and other consents to deliver the works effectively on time and within budget. This amendment is designed to facilitate the process and, clearly, to reduce costs.
I am afraid that I have to go into a little of the background on this. Network Rail is the statutory successor in title to the original railway companies and it has fairly extensive permitted development rights, or PDRs, which confer the necessary planning authority, subject to prior approval in some cases, for works. However, it is often necessary to seek additional powers to supplement those powers both for related works outside the existing rail corridor and to acquire land and rights over land.
The methods for seeking authority for railway works has historically been by means of Private Bills—which we do not often see these days, other than for very big projects and then they tend to be hybrid Bills—and more recently under the Transport and Works Act 1992. In England, the procedure is currently also covered by the Planning Act 2008, which requires consent for developments that are, or form part of, a nationally significant infrastructure project, or NSIP, to be authorised by a development consent order. An NSIP is a project for the construction or alteration of a railway, but not where the alteration of a railway is authorised by permitted development rights. Of course, there is no national policy statement for railway projects at the moment. Whether there will be in the future, we do not know, so further guidance is not available. Therefore, many of the Network Rail schemes will not be covered by PDRs, and it will need to seek development consent in addition to using existing PDRs.
It is interesting that, for example, Network Rail is, as noble Lords will know, in the middle of a project to electrify the Great Western main line. It involves demolishing a number of bridges, some track widening and lots of little bits of work over 100 miles or so of track—two track or four track. Discussions with the IPC and the Department for Transport have revealed some questions about the interpretation of the rules in relation to the delivery of rail projects. Most of them are covered by PDRs but some elements of this scheme may not be. They may include a mixture of works authorised by PDRs and those to be authorised in other ways. Where works are covered by PDRs, the Planning Act is not clear whether they can be, or whether they have to be, included in a development consent application as part of an NSIP. That is causing delay and quite a lot of concern.
Network Rail clearly needs flexibility. If it takes, say, two or three years to go through a process between a design being sufficiently advanced and the start of construction, that is going to cause a lot of delay to its projects. Experience to date suggests that the time to be allowed for the full IPC process, from consultation to authorisation, is approximately 30 months. Whether the process would be quicker with a hybrid Bill, as is proposed for the new high-speed line, I do not know. I suspect that it is a bit quicker but no one is suggesting a hybrid Bill for the Great Western.
A procedure carried out by means of permitted development rights can be completed within a matter of weeks where proposals are notified as a matter of policy. Where prior approvals are required, it may take a little longer, but it is also a lot quicker.
There is also the question of minor works. There is no threshold for rail schemes requiring development consent. Where PDRs do not exist, minor works such as alterations to structures, which are not nationally significant, might be caught up in the definition of an NSIP and therefore require consent. Therefore, this all needs clarification.
I am pleased that Network Rail welcomes the changes that the Localism Bill will make to the planning Act, but there need to be further discussions between the Department for Transport and Ministers to clarify some of the issues which I raised and which this amendment would help to satisfy. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I am happy to have more discussions, but I hope that they will take Network Rail’s concerns seriously in this regard.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I declare an interest in that my eldest son, Thomas, is a ganger with Network Rail; he is not in the high echelons of management, but he is a ganger with firsthand experience of working on the line, doing maintenance and improvements. No one wants a situation in which Network Rail, or any organisation, can disrupt public services by not fulfilling its tasks properly. Carelessness can lead to other things. Nevertheless, Network Rail, like many other companies, needs the process to be transparent and speedy. I know that it is difficult to get planning applications—or indeed any applications, such as applications for improvements to the rail network—processed speedily, but speed is needed. Anything that improves that must be a good thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give my noble friend a positive response.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I and my noble friend Lord Tope have five amendments in this group. In view of the time, and in the hope that we might get on to the next group before we go home, I would be happy for the Minister to write to me detailing the government’s responses to those five amendments. If he agrees to do that, I shall not say anything further on this tonight.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a very large group of amendments, many of which are quite technical. None of them has been spoken to in any great detail. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd for his technical paper, which helped me on this, and for his guidance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that I puzzled over his reference to 132 kilowatts and I was not quite sure what the amendment was about. I now know that it is important, although I am not quite clear why.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, perhaps I should have explained it with one extra sentence. Anyway, it is kilovolts. Rather interestingly, the Public Bill Office printed it as kilowatts at the beginning and we had to put that right. The point is that the voltage for these distribution lines is 132, and therefore we wanted 132 “and below”, and not the ones that would have to go to the IPC, to be above. It is simply a matter of getting the wording right as originally intended in the 2008 planning Act.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. That helps me. These amendments relate to the decision to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, with the ink not yet dry on the 2008 Act, which was passed under the previous Government. The House would not expect me to welcome that change with unbridled enthusiasm, but now is not the time to revisit old arguments in detail. We would agree that infrastructure investment is vital to the UK economy and jobs and the commitment to retain the fast-track regime is to be welcomed. In particular, we support the retention of the existing timetable for decision-making, as clarified by the government amendment. The Bill includes provision for national policy statements to be scrutinised and approved by Parliament before designation. There seems to be no reason why this role should be limited to the House of Commons and, accordingly, we support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is on the same page. I have no doubt that the collective wisdom of noble Lords covering the policy areas concerned would supplement the expertise of another place. Perhaps the Minister will say why the Government consider this to be a role just for the House of Commons. Section 9 of the Planning Act 2008 includes a role for both Houses.
Lord Berkeley
Perhaps I might follow up something that my noble friend Lord McKenzie asked the Minister about the timetable of national policy statements. As I said earlier, the energy ones were published and agreed yesterday, which was great. We have heard nothing yet on ports, airports and interchanges, which will come out of transport. We do not even have any dates for their publication. Perhaps the port statement is in draft form—I am not sure—and there are probably other NPSs coming from other departments. I do not expect an answer from the Minister now, but it would be good to have a letter with an expected timetable. At the moment, industry sees the prospect of several years of vacuum with no policies to work to. It would be very helpful to have firm timetables.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this large group contains a range of amendments that seek to amend various provisions in the Localism Bill that amend the Planning Act 2008. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, has not moved his amendment, which addresses a drafting flaw in the Localism Bill, because government Amendment 166VE deals with it. I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord did not worry us with moving his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked when the full NPS will be available. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the ports and the timetable for other such important NPSs. I will write to noble Lords on that and on any other technical issues that I do not cover in my response.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin has tabled a range of important technical amendments that aim to ensure that the new major infrastructure planning regime is as efficient as possible. These address matters such as: land subject to compulsory purchase, Amendments 166D, 166E, 166L, 166M 166N and 166P; notification where a deadline is extended, Amendments 166G and 166H; the power to amend an application after submission, Amendments 166J and 166K; the power to waive compliance with regulatory requirements, Amendment 166Q; the application of Section 150, Amendment 166R; offences, Amendments 166S and 166T; transitional provisions, Amendment 166U, which was also spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby; judicial review, Amendment 166V; discharge requirements, Amendment 166W; and the decision-making period, Amendment 166VCA.
I can assure my noble friend that, as he suggested, we share the same goals. It is vital for the future of the UK that the major infrastructure planning regime must be as efficient as possible. If my noble friend will permit, I would like to consider the points he has raised in more detail and consult him and others between now and Report to see whether anything further can be done on the issues he has raised. With that assurance, I hope he will not move these amendments at the appropriate point.
Amendment 166KA, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, would remove certain types of development usually connected with underground projects from the definition of associated development in the Planning Act 2008. The ability to grant consent for associated development is critical to the operation of the single consent regime. The amendment would require developers to seek multiple planning consents for major projects, adding to the cost and complexity of making the application, which is precisely the situation we are trying to avoid, so I hope the noble Lords will not pursue this amendment too far.
Amendment 166UAB, which is also tabled by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, seeks to require a national policy statement to address carbon emission targets and national policy objectives on assessing and adapting to climate change. I fully sympathise with my noble friends’ concerns regarding climate change and carbon reduction, but the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008 are binding on Ministers in the exercise of any of their functions, including national policy statements. Moreover, the Planning Act 2008 already places significant requirements in relation to climate change on Ministers when carrying out their functions in relation to national policy statements. I therefore do not believe this amendment to be necessary.
Amendments 166UZA, 166UZB, 166UAA, 166UBA, 166UBB, 166UCA and 166UE in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and Amendments 166UA, 166UB, 166UC and 166UD in the name of my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, seek to provide for positive approval of national policy statements by both Houses of Parliament and remove the 21-sitting day timetable for consideration.
The 2008 Act provides both Houses with a full scrutiny role in relation to national policy statements and indeed this House has already undertaken a very detailed scrutiny of the first of them, including those on energy and waste water. This role will not change. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about debates on NPSs. The 2008 Act provides for a Committee of either House to scrutinise national policy statements and, if they recommend it, for a debate to be held on the Floor of the House. The key point to note is that the Localism Bill supplements this with a requirement for approval in the other place.
National policy statements are policy documents, not legislation. This House has never had a role in approving policy documents and it does not automatically follow that because the Localism Bill provides for the other place to have such a role, this House should also. If both Houses had the authority to approve a national policy statement, but one were to reject it and the other approve it, this would call into question the legal standing of the document and any planning decisions that were to rely upon it. This could lead to extensive delay to both the national policy statements and the provision of vital infrastructure.
The discretion to approve a national policy statement using the negative procedure and the introduction of a timetable of 21 sitting days are intended to ensure that the approval process is both efficient and flexible. Their removal could ultimately result in further delay. It is important to note that the DPRRC raised no concerns about these provisions. Given this, and the explanations I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Amendment 166VZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, and Amendment 166VZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would amend provisions of the 2008 Act which relate to electricity lines and railway projects respectively. I have considered these proposals carefully and concluded that in both cases the amendments could be effected by amending Part 3 of the Planning Act. The procedure already exists in secondary legislation to achieve this and therefore there is no need to adopt these amendments. On electricity lines, I would of course be delighted to facilitate a discussion between my noble friend Lord Jenkin and colleagues in the Department for Energy and Climate Change. On railways, I would be equally happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my officials in the Department for Transport to discuss the process further. In short, if there is a problem that needs to be ironed out, I am up for it.
Government Amendments 116VA, 116VB, 116VC, 116VD and 187A extend the new power in Section 116 of the Bill to Wales to cover non-devolved matters and provide greater flexibility in the acceptance of applications.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance to the Committee on the matters that concern noble Lords to allow them to withdraw the amendments they have proposed, and I hope the House will agree to the government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hanham when the Question is put.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, we have had an extremely good debate. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend for his readiness to accept the need to re-examine the question of the transition and to make sure that the Bill is appropriate now that major decisions on infrastructure are going to be taken by the Secretary of State. That is the difference.
On the question of the approval of the national policy statements, I moved an amendment in 2008 to say that they should be not just scrutinised but approved. Therefore, I agree very much with the proposal in this Bill that the national policy statements should be approved. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said, the energy statements were approved earlier this week. The difficulty that was put to me at the time was: if you are going to have both Houses approving, what happens if one says one thing and one says the other? The argument could be that you then have some sort of ping-pong or something, but it is not legislation—that is the point that my noble friend has made. Therefore, although I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I did not put my name to his amendments because I did not think that they were workable. My noble friend on the Front Bench has given a very good explanation of that. I am grateful to him for what he said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(8A) An order under subsection (5) may not affect—
(a) a requirement for a devolved consent to be obtained for, or given in relation to, development, or(b) whether development may be authorised by a devolved consent.(8B) A consent is “devolved” for the purposes of subsection (8A) if—
(a) provision for the consent would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if the provision were contained in an Act of the Assembly,(b) provision for the consent is, or could be, made by the Welsh Ministers in an instrument made under an Act,(c) the consent is not within subsection (6)(c) and the Welsh Ministers have a power or duty—(i) to decide, or give directions as to how to decide, whether the consent is given,(ii) to decide, or give directions as to how to decide, some or all of the terms on which the consent is given, or(iii) to revoke or vary the consent, or(d) the consent is within subsection (6)(c) and the notice has to be given to the Welsh Ministers or otherwise brought to their attention.”
Baroness Hanham
“Acceptance of applications for development consent
(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55(3) (conditions for acceptance of application) omit paragraphs (b) and (d) (application may be accepted only if it complies with requirements as to form and contents and with any standards set, and gives reasons for any failure to follow applicable guidance).
(3) In section 55(3) after paragraph (e) insert “, and
(f) that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory.”(4) In section 55 after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State, when deciding whether the Secretary of State may reach the conclusion in subsection (3)(f), must have regard to the extent to which—
(a) the application complies with the requirements in section 37(3) (form and contents of application) and any standards set under section 37(5), and(b) any applicable guidance given under section 37(4) has been followed in relation to the application.”(5) In section 37(3) (requirements as to form and contents of application) after “must” insert “, so far as necessary to secure that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory”.”
Baroness Hanham
“Timetables for reports and decisions on applications for development consent
(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 98(3) (Examining authority must report on application within 3 months beginning with deadline for completing its examination) for the words from “beginning” onwards substitute “beginning with—
(a) the deadline for completion of its examination of the application, or(b) (if earlier) the end of the day on which it completes the examination.”(3) In section 107(1) (which provides for the application to be decided within 3 months of the start day but is amended by this Act to provide for decision within 3 months of the deadline under section 98(3))—
(a) for “with the” substitute “with—(a) the”, and(b) at the end insert “, or(b) (if earlier) the end of the day on which the Secretary of State receives a report on the application under section 74(2)(b) or 83(1)(b).””
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
In Clause 124, manuscript Amendment 166WA is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Is that correct?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
If Members look at the groupings list, they will see that for some strange reason, Amendment 166WA is out of kilter and comes after the debate on whether Clause 124 should stand part. However, I believe that the amendment is a precursor to that debate and therefore it may be helpful and convenient to the Committee if this one amendment is now dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, it is now 23:05. Everyone in this Chamber, including the staff of the House, will be here again at 10 o’clock in the morning. The agreement made with the usual channels was, as I understand it, that we would finish as close as possible to 10 pm. It is now 11.05 pm. My colleague, who has been on the Front Bench all day, wishes to depart. We have plenty of amendments to deal with tomorrow and I suggest that we deal with this manuscript amendment then.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I trust that the amendment can be dealt with tonight. I do not believe it will take very long. I understand that people are tired; I am tired too. Let us get on and get some business done.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is disgraceful. To help the Government we agreed to a back-to-back Committee stage, which is most unusual. We agreed to an early start tomorrow to help the Government. We have already stretched to 11 o’clock tonight. This manuscript amendment is closely linked to Clause 124 which is a substantial debate that we ought to have when minds are relatively fresh. It is best done tomorrow. I can see nods of assent from some of the coalition Benches. That is the way we should leave it tonight. We have made better progress than I thought we would today, and we have played our part in that. I think we should now draw the line.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that it has been a long and hard-working day and all in the Chamber will appreciate the work that has been put in by colleagues around the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was perhaps not party to some of the earlier discussions. I did not reach an agreement with the usual channels at any point to finish at 10 o’clock or close to 10’clock this evening. I was clear about the progress that we all wished to make—I am sorry, I am a little out of breath from seeking to ensure that I reached the Chamber in order to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. I was clear in the discussions I had that, in order to assist the House to complete the Committee stage of the Localism Bill tomorrow, which I know is the ambition of all noble Lords, it was likely that we would need to sit until around 11 o’clock tonight depending, of course, on the progress of business. I know that colleagues on these Benches and on the Front Bench opposite have striven to work through our business today.
When my noble friend Lord Shutt referred to the manuscript amendment, he was genuinely trying to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, looks puzzled because I know that Whips are not usually like that, but I can assure him that in this House, the Whips do try to be helpful because I understand that there have been discussions with the Minister that might elucidate this issue. It looked as though it would be helpful to do that tonight, and clearly anything that is done now reduces the amount of time we need to spend on the Bill tomorrow. I know that the opposition Front Bench is as keen as anyone to complete the Committee stage. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for tabling a manuscript amendment this morning, but as a result of discussions with my colleagues, it seemed helpful to have this amendment on the table in order to assist progress over the summer towards the Report stage. It is something that might be considered as a compromise and a way through what is a very difficult position with certain sections of the public. That is why we did it. But now we seem to be spending a lot of time discussing whether to take the amendment when we could either be considering it or we could be going home. My view, and what I think is the view of my colleagues, is that it should be properly grouped with the debate on whether Clause 124 should stand part of the Bill. The debate on this amendment is an integral part of the debate on Clause 124.
I do not blame anybody for it, but at the last minute the amendment was put in the wrong place, and perhaps it should have been tabled the other way around the clause stand part debate. But it has been tabled and it can be discussed tomorrow with Clause 124. If having it on the agenda tomorrow is a procedural difficulty, I will not move it tonight so we can all go home in the knowledge that it exists and that we can discuss it as part of the consideration of Clause 124. I have to say that I will not be here, so my noble friend Lord Tope will deal with it. The amendment needs to be discussed with Clause 124, because it is part and parcel of the same debate. I do not think that having them together will take any further time. If there is a procedural problem about that, I shall not move the amendment and take advice from whomever.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that my noble friend is trying to help everyone. I think that he has managed to confuse us even more, which was not his intention. I know that all noble Lords want to have a debate on his amendment. It is clear that, even if the amendment were not down, it would be possible to speak to it at Clause 124 stand part. I suggest that we should do that tomorrow, but on the understanding that tomorrow is when we complete Committee stage, which I know will bring a sigh of relief to all those who have worked hard on this Bill so far.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for that accommodation. I apologise unreservedly for misleading the House. My noble friend Lady Crawley informs me that usual channels agreed to finish at around 23:00, not 22:00. I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is best that his amendment be debated tomorrow, as the noble Baroness said.
We will strive to finish this stage of the Bill tomorrow, but I cannot give an absolute commitment. I think that we should finish in good time and we will do our utmost to do so.