House of Commons
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Paul Goggins, the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Paul was a most assiduous Member, serving as a Home Office and a Northern Ireland Minister in the last Government, and most recently as a distinguished member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to Paul’s wife, Wyn, his children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic, his granddaughter, Eve, and his many friends and family.
Paul and I entered the House together, and I can honestly say that I have never heard an ill word spoken of him. Labour to his core, he was, yet, the least tribal of colleagues. Whether battling against poverty, campaigning successfully for the victims of mesothelioma, working for the rehabilitation of prisoners or striving for peace in Northern Ireland, Paul was the same: principled, eloquent and tireless, but unfailingly courteous, measured and respectful. He always played the ball, never the man or the woman.
An outstanding public servant who came into politics for all the right reasons, Paul’s passing is a loss on so many levels. The House has lost a valued colleague, his constituency a faithful representative, his party an outstanding ambassador and, above all, his family a loving husband, father and grandfather.
Prayers for Paul will also be said at the usual 12.45 service today in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
1. If he will estimate the cumulative real-terms change to the Welsh block grant over the present Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
On what is a sad morning for the House, I am sure that colleagues on both sides would also wish me to mention the passing in December of the right hon. Lord Roberts of Conwy, who served the Welsh Office with such distinction for so many years. He was a doughty champion for Wales and the Welsh language, and I am sure that many Members on both sides will regret his passing.
The protections placed on health and education have insulated the Welsh Government’s resource budget from the extent of reductions faced by many UK Departments. In addition, the Welsh Government’s capital budget will increase in real terms by 8.4% next year and 2.4% the year after.
Mrs Moon
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the Welsh Government’s budget has been cut by 10% since 2010—a cut of £1.6 billion? Their capital budget to date has been cut by a third, which has impacted horrendously on front-line services. In my Bridgend constituency alone, that has meant £30 million-worth of cuts in front-line services. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the damage of these cuts to the people of Wales?
Mr Jones
All parts of the United Kingdom are having to bear their part in repairing the economic damage that was sustained as a result of the downturn in 2008. However, I am sure the hon. Lady would recognise that since 2010 the United Kingdom Government have provided an additional £737 million to the Welsh Government, and it is up to the Welsh Government to live within their means.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Given that the UK Government have given extra money in cash terms to the Welsh Assembly in the form of its block grant, does the Secretary of State find it as extraordinary as I do that the Welsh Assembly has imposed drastic cuts on local authorities across Wales that are bound to lead to increases in council taxes and reductions in public services?
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
May I first associate myself fully with the words of tribute to the late, greatly respected right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and to the late Lord Roberts of Conwy?
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that reform of the Barnett formula is still an issue about which we are all very concerned. We in Plaid Cymru have campaigned about it for more than 25 years. It is interesting that the Labour party is now in favour of reforming Barnett, which it did nothing about for 13 years. In fact, when it was in government, it denied the existence of the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any views on that issue?
Mr Llwyd
Which does the right hon. Gentleman think is worse—the self-serving preconditions set by the Labour party to block further devolution, or the failure of his Government to propose the full tax-varying powers contained in the cross-party Silk commission recommendations?
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Barnett consequentials and, indeed, funding from the European Union have been key components of spending in Wales for many years. What representations has the Secretary of State made about Barnett consequentials and European funding to address the devastation that has occurred in recent days along the Welsh coast, not least in Ceredigion, but also in the constituencies of many other hon. Members?
Mr Jones
I have had many conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Clearly, Aberystwyth has suffered extreme damage as a consequence of the storms of the past few days, and I assure my hon. Friend that, if any additional funding is provided, Barnett consequentials will follow in the usual manner.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of job prospects in the renewables sector in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
This Government’s recent announcements on strike prices aim to make the UK, including Wales, one of the most attractive places to invest in renewable technologies. Our reforms will ensure that more than 30% of our electricity comes from renewables by 2020, attracting £110 billion of investment and supporting up to a quarter of a million jobs.
Ian Lucas
May I associate myself with the kind remarks of the Secretary of State relating to both Paul Goggins and Lord Roberts, who was a true servant of north Wales and a lovely man?
On renewables, I am very disappointed that the Minister did not refer to Sharp solar in Wrexham, which as recently as 2011 was expanding and providing more jobs. I spoke to the chief executive of Sharp solar in Wrexham before Christmas, when he told me that this Government’s catastrophic and chaotic renewables policy had contributed to its decision not to continue manufacturing in Wrexham, with the loss of 600 jobs. Will the Minister break the Wales Office’s silence and apologise to the people who have lost their jobs as a result of incompetence?
Stephen Crabb
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment for his constituents. The news about the Sharp job losses was a bitter blow just before Christmas. I have been in touch with Sharp, and we at the Wales Office have spoken to them. It is just not correct to associate the decision taken by Sharp with the changes to the feed-in tariff policy. If he speaks to industry experts who are knowledgeable about these issues, they will tell him that it is much more to do with the wave of cheap Chinese imports of solar panels that have come into Europe and flooded the European market, so making domestic production very challenging indeed.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Whether power is generated from renewable or non-renewable sources, there is an increasing problem in Wales and the rest of the country in getting new power sources connected to the grid because of the shortage of power engineers. Will my hon. Friend work with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Welsh Assembly Government to see how this issue can be tackled in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very pertinent issue, of which both we in the Wales Office and, more importantly, the Welsh Government, who have devolved responsibility for skills, are aware. We are in discussions with the key players and stakeholders in Wales about how we can raise up a new generation of power engineers to take forward the changes that we are trying to effect.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The loss of the Sharp solar panel factory in Wrexham, which was the biggest solar panel factory in western Europe, was a devastating blow to the Welsh economy. What can the Minister do to mitigate the closure, in which his Government are complicit? Specifically, can he help to draw down UK research funding to the solar research institute in Optic Glyndwr in St Asaph?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very aware of the important work being done at Glyndwr university, and we are in close touch with the university about its work. On what we can do to mitigate the job impact in Wrexham, I encourage both him and his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) to give full-throated support to the £250 million that the Government are putting into Wrexham to create a new prison—something for which we have yet to hear full support from Opposition Members.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Labour has called consistently for the devolution of energy consents for projects of up to 100 MW. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for the amendment, which was not supported by the Government, that he tabled to the Energy Bill. Why are the Government opposed to the devolution of energy, which would allow the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales to make their own decisions on energy and renewable energy in particular?
Stephen Crabb
I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because there has been nothing consistent about Labour’s approach to energy policy either in government or in opposition.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effects on living standards in Wales of the measures announced in the autumn statement.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the effects on living standards in Wales of the measures announced in the autumn statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The autumn statement set out further measures to ensure that there is a responsible economic recovery. That is the only way to achieve the sustained rise in living standards in Wales and across the UK that we all want to see.
Susan Elan Jones
May I associate myself with the tributes that have been given?
I thank the Minister for his answer, but many of us are dismayed that the autumn statement did little to address issues related to poverty. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is right that food bank usage in Wales has gone up 1,400% since 2010? Surely that is not acceptable.
Stephen Crabb
We know that the Labour party discovered food banks only in 2010. Before that, Labour Members denied that they even existed. In the autumn statement and at the end of last year, we saw average wages in Wales increasing at double the rate of inflation and personal disposable income in Wales increasing. The situation is still very challenging for many households in Wales, but the overall picture is positive, and the hon. Lady should support that.
Dr Francis
In my constituency of Aberavon, real wages have fallen by £2,000 in recent years and some 5,000 households have witnessed a reduction in their working tax credits. That comes against the background of rising energy prices, which are higher in south Wales than anywhere else in Britain. Does the Minister agree—as a reasonable person, I am sure that he does—that the best way to address the squeeze in living standards on the people of my constituency and of Wales is to endorse Labour’s proposal of a freeze in energy prices, which would benefit 30,000 households in my constituency?
Stephen Crabb
We are going further than that by delivering a reduction in energy prices of about £50 per household. One of the best ways in which we can equip households in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and throughout Wales to face these challenging times is by returning more money to their pockets. We are taking 130,000 people in Wales out of income tax altogether and freezing fuel taxes, so that petrol prices are 20p per litre lower than they would have been under Labour’s plans. That is the way to help households meet the cost of living.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
As the only Welsh Conservative MP who had the privilege of serving alongside Lord Roberts of Conwy, may I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks? May I also associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, about Paul Goggins, whose untimely death has come as such a shock to us all?
On living standards, will my hon. Friend confirm that the cumulative effect of the autumn statement will be that petrol prices will be 20p per litre lower than they otherwise would have been and that the average taxpayer will pay £700 less?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government are taking those practical steps to help people on the lowest incomes in particular. We are determined that this should be a recovery for all sections of society in Wales.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The autumn statement contained very welcome measures to reduce the burden of business rates on small businesses in England. What efforts will the Minister make to ensure that the Welsh Government follow suit, to support small businesses in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
In the autumn statement, we made resources available to the Welsh Government to take exactly the same action as the Government in Westminster have taken to help small businesses with their business rates. I was pleased that the Welsh Minister announced yesterday that they would take forward the cap on business rates in Wales. We have yet to hear whether they will deliver the £1,000 discount for small businesses that we are delivering.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
11. May I associate myself with your words, Mr Speaker, on Paul Goggins, who was a great friend, and with the Secretary of State’s words on Lord Roberts, who was a great Anglesey man? Wales is a net producer of energy, a major electricity generator and a major terminal for imported gas, but people in Wales are paying some of the highest prices in the United Kingdom for gas and electricity. Will the Minister look closely at the distribution companies that are passing on extra costs to the Welsh consumer to ensure that there is a level playing field on prices?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for his constituents and people throughout Wales. At the Wales Office, I regularly meet companies such as Western Power Distribution and National Grid to discuss why many consumers in Wales are paying those higher costs, and for all kinds of reasons. If he has specific questions that he would like me to follow up, I would be happy to meet him to do that.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I, too, associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Lord Roberts and in particular express my sadness at the passing of our friend and comrade Paul Goggins? I worked with Paul at the Northern Ireland Office, and I can say from personal experience that he was a wonderful Minister, a lovely man, and a hugely dedicated Member of the House. All our thoughts are with his family; everybody who knew Paul will miss him greatly.
A moment ago, the Minister said that measures in the autumn statement would cut energy bills for families in Wales by £50. That was one boast made by the Chancellor in that statement, and it came to fruition in Wales this morning with the announcement by SSE—Wales’s biggest energy supplier—that it was helping families with a price cut. Will the Minister confirm what that announcement actually means for families in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
The action that we are taking across a broad range of measures—energy, fuel prices, income tax thresholds—means that we are helping people on the lowest incomes in Wales with the challenges of the cost of living at the moment. The hon. Gentleman does not refer to the fact that we are seeing improvements in wages in Wales and in personal disposable income, and he should welcome the overall positive picture that is emerging in Wales.
Owen Smith
I had hoped that the Minister would have made a new year’s resolution to be a little more straightforward with the Welsh people. The truth is that the announcement by SSE this morning, following the announcement by the Chancellor that bills will be cut by £50, is actually that bills will rise in Wales this year by £70. It is a con trick, plain and simple, and the Minister should admit that and urge his colleagues to adopt Labour’s price freeze as the only way to curb these profiteering energy companies.
Stephen Crabb
I am sorry to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but if he talks to people in industry out there who understand the economics of energy, they will all tell him that what the Labour party has proposed for energy does not make sense at all and has no credibility. The Government are taking real practical action that helps families at difficult times, and the picture that we are seeing in Wales overall is positive.
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
4. If he will publish an impact assessment of the effect of the draft Wales Bill on cross-border areas.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Government published a summary impact assessment with the draft Wales Bill, which examines the effects of the Bill’s provisions on cross-border areas. We intend to introduce the Bill in the fourth Session, subject to agreement of the fourth Session programme, and a full impact assessment will accompany the Bill on introduction.
Martin Caton
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the draft Bill provides for a lock-step approach to varying income tax bands, against the wishes of all political parties in the Assembly and against the advice of the Silk commission. The reason given is concern about overall progressivity in the UK tax system. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on what he means by progressivity and say why he is adopting that approach?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
15. One damaging consequence of devolution has been the abandonment of investment in cross-border road improvement in mid-Wales because the Department for Transport—quite reasonably—sees no economic benefit to England in improving access to mid-Wales. In the response to the Silk commission report, will my right hon. Friend rectify that damaging consequence of devolution for mid-Wales?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is quite right, and cross-border road routes are one unfortunate consequence of devolution, in that no overarching arrangement is in place. I have specifically asked the Silk commission to consider that issue, and I hope that it will address it in its report.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that certainty on taxation policy is key to boosting economic confidence in Wales. Although he has told us of his vision to use the Wales Bill for a 1p cut to all income tax bands in Wales, the leader of the Conservative party in Wales has said that he would cut only the top band of tax. Will the Secretary of State clear up that complete muddle about his Government’s position on taxation in Wales?
Mr Jones
We have made it absolutely clear that we believe a competitive Welsh economy would depend to a large extent on a competitive rate of tax. However, I must remind the hon. Lady that devolution of income tax is a matter for the Welsh Government, in that it would be the Welsh Government who would have to put forward a referendum to the Welsh Assembly.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the roll-out of universal credit on people in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The roll-out of universal credit will reduce the historic dependency on benefits for the people of Wales by making the system simple and more flexible, and by increasing the incentive to work.
Ann Clwyd
Is it not a fact that repeated promises to deliver the project on time and on budget have been broken yet again? Officials are warning of further delays and more wasted taxpayers’ money, and Ministers are arguing among themselves while families and children in Wales live in poverty. What way is this to run a country?
Stephen Crabb
What universal credit represents for the country, including Wales—I think Opposition Members recognise this as well—is a generational opportunity to change the welfare system better to support those who need it. It is exactly right that we take the time necessary to get the systems and processes right to ensure that we get the outcomes right for people in Wales.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have assured me that the online application process in Welsh will be consistent with the Welsh Language Act 1993. What discussions has the Minister had with DWP colleagues to ensure that it is also consistent with the new Welsh language standards?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I regularly meet Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, to discuss the impact of the complete welfare reform agenda in Wales. The Welsh language, specifically, is an issue that I have discussed with him. We want to see high-quality Welsh language availability for the people who need it.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
6. What recent discussions he has had on future investment in transport infrastructure in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
This Government are investing more in transport infrastructure in Wales than any other in the last century, and Wales is set to benefit directly and indirectly from almost £2 billion of investment. I will be meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport next week to see how we can take this investment further.
Stephen Mosley
Like me, the Secretary of State is a regular user of the Holyhead branch of the west coast main line. The Department for Transport is setting up a taskforce to look at electrification of the line between Crewe and Chester. Does he agree that the taskforce should look beyond Chester and consider electrifying the north Wales main line?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
One of the most important pieces of transport infrastructure for Wales is the Severn bridge. After decades, tolls have now gone up again: £6.40 for motorists, and double and treble that for vans and lorries. Is it not time to recognise, after all these decades, that this tax on the south Wales economy is a toll too far?
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
14. Good transport links are essential to provide opportunities for investment into Wales. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on updating road and rail links into north Wales, especially upgrading the A55?
Mr Jones
I have regular discussions with both the Welsh Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on this issue. A business case is already being worked up, I hope, for electrification of the north Wales coast line, and I have already referred to the issue of roads.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
When it comes to the Wrexham-Bidston line, the Secretary of State is all talk and no action. When can we expect some action?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with the First Minister on increasing tourism opportunities in Newport in the light of the NATO summit in Celtic Manor in 2014.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Hosting the NATO summit in Newport later this year allows us to showcase Wales on a global stage, and I—and the First Minister, I am sure—will do everything possible to ensure that Wales capitalises on the tourism opportunities it should bring.
Paul Flynn
The delegates will be guests in what is probably the best hotel in Britain, the Celtic Manor. Will they have the chance to visit the other major attractions of Newport—the Roman remains at Caerleon, the magnificent transporter bridge and the splendid Tredegar house—so that they can have a rich and unforgettable experience in Newport?
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay some brief tributes. Captain Richard Holloway of the Royal Engineers was tragically killed after being engaged by enemy fire in Afghanistan on 23 December. He was a highly respected soldier, and our deepest sympathies and condolences should be with his parents, brother and girlfriend, whom he left behind. Our thoughts should also go to the victims of the US helicopter crash in Norfolk, about which details are still emerging.
I know that the sudden death this morning of Paul Goggins, MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East, will have shocked everyone across the House. He was a kind, brilliant man who believed profoundly in public service. He cared deeply about the welfare of children and the importance of social work, and he brought his own clear experience to bear as an MP and Minister. He did vital work as a Northern Ireland Minister, playing a quiet but essential role in delivering the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, particularly at the Hillsborough castle talks. He was liked and admired across the House and always treated everyone, in whatever circumstances, with respect. He will be greatly missed, and we send our condolences to his wife Wyn, his children and his family.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Burns
I am sure the House will want to be associated with my right hon. Friend’s comments. In particular, Paul Goggins was a good and decent man, and I know that he will be sorely missed on both sides of the House.
Yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce found that manufacturing exports and services were growing strongly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that, even though more work needs to be done, it is crucial that the Government stick to their long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, including those about Paul Goggins.
It is a welcome report from the British Chambers of Commerce, but there is still a lot more work to do: we must continue to reduce the deficit, create economic growth and get more people into work. There should not be one ounce of complacency, but the report did find that manufacturing balances were at an all-time high, that exports were up and that services were growing strongly. If we stick to this plan, we can see this country rise, and our people rise with it too.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Richard Holloway of the Royal Engineers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan. His death, just two days before Christmas, is a reminder of the risks being taken on our behalf every day by members of our armed forces. He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and all our sympathies are with his family and friends. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in sending condolences to the families of the victims of the US helicopter crash in Norfolk.
I want to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Paul Goggins. He was one of the kindest, most decent people in the House, and he was someone of the deepest principle. It shone throughout his career, as social worker, councillor, MP and Minister, and it is a measure of the man and his ability that he earned the respect, trust and affection of all sides in Northern Ireland. The Labour party has lost one of its own and one of its best. Our deepest condolences go to his wife, Wyn, to his children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic, and indeed to his whole family.
The whole country will be concerned about the price being paid by those in communities affected by the floods and storms. I pay tribute to the work of the emergency services. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the number of people affected and on what action is being taken now to ensure areas that could be affected by further flooding have all the necessary support?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very moving words about Paul Goggins.
The flooding provides an extremely difficult situation for those affected. We should remember that seven people have lost their lives since this began. The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the emergency services, to the Environment Agency workers, to the flood wardens and to the many neighbours and individuals who showed great bravery, courage and spirit over the Christmas period in helping neighbours and friends.
As the situation is ongoing, let me bring the House up to date with the latest detail. There are currently 104 flood warnings in place across the whole of England and Wales. That means, sadly, that more flooding is expected and that immediate action is required. There are also 186 flood alerts, which means even further flooding is possible beyond what we expect to happen more rapidly. Although the weather has improved, river and groundwater levels remain so high that further flooding could come at relatively short notice. There are a number of particular concerns, including Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Somerset and Oxfordshire. Given these ongoing threats, which could last for several days to come, I urge members of the public to keep following the advice of the emergency services and the Environment Agency in those areas at risk. At a national level, we have co-ordinated this response via Cobra, which will continue to meet under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs until the threat has passed.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I know he and the Environment Secretary will keep us updated. He will recognise that some people felt that the response was, at times, too slow. In particular, will he explain whether it has become clear why it took so long for some of the energy distribution companies to restore power to homes over the Christmas period? What steps does he believe can be taken to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen again?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: in all these circumstances, no matter how good the preparation, there are always lessons to learn—and there are lessons to learn on this occasion. On the positive side, the Environment Agency warning service worked better than it has in the past and the flood defences protected up to a million homes over the December and Christmas period, but there are some negatives, too, and we need to learn lessons from them. In particular, some of the energy companies did not have enough people available over the holiday period for an emergency response, which I saw for myself in Kent. We need to learn those lessons, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy will lead this exercise. The Energy Secretary is already looking at the levels of compensation and at the preparedness and speed of response from energy companies. I would, however, welcome hearing from Members of all constituencies affected by the flooding what they saw on the ground about the lessons that could be learned so that we can ensure that preparedness is even better on a future occasion.
Edward Miliband
Given the scale of risk exposed by these floods and the expected impact of climate change, will the Prime Minister also commit to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs providing a report by the end of this month, providing a full assessment of the future capability of our flood defences and flood response agencies and of whether the investment plans in place are equal to the need for events of this kind?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to make that commitment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in this current four-year period, we are spending £2.3 billion, compared with £2.1 billion in the previous period. The money is going into flood defences. As I said, in the early December flooding, about 800,000 homes were protected by previous flood defence work and over the Christmas period a further 200,000 houses were affected. Whenever there is flooding, it makes sense to look again at the proposals in the programme for flood defence work and to see what more can be done. In addition to Government money, we are keen to lever in more private sector and local authority money, which is now possible under the arrangements. I am happy to commit, as the right hon. Gentleman asked, to the Environment Secretary coming back to report to the House on the level of expenditure in the years going ahead.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Q2. Further to the Prime Minister’s remarks on the recent flooding, will he join me in paying tribute to Bournemouth borough council and Dorset emergency services, as well as local residents, in dealing with two evacuations in my constituency, one of which, owing to the River Stour bursting its banks, is still ongoing? Given the changing weather patterns we are experiencing, what more can be done in the long term towards improving river and sea defences?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, 290 homes have been flooded so far in Bournemouth and the Dorset area. I agree with him that the work of the emergency services and the Environment Agency has been excellent. Many local authorities, including my own, have developed very good plans and carried them out very competently. However, not every authority is doing so well, and there will be lessons to be learnt.
As for the Bournemouth and Poole area, about £14 million will be invested over the next five years under the Bournemouth beach management scheme. That should protect about 2,500 properties by 2018-2019, but I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what more he thinks can be done.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Q3. The Prime Minister will be aware that the majority of new housing benefit claimants are in work. He will also be aware that private sector landlords are increasingly refusing to take tenants who are on benefit, or are evicting them. What does he say to hard-working families who face losing their homes because of his housing benefit cuts?
The Prime Minister
What we say to hard-working families is, “We are cutting your taxes.” In April this year, we will raise to £10,000 the amount of money that people can earn before they start paying income tax, and I think that that will make a big difference. For instance, someone earning the minimum wage and working a 40-hour week will see his or her tax bill fall by two thirds.
However, we must take action to deal with the housing benefit bill. Housing benefit now accounts for £23 billion of Government spending. When we came to office, some families in London were receiving housing benefit payments of £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] Members shout “How many?” Frankly, one was too many, and that is why we have capped housing benefit.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
Q4. If the Government decided to mitigate the scale of the cuts that they plan for the next Parliament, can my right hon. Friend tell me how I would explain to the students in Meon Valley receiving personal, social, health and economic education why they should make every effort to spend within their means to avoid taking on debt, but it is quite all right for the Government to ignore the same advice?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. We have made difficult decisions to get the deficit down and to get the country back on track: difficult decisions in terms of departmental spending, and also welfare. The Labour party is now back where it started: Labour Members are saying that they want to mitigate the level of cuts, and therefore they want to spend more, they want to borrow more and they want to tax more. We may be at the beginning of a new year, but they have gone completely back to where they were three years ago.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recognise the concern of families and communities about the impact of fixed odds betting terminals, gaming machines on which people can gamble up to £300 a minute on our high streets?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely share the concern about that issue, and I welcome the fact that we shall be debating it in the House today. There are problems in the betting and gaming industry, and we need to look at them. I think it is worth listening to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman’s own shadow Minister who said
“I accept the argument that empirical evidence is needed before making”
any changes,
“because it might just create another problem somewhere else”.—[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 November 2013; c. 8.]
However, this is a problem, and it does need to be looked at. We have a review under way. We are clearing up a situation that was put in place under the last Government, but I think that if we work together, we can probably sort it out.
Edward Miliband
The Gambling Act 2005 limited the number of machines to four per betting shop, but it did not go nearly far enough. More action should have been taken. The Prime Minister asked about evidence. Local communities from Fareham to Liverpool are saying that these machines are causing problems for families and communities. Local communities believe that they already have the evidence. Should they not be given the power to decide whether or not they want these machines?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, but let me first deal with the facts. The first fact is that fixed odds betting terminals were introduced in 2001 after the Labour Government had relaxed gambling regulations. The second fact is that there are fewer of these machines now than there were when Labour was in office. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, councils already have powers to tackle the issue, and I believe that they should make full use of those powers. I am not arguing that that is “job done”—there may well be more to do— but we have a review under way. This is an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If the right hon. Gentleman has ideas, I ask him to put them into the review, but, as I said earlier, he may want to listen to his own shadow Minister, who, as recently as November, said
“there is no evidence to support a change to stakes and prizes for FOBTs”. —[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 November 2013; c. 20.]
There seems to be something of a change here, but if the right hon. Gentleman has extra evidence, he should put it into our review, and I think that we can then sort the matter out.
Edward Miliband
Our ideas are in today’s motion, and if the Prime Minister wants to vote for it, we would be very happy for him to do so. He says there are already powers in place, but the Mayor of London and the Conservative head of the Local Government Association have said that local authorities do not have the power to limit the number of machines. One in three calls to the gambling helpline are about these machines and they are clustered in deprived areas. For example, there are 348 in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country: Newham. Can the Prime Minister at least give us a timetable for when the Government will decide whether to act?
The Prime Minister
We will be reporting in the spring as a result of the review that is under way, and I think it is important that we get to grips with this. There is something of a pattern. We had the problem of 24-hour drinking, and that needed to be changed and mitigated and we have done that. We have the problems created by the deregulation of betting and gaming, which the right hon. Gentleman is raising today and we need to sort that out. We have also had problems, of course, in the banking industry and elsewhere that we have sorted out, so, as I said, if he wants to—[Interruption.] As I said, if he wants to input ideas into that review, I think that is the right way forward.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I pay tribute to Paul Goggins and say how much he will be missed in this House?
My right hon. Friend is on the record as saying he would very much like to see the A64 on the future roads list. Can he ensure that the present economy, which is very buoyant in north Yorkshire, is not held back by congestion and poor safety on that road? Will he join me to ensure that on his future visits he can travel much faster and in much greater safety on the A64?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The quality and capacity of the road system in Yorkshire has been, and is, a major issue. The Government have taken some important steps to help, but I know there is more work to be done. I know the Chancellor was listening carefully to what she had to say and I am sure we can look carefully at this for the future roads programme.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Q5. What plans do the Government have to close the loophole that allows businesses to pay agency workers less than fellow employees doing the same job?
The Prime Minister
I looked into this loophole carefully over the Christmas period when the Opposition raised it, and I discovered two things about this loophole. The first is that it was introduced and agreed by the last Labour Government and the TUC. That is loophole fact No. 1. Loophole fact No. 2—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman shouts “CBI”, and this is what the CBI had to say about it:
“further gold plating of EU rules can only cost jobs.”
Then we have the Recruitment and Employment Federation. It said this:
“These arrangements were agreed following consultation between the last Labour Government, business and the unions…Is the Labour party really saying they want to deny British temps the option of permanent employment?”
The Institute of Directors has, of course, added to that by saying—[Interruption.] It is very clear, Mr Speaker: Opposition Members want to know what we think about this, and this is what the IOD thinks:
“It’s a bad idea all round…The initial response to this from employers would be to employ fewer people on higher wages”.
What a great start to the new year: let us come up with an idea to increase unemployment! Only Labour could come up with an idea like that.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Q6. There is considerable interest from businesses in the maritime and marine sector wishing to relocate to Portsmouth to make use of its facilities and skilled work force. What can the Government do to send a clear message to entrepreneurs that Portsmouth is open for businesses and to facilitate businesses moving to, and expanding, there?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There are two specific things we can do to help Portsmouth at this time. The first is the Portsmouth and Southampton city deal, which we should put in place, that will bring jobs and investment. Secondly, we should emphasise the fact that the massive programme of modernising the Royal Navy, with the aircraft carriers, the Type 45s and the future frigates, will by and large be based in Portsmouth, creating jobs and making sure it remains one of the most important homes for the Royal Navy. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: added to that there is a future in Portsmouth in other marine industries and commercial and private sector industries, and we should do everything we can to encourage business to locate there.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Q7. I would also like to pay my sympathies to Paul Goggins’s family; he was a lovely, lovely man.The Government have cut £1.8 billion from the social care budget, which means nearly half a million fewer people are eligible for social care. With home care charges up £740 a year since 2010 and the Government’s care cap nothing more than a care con, why is the Prime Minister not being honest with older people about the real care costs they will face under this Government?
The Prime Minister
Of course, difficult decisions have had to be taken right across Government spending, but if we look at health and social care, we can see that we have protected the health budget so that it is going up in real terms, and we have put some of that health budget—up to £3 billion—into social care to help local authorities. We now want to get local authorities and local health services working even more closely together to deal with the problems of blocked beds and to ensure that there are care packages for people when they leave hospital. We can really see the benefits in the areas of the country where this is working, and we want to make that happen right across the country.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Q8. Mr Speaker, our excellent local enterprise partnership estimates that Buckinghamshire has a £12 billion economy, with nearly 30,000 registered businesses and the European head offices of more than 700 foreign companies. They need the security of long-term economic policies. Given that our economic growth has clearly returned, will the Prime Minister assure me that, unlike the Labour party, he will not gamble with those companies’ future and that he will stick steadfastly to his tried and tested long-term economic policies?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she says. There is a vibrant economy right across the Thames valley, including in Buckinghamshire, and that is going to be based on sticking to our long-term economic plan. What is particularly important for the companies that she has mentioned is to keep our rates of corporate tax low so that we attract businesses into the country and ensure that companies want to have their headquarters here. That is the right answer, rather than the answer of the Labour party, which is to put up corporation tax and to put a “Closed” sign over the British economy.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Q9. A year ago, the Prime Minister said that he would make “damn sure” that foreign companies paid higher taxes, but in the Financial Times at the weekend, it was shown that companies such as Apple and eBay were now paying even less. Why is the Prime Minister’s tough talk not adding up to very much?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair; I think we are making progress on this very difficult issue. At the G8, we raised the importance of having international rules on tax reporting and of more countries working together on that. Huge progress has been made, not least in the European Union, where countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, which have always held out against this exchange of information, are now taking part for the first time. The OECD work is also going ahead apace, and that is partly because Britain has put its full efforts behind this vital work.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Paul Goggins was a decent, humble man and, in my experience, one of the most effective and fair Ministers the House has seen. He will be very sadly missed.
The Prime Minister will know that the science is clear that the extreme weather conditions affecting our communities, including around the Kent estuary in Westmorland, are at least in part a destructive and inevitable consequence of climate change. Given that he has said that this should be the “greenest Government ever”, will he now agree to support the carbon reduction targets so that we can take real action to protect people and property?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that we are seeing more abnormal weather events. Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not; I very much suspect that it is. The point is that, whatever one’s view, it makes sense to invest in flood defences and mitigation and to get information out better, and we should do all of those things. As for carbon reduction targets, this Government are committed to them and we worked with the last Government to put the Climate Change Act 2008 into place. That would not have happened without our support. We also have the green investment bank up and running in Edinburgh, and we are going to be investing billions of pounds in important green projects.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q10. Government cuts have closed the police cells in Bassetlaw, and I now discover that the police are having to patrol villages using public transport. If the police are waiting at a bus stop, having arrested someone, should they go upstairs, should they go downstairs, or should they not make the arrest at all?
The Prime Minister
The first thing to say to the hon. Gentleman is that he did not mention the fact that recorded crime in the Bassetlaw community safety partnership area is down by 27% under this Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, 27%. What is noticeable is that every single Opposition Member is getting up and complaining about the need to make reductions in departmental spending. Frankly, this is like “Back to the Future”—we are back to where we were three years ago, when we said, “You’ve got to make difficult decisions. You’ve got to make some cuts. You’ve got to get the deficit down” and they lived in total denial. They are back to where they were three years ago. It may be the new year, but it is the same old Labour party.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The royal pardon granted to Alan Turing two weeks ago has finally meant justice for this national hero. May I thank the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and everyone over the years who has paved the way to bring this about? May I invite the Prime Minister to visit Bletchley Park in my constituency to see for himself Alan Turing’s remarkable achievements?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely back what my hon. Friend has said. It is excellent news that a royal prerogative mercy, which is very rarely granted, has been granted in this very special case. I would be delighted to visit his constituency to go to Bletchley Park. One of my wife’s family worked there during the war and speaks incredibly highly of Alan Turing and what he was like to work with. Historians can argue about the degree, but there is no doubt that the work done in my hon. Friend’s constituency was vital to winning the war.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q11. Before Christmas, I was contacted by a seriously ill constituent who is waiting for a kidney transplant. He needs five-hour dialysis sessions three times a week, yet in the Prime Minister’s Britain he has been told by the jobcentre that he is fit for work. On Monday, the Chancellor promised to take £12 billion more from the welfare budget. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no further cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled?
The Prime Minister
First, on the specific issue of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, if he wants to write to me about the individual case, I would be happy to look at that. In terms of making sure that dialysis machines are available and the expertise is available, we are putting more money into the NHS, even though the advice from the Labour party was to cut. The reason we have been able to put more money into the health service is because we have taken tough and difficult decisions about welfare. It is because we have put a cap on the amount of money a family can get that we have been able to invest in our health service; because we have put a cap on housing benefit—not giving £60,000 or £70,000 to some families—we have invested in our health service. We want to see more dignity, more security and more stability in the lives of Britain’s families, and we are making choices consistent with that.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Soaring car sales—they are back to pre-crisis levels—have helped supply chain companies such as Sertec in Coleshill in my constituency to create manufacturing jobs; 200 have been created in the past year, and a further 400 are planned. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that we are successfully rebalancing the economy and that we need to stay the course with policies that are clearly working?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I went with him to the opening of the new Ocado warehouse in his constituency, which has generated hundreds of jobs and, as he says, is going to be vital for the supply chain in his constituency. What these businesses want to see is a consistent economic policy: keeping interest rates down; getting the deficit down; cutting taxes for hard-working people; helping businesses to take more people on; and investing in education, in skills and in controlling welfare. Those are the elements of our long-term plan, and that is what we will stick to.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q12. Two months ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether Tory Councillor Abdul Aziz, who was suspended by the Labour party, should return to Pakistan, given the arrest warrant out for him in connection to a brutal killing. Councillor Aziz attended the Prime Minister’s party in October as an invited guest. So why is the Prime Minister still hiding on whether he thinks Councillor Aziz should return to face justice?
The Prime Minister
I will make two points to the hon. Gentleman, and I have written to him this morning. The first is this—[Interruption.] He will be interested to hear. The first is that the allegations he mentions are disputed and are currently subject to legal action, so I am limited in what I can say. But what he failed to mention to the House the last time he raised this is that the allegations date from the time when Mr Aziz was a Labour councillor. I am informed that during his time as a Labour councillor the Labour party did absolutely nothing about these allegations. So perhaps next time the hon. Gentleman stands up and asks a question in the House of Commons he will give us the full facts.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Q13. May I associate myself with the tributes to Paul Goggins? His work on the reform of the law on child neglect will go on. Last year, one of my constituents, 23-year-old Christopher Scott, died as a result of taking the so-called legal high AMT—alpha-methyltryptamine. Will my right hon. Friend support my calls and those of the coroner and Christopher’s family to ensure that this dangerous drug and others like it are outlawed?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. First, let me offer my condolences to his constituent’s family. As he knows with the rules that we have, hundreds of legal highs have already been banned, and our temporary drug orders allow us to outlaw substances within days of them coming on the market. However, we are not complacent and we have asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to renew our definitions of controlled drugs to ensure that we capture these newly emerging substances when there is evidence of harm. There is more work to be done here, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is absolutely on it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying warm tribute to Paul Goggins? He was a fine, decent and honourable man who was a great friend to Northern Ireland and all its people. He will be sadly missed not only in this House but throughout Northern Ireland. We offer our sincere condolences to his wife and family at this difficult time.
I commend the Prime Minister and welcome the fact that he has made a commitment on the triple-lock guarantee for pensioners if he is returned as Prime Minister in the next Parliament in 2015. Will he clarify whether he will commit to retaining the winter fuel allowance under its current eligibility thresholds and as a universal benefit?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Paul Goggins.
On the issue of pensions, it is important to recognise that we are able to make a commitment to the triple lock, which has been important in this Parliament, only because we are committed to raising the pension age to 66, then 67 and so on. That means that the pension increase is affordable. We made a very clear pledge about pensioner benefits for this Parliament, and I am proud of the fact that we are fulfilling it. We will set out our plans in the next manifesto. I caution people against believing that not paying the winter fuel allowance or the other benefits to those, for instance, paying tax at 40p, saves money—you save a very small amount of money. Yes of course we will set out our plans in the manifesto, but it is absolutely vital that we say to Britain’s pensioners, “You have worked hard and done the right thing, and we want to give you dignity and security in old age.” The triple lock makes that possible.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Q14. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Thrunton in my constituency, there has been a large fire of waste carpet burning since 3 September last year? The local residents have been suffering from the fumes and smoke from what we now know may be hazardous waste. The fire brigade cannot put out the fire for fear of polluting the water supply. Can I have my right hon. Friend’s support in urging the Environment Agency and the local authority to get that material off the site and to give residents back their lives?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look in even more detail at the issues my right hon. Friend raises. I understand the concern that it is causing him and his constituents. My understanding is that environmental concerns, particularly that waste might run off and pollute local water supplies, have hampered the efforts to extinguish the fire. I understand that the local recovery group is meeting later this week to see what more can be done to remove the waste, and I am happy to intervene on my right hon. Friend’s behalf to ensure that that makes progress.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Given that the Prime Minister’s anti-independence campaign launched an initiative this week, encouraging people outside Scotland to take part in the debate, why will he not debate with the First Minister on television?
The Prime Minister
The calls for this debate show a mounting frustration among those wanting Scotland’s separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, because they know they are losing the argument. They are losing the argument about jobs and investment. They have completely lost the argument about the future of the pound sterling, and they are losing the argument about Europe. Yes of course there should be a debate, but it is a debate among the people in Scotland. The leader of the “in” campaign should debate with the leader of the “out” campaign. Of course the hon. Gentleman, as the lackey of Alex Salmond, wants to change the terms of the debate, but I am not falling for that one.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Q15. In the 13 years before 2010, there was net migration of nearly 4 million people to the UK, mostly to England, and in many cases as a result of work permits issued by the then Government. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that this Government will keep in place their cap on the number of workers from outside the European Union, and encourage employers to give a chance to talented young people here?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. We should keep the cap on economic migrants from outside the European Union. We should continue with all the action that we are taking to make sure that people who come here do so to work and not to claim, but I think what we need to do next is recognise that the best immigration policy is to have not only strong border controls but an education approach that educates our young people for jobs in our country and a welfare system that encourages them to take those jobs. There are three sides to the argument: it is about immigration, education and welfare, and the Government have a plan for all three.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Could I agree with the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] It is genuinely absurd that the leader of the no campaign in Scotland cannot get a debate with the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland, and that the leader of the yes campaign in Scotland demands a debate with somebody who does not have a vote. [Interruption.] In these circumstances, does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in politics as in shipbuilding, empty vessels make the most noise?
Mr Davidson
I am not finished! [Hon. Members: “More!] There is more. Without seeking to give offence to the Prime Minister, may I tell him that the last person Scots who support the no campaign want as their representative is a Tory toff from the home counties, even one with a fine haircut?
The Prime Minister
I accept every part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I well remember when he came to Question Time not with an empty vessel but with a model of the vessel that he wanted to be built near his constituency, and I am proud that the Government are building that vessel and, indeed, another one like it. I humbly accept that, while I am sure there are many people in Scotland who would like to hear me talk about this issue, my appeal does not stretch to every single part. The key point that he is making is absolutely right: the reason the yes campaign head and the no campaign head cannot seem to get a debate is that those who want to break up the United Kingdom know that they are losing the argument, so they want to change the question. It is the oldest trick in the book, and we can all see it coming.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise his point of order after the statement.
Haass Talks
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the cross-party negotiations in Belfast that came to a close during the early hours of new year’s eve, but first I would like to express my sorrow at the news that Paul Goggins has died. He was a truly excellent and effective Northern Ireland Minister and I have to say one of the kindest, most sincere and most popular Members of this House. He will be much missed, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy and support to his family as they deal with this shocking loss.
Last May, the First and Deputy First Ministers announced a working group consisting of representatives from each of the five parties in the Executive to look at three of the most divisive issues for Northern Ireland: flags, parading and the legacy of the past. The initiative formed a key element of wider proposals to tackle sectarianism set out in the Executive’s strategy document, “Together: Building a United Community”. In July, former US diplomat Richard Haass agreed to chair the group. He served as the US special envoy to Northern Ireland from 2001 to 2003. Along with his deputy, Professor Meghan O’Sullivan, Dr Haass began work in September with the aim of reaching agreement by the end of the year.
From the outset, the UK Government, along with the Irish Government and the US Administration, have strongly supported the Haass process. We welcomed the fact that it was the parties within Northern Ireland that had taken the initiative in seeking progress on these complex and difficult issues as part of the work that the Government had strongly pressed them to take forward on building a shared society and addressing sectarian division.
All three of the issues under consideration in the Haass group have the capacity sharply to divide opinion in Northern Ireland. Repeated attempts to deal with the past have produced little consensus up to now, while disputes over parading and flags have frequently led to serious public disorder. Some form of accommodation on those issues that commands cross-party support could therefore have significant benefits for political stability, public order and economic prosperity in Northern Ireland.
Although the UK Government were never formally a participant in the Haass process, we have been fully engaged with it from the start. I had a significant number of meetings with Dr Haass and my officials remained in frequent contact with his team. During the latter stages of the talks, I spoke regularly with Dr Haass, as I did with the leaders of Northern Ireland’s political parties and the Irish Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore. The Prime Minister also maintained a close interest in the process. We worked to encourage an agreement, even where that meant the parties making difficult decisions to try to move things forward.
The Haass process reached its final, intensive phase of negotiation in the days before Christmas and between Christmas and the new year, when a number of drafts were circulated, the final one being presented to the parties shortly after midnight on the morning of 31 December. It proposed a new set of arrangements for regulating parades and protests, with responsibility vested for the first time in devolved hands. On flags and emblems there was no immediate resolution, but the document advocated the establishment of a new commission to look at wider issues of identity, culture and tradition in Northern Ireland. On the past, Dr Haass proposed two new bodies: an historical investigations unit, in place of the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Historical Enquiries Team, to investigate troubles-related deaths; and an independent commission on information recovery.
It was of course disappointing that it did not prove possible to reach a comprehensive agreement within the timetable Dr Haass set, and it is clear that some of the parties have genuine concerns about aspects of what is in the final document, yet the clear message from the Prime Minister, from me and from the Irish Government is that this should not be seen as the end of the road.
The Haass process has seen much valuable work done and some real progress has been made. The discussions managed to achieve a considerable amount of common ground, which this Government believe can provide the basis for continuing discussions between the parties. From my many conversations with the parties, I have no doubt that there is a willingness to make progress on the issues that continue to be a focus for tension and division.
The momentum now needs to be maintained. I believe that Northern Ireland’s political leadership should lose no time in seeking a way forward that gets the parties back around the table to try to resolve their outstanding differences. For our part, the Government are continuing our dialogue with the parties and with the Irish Government to see how best we can help facilitate that. I firmly believe that there is still a chance to achieve a successful outcome from the work started by Dr Haass, and I have been speaking with party leaders to discuss the next steps.
At the same time, it is important that we do not lose sight of other important tasks for Northern Ireland, such as the need to continue to make progress on implementing the economic pact and boosting the economy, to take forward a range of measures to build a shared future and to move ahead with welfare reforms.
Finally, I would like to place on the record both the Prime Minister’s and my thanks to Dr Haass, Professor O’Sullivan and their team for the dedication they have brought to chairing the talks. I very much hope that, working together, we can now build on the valuable work that they have started.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for giving me advance sight of a copy. May I also thank her for her kind words about Paul Goggins? I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will understand that I want to begin with a few words about my colleague but, more importantly, good friend, Paul.
Paul served with distinction as a Minister in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, he earned the respect of politicians, officials and community activists alike for his knowledge and empathy. He continued to take a close interest in all things Northern Ireland, and I know from my discussions with him that he had grown to love Northern Ireland.
But Paul was a lot more than an outstanding Minister. He was a man whose integrity, decency and values, rooted in a strong Christian faith, shone through in everything he did. He treated everyone with the same dignity and respect, whether a Prime Minister or a constituent living on one of the poorest council estates in Wythenshawe.
Paul and I had a special bond, for many years an affliction, of being avid Manchester City fans. We even set up the Westminster branch of the Manchester City supporters club together.
I will never forget Paul’s loyalty and friendship through the ups and downs of our shared political journey. He will be missed more than words can adequately express. Our thoughts and prayers are with Wyn and his children.
I pay tribute to Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan for their professionalism and commitment in striving for a positive way forward on some of the most challenging issues facing Northern Ireland. Flags, parades and dealing with the past are running sores that continue to inhibit progress towards the priority objective of building a shared and better future. They have to be tackled in a way that respects the insecurity and sensitivities of both traditions while balancing strong convictions with necessary compromises.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge that the failure of the Haass talks to reach a final agreement was both disappointing and potentially damaging to public confidence in Northern Ireland’s politicians and the political process. However, it is important that we retain a sense of perspective and that all parties in Northern Ireland refrain from name-calling or engaging in a blame game. Significant advances were made that can form the basis of future progress, as the Secretary of State said. That is particularly the case in relation to dealing with the past, where victims’ groups deserve tremendous credit for submissions that were coherent and compelling.
We want to see all parties back round the negotiating table as soon as possible with a shared commitment to working together on shared solutions. The UK and Irish Governments have a crucial role to play, not only as guarantors of the peace process but because of the legislative and financial implications that would flow from any agreement.
In that context, I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. What dialogue is taking place between her and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the potential legislation that will be required to implement any agreement? What discussions has she had with her counterparts in the Irish Government about the financial implications of a new infrastructure to deal with the past? Can she explain why, at this sensitive time, she has weakened the capacity of the newly appointed Parades Commission by reducing the number of commissioners and the number of hours that each commissioner will be expected to work? While I acknowledge her contribution during the course of the Haass talks, does she understand that at this time of uncertainty the widespread perception of disengagement by the UK Government is causing concern across a wide spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland, and that this needs to change? Finally, does she acknowledge the negative impact that some of the welfare reforms mentioned in her speech, particularly the pernicious bedroom tax, would have on people in Northern Ireland?
Northern Ireland has made tremendous progress over the past 15 years. This has been possible only because of the determination of people to build a better future for themselves and their families—but it is also thanks to the vision and courage of Northern Ireland’s political leaders. There will be no turning back, but there can be no standing still. That is why we hope that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will convene an all-party working group as soon as possible and ensure that the progress that has been made can be consolidated in an agreement that attracts widespread public support but will also stand the test of time.
Mrs Villiers
I echo and thank the shadow Secretary of State for his words on Paul Goggins. Paul’s example is one with which to counter the cynicism about MPs and about politicians, because he illustrated such a strong commitment to decency, integrity and public service. I also strongly echo the shadow Secretary of State’s point that Paul retained a genuine affection for Northern Ireland. He cared deeply about it, I am sure, when he was a Minister, and it was clear that he still did so in his discussions with me as Secretary of State some time after he had ceased to be a Minister. He had strong values, which I am sure were a great support to him in his work in this House and in Northern Ireland.
The shadow Secretary of State’s remarks illustrate that there is a lot of common ground between Front Benchers on a way forward. I agree that getting the parties together and back around the table in a working group to try to resolve the differences between them is the right way forward. That is what I have been urging the political parties to do. I also agree that an eventual solution needs to respect the sensitivities of the different traditions, but that it must also involve compromise on all sides.
It is important to recognise the progress made on the past, which is a particularly difficult issue for all of us, including, in some ways, the UK Government. I believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, that the voice of victims and survivors played a very positive role in taking things forward and that any eventual solution must place victims and survivors at its heart.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the dialogue between me and the First and Deputy First Ministers. I have spoken to both of them in recent days to urge that a way forward be found and that the working group commence.
The legislation to implement what would be needed from the Haass proposals would come primarily through the Assembly and the Executive. The part this House would play would be, potentially, the devolution of parading. The mechanics of setting up the new bodies would be a matter for the Assembly and the Executive.
I have kept in close touch with Eamon Gilmore and the Irish Government—both before and after the talks broke up—on matters relating to the past and all the other issues under discussion in this process, including a discussion on finances. It is very clear that the UK Government face a significant deficit, which means that we have to take care with public spending. We expect the primary resource for the new mechanisms to be found from within the block grant to Northern Ireland, but we will, of course, always consider further applications for funding from the Northern Ireland Executive if they wish to press ahead with the measures. We will, however, be constrained in what we can offer by the need to tackle the deficit we inherited.
On reducing the number of commissioners, I strongly believe that we have a strong new Parades Commission that will do important work in the months to come. I am sure we all hope that a reformed system will take over in the devolved space if the agreements are eventually signed off by all the parties, but in the meantime I am sure the current Parades Commission will do an excellent job.
I wholly refute the perception of disengagement by the UK Government. The UK Government are strongly engaged with the Haass process and with Northern Ireland. We brought the G8 to Northern Ireland—one of the most successful events ever for Northern Ireland—and we followed it up with a strong investment conference. We signed an economic pact that sees us working more closely than ever with the devolved Government, including the commitment to meet the £18 billion of capital spending, and we are determined to press ahead with supporting the Executive in their moves on a shared future. We have responded when the Executive have asked us—for example, to devolve air passenger duty for long-haul flights. We stepped in to assist in the grave situation we inherited from Labour with the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We are continuing to work on the devolution of corporation tax. There is a whole range of ways in which this Government are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
On welfare reform, we will continue our discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, but we believe that the compromises agreed with Minister McCausland are appropriate and will help adapt the welfare reform system to the particular needs of Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, may I join the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family of Paul Goggins, who has so shockingly passed away? He was a thoroughly decent and honourable man. When he was a Minister, I had the pleasure of shadowing him for about three years, and I have to tell the House that he was a very competent Minister. I say without any fear of contradiction that without his contribution I do not think we would be here today at this advanced stage of the Northern Ireland peace process, so highly do I value his work.
The Secretary of State is, of course, right in saying that it was the Northern Ireland parties that initiated the Haass process. I think Dr Haass was given a rather impossible task of finding quick solutions to problems that have existed for a long time. Is it not important now that those discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland and, furthermore, with community leaders in Northern Ireland continue, because such engagement is as important as any solutions that may come from those discussions?
Mrs Villiers
I agree with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee. Four months was a very tight timetable in which to reach agreement on issues that some would argue have been a problem in Northern Ireland for very many years—some would argue that some of the issues date back hundreds of years in terms of identity. It was always going to be a tough ask to meet that timetable. I agree that the solution now is to resume those discussions between the parties. Although it is clear that some of the parties have expressed concern about the final draft of the Haass proposals, none of them is walking away. They are all saying that the process should continue and they all seem to be prepared to engage in that dialogue. I urge them to do so.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State about Paul Goggins? As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I can testify to the fact that Paul’s work was instrumental in bringing forward both the political and the peace process in Northern Ireland. Like many others in this House, I have lost a good friend.
Even though the Haass talks have temporarily ended, what is the Secretary of State’s plan to engage her civil servants and Irish civil servants in work on the specific issues that are still a matter of controversy, so that those officials will be able to give advice, wisdom and evidence to the working parties that will soon be set up?
Mrs Villiers
My officials have worked with Irish Government officials throughout the process, just as I have kept up regular contacts at political levels. We also stand ready to provide advice, help and support to the Executive in taking these matters forward. The role of officials will obviously be crucial in coming up with a solution that is workable and practical and that can be implemented.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I also associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State about Paul Goggins. I did not know him very well, because I was elected only a few years ago, but the intrinsic fairness and kindness he showed me as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland was tremendously helpful.
On the Haass report, I appreciate the Secretary of State’s statement. We all know that it was very challenging: the Haass commission had about 100 meetings, met 500 people and received 600 submissions. It went into the process very strongly, but we have reached a point where we are stuck on the two or three things that I suspect most Members knew we would be stuck on. Are there any plans to bring Dr Haass and his team back to unlock the logjam at an appropriate time?
Mrs Villiers
In my conversations with Dr Haass I certainly floated the idea that he might come back in January, but that looks unlikely. He has professional commitments that would make it very difficult for him to re-engage in the same way, but I am sure he will continue to take a close interest in matters as they go forward. It is now important for the First and Deputy First Ministers to get the parties together around the table. They got very close to getting over the line in the run-up to the final discussions. Even the leader of the Ulster Unionist party was saying that perhaps 80% of what was on the table might be acceptable. Clearly, that party has serious concerns about the proposals, but it is indicating that it will continue to take part. Continuing this dialogue is the way forward.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The breadth and depth of the outpourings of grief and tributes to Paul Goggins are a testament to the integrity and standing of the gentleman. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches will want to add their own personal tributes.
I join the Secretary of State in thanking Dr Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan. I also thank our own talks team, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), Jonathan Bell—a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and Rev. Mervyn Gibson, who put in many hours over the holiday period, along with others in other parties, to try to make progress.
I welcome what the Secretary of State said in her statement. She will know that, under the terms of reference, it was for the parties themselves to come to an agreement on a set of recommendations. At the final plenary, four of the five parties could not support the final draft from Dr Haass in full, but it remains a necessity to try to make progress and for agreement to be reached among the parties in Northern Ireland. In our view, substantial progress has been made, although we are not there yet and there remain significant problems in certain areas. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said, these issues have been around for many decades, if not centuries.
I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about the need to continue the process through talks between the parties. Will she do everything possible to ensure that those parties that have indicated an unwillingness to continue to talk to try to resolve these problems come back to the table and join the rest of us in trying to move Northern Ireland forward?
Mrs Villiers
I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is welcome that the Democratic Unionist party has signalled very strongly that although it has reservations about aspects of the Haass proposals, there is much that it can support and that it wants the process to continue. Of course, as the largest party in the Executive, it will be crucial in taking these matters forward.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to thank not only Dr Haass and Professor O’Sullivan, but all the participants in the working group. At one stage, Dr Haass told me rather wearily that he had not appreciated that politicians in Northern Ireland were quite so nocturnal. There were certainly many all-night sittings, so the stamina of all those taking part is much appreciated.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for being continuously involved throughout the Haass process. Will she continue to work with the parties, because it is vital for Northern Ireland to get inward investment, and the sight of such public disorder on the issues of parades and flags is perhaps a significant deterrent?
Mrs Villiers
Yes. It is clear that parades in particular, but also flags, have frequently played a part in triggering disgraceful scenes of rioting. If we can build more consensus on those issues, it will have tremendous benefits for the police, who have to deal with public order problems, as well as for inward investment, because few things put off inward investors more than political instability and street violence.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether her law-abiding, decent constituents in Chipping Barnet would have accepted the final Haass document, given that it equates victims of terrorism with terrorists, diminishes the role of terrorism right throughout the troubles and seems to many people to have ended up as a very one-sided attempt to change the history of what really went on over the past 30 years?
Mrs Villiers
I would hope that my constituents see the Haass proposals, as I do, as a workable basis for continuing discussions. It is obviously disappointing that the proposals are not yet in a state that means all five parties can sign up to them, but the reality is that getting any kind of solution to these issues will be very difficult.
The issues about the past, in particular, are very sensitive, not least because of anxieties about whether any process might end up with a disproportionate focus on state activity. We must, however, recognise the efforts made by Dr Haass and the participants in the working group to try to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent processes on the past ending up as one-sided, which is what the hon. Lady is concerned about.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Haass discussions took place during a backdrop, in the run-up to Christmas, of increased efforts by dissidents to disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland. What recent discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Chief Constable about the ongoing and future threat from dissidents?
Mrs Villiers
The attacks before Christmas by dissident republicans were disgraceful. It was particularly despicable that they were deliberately aimed at places where people were doing their Christmas shopping or were out for a festive drink, while the attack on commercial targets was deeply unpleasant. The message for these dissident republicans is that they will not succeed. These attacks are utterly pointless. They are disgraceful and they have been condemned almost universally across Northern Ireland. They have no political support and will achieve nothing. I am certain from my many conversations with the Chief Constable, the most recent of which was this morning, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will leave no stone unturned in bringing to justice those responsible for the attacks before Christmas.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I, like others, want to express my deep regret and sympathy to Paul Goggins’s family. Paul exhibited many good qualities, if not every good quality, that one would expect to be found in a decent human being—integrity, humility and genuine friendship, as well as a deep sense of social justice, to name but a few. I first met him when he was a Northern Ireland Minister. He was outstanding because of his sheer decency and sheer human qualities, and he played a very positive role, as other hon. Members have already said. In time, after I entered the House, he became a firm friend, a trusted source of good advice and a confidant. I have been very moved because, right across the House today, we all miss Paul, and we will miss him even more in future, with his good counsel and his wise advice. To his colleagues, friends and family, I add my condolences and sympathy. It is a sad day for all of us.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s endorsement of the significant progress made in the Haass talks. I express my appreciation for her involvement and that of the Prime Minister in the later stages. The Secretary of State will recall that when the Haass process has been mentioned on previous occasions, I have urged a much greater involvement at an earlier stage by both the British and Irish Governments to ensure a positive outcome and to put in place a determined implementation and legislation programme. The process was not just about the talks themselves and whatever conclusion they came to; there needed to be a major follow-through process, and that is still required.
I believe that a lot has been achieved—the glass is not half full; it is three-quarters full—but may I now urge the Secretary of State to ensure that her Government engage even more intensively, hands on and proactively with the parties, the Irish Government and Richard Haass and his team, and take the lead to ensure the implementation of the considerable progress that has been made, the initiation of legislation where it is required and the resolution of the outstanding issues?
Mrs Villiers
I certainly give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that I will continue to be very strongly involved with the parties, the Irish Government and Dr Haass, as well as with friends across the Atlantic who have taken a close interest in the process. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my involvement and that of the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of implementation. Even had there been full agreement on new year’s eve, there would still be a lot of work ahead to turn Dr Haass’s proposals into legislation and into new institutions operating on the ground. The UK Government, the Northern Ireland Office, officials and I are very keen to work on the practical implementation process. Not least because of our current responsibilities in relation to parading, we are very keen and eager to input into the process of implementing any agreement if, as I hope, it can be agreed between the parties.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Speaking as someone who has lost friends, and not just soldiers, in Northern Ireland—as have so many friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—how can my right hon. Friend balance the competing claims of the requirement to find out what happened to so many people who were cruelly murdered and the requirement to encourage people to come forward, perhaps with limited liability, so that we can find out what happened to the many people who have simply disappeared in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
Clearly, those matters were at the heart of the work of the political parties and Dr Haass. My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea that was floated of a general amnesty was almost universally rejected. The current proposals include a limited immunity, whereby to encourage people to take part in the truth recovery process, their representations and statements would not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. That is not to say that subsequent criminal proceedings could not go ahead on the basis of other evidence. It was clear from what was said by pretty much all the political parties and the public reaction to the statement of the Attorney-General that the option of prosecution must be kept alive. The proposals that are on the table do not seek to take that option away.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
May I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the colleagues, friends and family of Paul Goggins? He had an interest in Northern Ireland and a concern for its people that extended far beyond his tenure as Minister of State. That has been clear to me in my work in this House and, previously, as an Assembly Member. He was also a true gentleman. He displayed integrity, generosity and grace in his public service, but also in his private dealings. The House is much poorer for his passing.
As a participant in the talks process in Northern Ireland, I pay tribute to Dr Richard Haass, Professor Meghan O’Sullivan and their team. They have shown commitment and dedication to the process over the past six months and not just in its latter weeks, when it became incredibly intense. Richard Haass was clear throughout the process that the issue with finding a resolution was not the shortness of time, but the will to make the necessary compromises. Does the Secretary of State agree that any continuation of the process must remain focused on taking the difficult decisions, rather than avoiding them while creating an illusion of activity, if it is to deliver on the hopes that the public have invested in the Haass process?
Mrs Villiers
I agree with the hon. Lady. To achieve success on any of the issues, particularly on the past, compromise is needed. Compromises have sometimes been difficult in the history of Northern Ireland. They will no doubt be difficult on these issues too, including for the UK Government. We are very clear that if the parties are prepared to make compromises to make progress, the UK Government will back them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the late Paul Goggins. He was a man of profound Christian belief and that guided him in his work. That is an example to us all. I add my condolences to his family.
The Haass talks have reached a stalemate. One of the drawbacks of setting a deadline is that once it has passed, unless agreement has been reached, the impetus can be lost. The advantage of these talks appears to be that they were chaired by an independent organisation that brought true independence and experience to the process. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no plans to introduce a further set of people as independent arbiters of the talks and that every effort will be made to bring back Dr Haass and his team at an appropriate moment when the parties have reflected on the work that has been done?
Mrs Villiers
As I said, I am not sure that Dr Haass is in a position to come back and perform the role of chairman, but I hope that he will continue to engage. Introducing another independent chairman is an option for the First and Deputy First Ministers. I am not sure that it is needed at the moment, but it is well worth their consideration. I hope that we have not reached a stalemate. That is not how I would characterise the situation. There is still an opportunity for the political parties to grasp. They can do that by getting back around the table to continue the discussions.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is so kind of you. With your permission, I would like to put on the record a personal tribute and a tribute on behalf of my constituents to Paul Goggins. The news of his sudden death was profoundly and deeply shocking not just to this House, his colleagues and most of all his family, but right across Northern Ireland. Paul Goggins had hefty and important responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office. He was an exceptional Minister, particularly with regard to health and security. It will be widely regretted that he has died at the young age of 60—just 60. However, in those 60 years, he achieved an enormous amount. He has left a very positive legacy in Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned by other right hon. and hon. Members, he had a deep personal Christian faith. He lived that faith in the manner in which he treated everyone, irrespective of their political views or their faith.
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that an early opportunity has been taken to report to this House on the Haass talks. I draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State did not suggest in her statement that if the parties cannot agree among themselves, the British and Irish Governments will impose the Haass proposals on the parties and the people of Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made in Northern Ireland. Will she take this opportunity to reject it clearly and frankly, because that would not be acceptable?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Lady is right that it would be very difficult to impose a solution from above. I agree with the calls on both Governments to continue to engage, encourage and facilitate. Ultimately, the best way to resolve these issues is through cross-party agreement within Northern Ireland. It was important to give this House the chance to debate the situation at the earliest opportunity so that we could send a strong message of support to Northern Ireland’s political leadership in their endeavours to reach an agreement on these issues, which have caused so much tension over so many years.
I share the hon. Lady’s sentiments on the shocking nature of the news about Paul Goggins. Even now, a few hours after learning the truth, it is very hard to believe that it has happened. This place will be all the poorer for his absence.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I would like to express my sadness at the passing of Paul Goggins. As a near neighbour, I learned a lot from him and his approach to politics. He was an ardent campaigner and obviously a great Minister, but he was also an outstanding and dedicated parliamentarian. I learned a lot from his approach to tackling the problems faced by victims of mesothelioma and from the way he helped Manchester airport to have a vibrant future. He was an outstanding parliamentarian and he will be missed locally.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out clearly the progress that has been made in the Haass process. Does she agree that, although further progress is required, there must be no let up in the steps to improve economic regeneration in the region?
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland by boosting the private sector is crucial. That is why we are pressing ahead with implementing our side of the economic pact. I will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in taking forward their obligations in the economic pact. I am delighted to say that the first tranche of the new capital borrowing powers that have been granted as a result of the pact will in due course support a new shared education campus in Lisanelly, which will give many more children the chance to share part of their education with kids from different community backgrounds and traditions.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State will know, 90% of the deaths in Northern Ireland during the troubles were caused by paramilitary and terrorist organisations, and yet much of the focus is on what the state did. We cannot have a process that is disproportionate, that seeks to rewrite the history of the troubles and to sanitise terrorism, and that ignores the needs of the vast majority of innocent victims who were murdered by the terrorists.
Mrs Villiers
I certainly agree that the processes on the past need to be balanced and must recognise the proper attributions of responsibility for the deaths during the troubles. I acknowledge that that is one of the most important things to get right. I am impressed by the degree of progress that has been made by the political parties. They have come a great deal closer to an agreement on the past than I ever expected. I hope that in due course we will reach an agreement and a conclusion on that matter.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
On the proposals perhaps to establish a common flag for all communities representing Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the commission on emblems will operate, and tell us whether there is any time scale for it to report?
Mrs Villiers
The timing envisaged for the commission on identity and flags is around 18 months. I have always thought that there might be scope for the development of new shared emblems, and I hope that that will be considered seriously by the new commission, if it is set up. I genuinely think that there are merits in trying to have a broader conversation with civic society about moving forward on the issues of culture, identity and tradition that have proved so intractable up to now.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and associate myself with the remarks about the late Paul Goggins? He represented the epitome of compassion, humility, decency and integrity in this House, and during his time as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office.
On the Haass talks, I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and to Alex Attwood and Joe Byrne, who formed a sterling team at the talks on behalf of the SDLP. In view of the compelling need of victims and survivors, it is important that an implementation plan is put in process. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister of State take an active interest in ensuring that immediate discussions take place with the five parties to ensure that legislation, implementation and a resolution are found for those whether two people I talked to last week: one whose father was killed as a result of the activities of the military reaction force; and a widow whose husband was a policeman in Northern Ireland? Those people came from different perspectives, but they were suffering none the less owing to their tragic and sudden loss.
Mrs Villiers
I reiterate the tributes paid to all participants in the working group, including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). Despite the fact that an agreement has not yet been reached, a remarkable amount of consensus has developed between the parties. We must build on that, and ensure that this is not a wasted opportunity and that the parties can get together again to resolve the remaining issues that divide them. On an implementation plan, as I have said already at the Dispatch Box, if agreement is forthcoming, of course the UK Government would be keen to provide support and advice on the practicalities of implementing the proposals across the three areas.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given what has been said, it appears that no one is particularly surprised that the talks have not worked out, and that no one in particular is being blamed, as these issues are difficult and go back over a long period. Indeed, there is a good deal of satisfaction that this much progress has been made. It also appears that independent chairmanship worked. Although Dr Richard Haass is no longer available, it would be a shame to lose the momentum and the progress that has been made, so should not the Secretary of State encourage the Executive to appoint a new independent chairman and keep the process going while it is still warm so that we can cross that final finishing line?
Mrs Villiers
As I have said, that issue is well worth considering, and this shows one of the values of this early opportunity to debate in the House where things stand with the Haass process. No doubt the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be given a read out of our proceedings, and I will certainly discuss with them the possibilities of appointing an independent chair, if they think that appropriate.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I join my right hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), as well as other hon. Members, in their tributes to Paul Goggins. I knew him personally and found him to be someone who was set apart from many others. He was a person of great grace and tremendous integrity, and he was approachable by everyone, irrespective of which side of the House they were from.
I also thank the Secretary of State for bringing to the House her report on the Haass talks. She will be acutely aware of attempts by republicans to place the flag of the Irish Republic on an equal footing with our sovereign flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is one sovereign flag in Northern Ireland—the Union flag. As a professed Unionist, will the right hon. Lady assure me that the Government will never support any attempt to equate the sovereign flag with the flag of the Irish Republic, a neighbouring country?
Mrs Villiers
As the sovereign flag of the United Kingdom, of course the Union flag must have special status in Northern Ireland. One of the challenges that Dr Haass encountered was that it seemed difficult to distinguish symbols of identity from symbols of sovereignty when it came to an expression of Irishness. It is important that consideration continues on those matters, and I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that, of course, the Union flag will always have a special status as the national flag as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement makes it clear that Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom unless and until its people vote otherwise.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
In the absence of a long-term solution on parading, does the Secretary of State believe that the new Parades Commission has sufficient confidence from all sides in Northern Ireland to ensure that this year’s parading season does not end in the awful scenes that we saw last year? Does she think that any action is required on her part to ensure that such scenes do not happen again?
Mrs Villiers
It is timely to remind the House of the vital importance of obeying Parades Commission determinations. We have had an extensive debate about reforming the adjudication system for parades, but unless and until an agreement on that is reached and implemented, the Parades Commission is the lawfully designated authority and its determinations must be obeyed.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what I thought was an extraordinary, moving and wholly appropriate tribute to our colleague, Paul Goggins, at the beginning of this sitting. Paul was inspired by his Christian faith, and all hon. Members will hope that that same faith will be of comfort to his family at this time.
Does the Secretary of State believe that the difficulties she has charted ahead can be overcome by the downgrading of the Parades Commission’s work to just one day a week? Is she confident that that is an appropriate work load?
Mrs Villiers
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Parades Commission is not being downgraded and that it will be able to complete its work. We have a strong new team of parades commissioners, and I reiterate the importance of ensuring that their determinations are obeyed and that the rule of law is respected.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
May I join in the tributes to Paul Goggins? He was an outstanding example of a humanitarian, as well as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. Paul and I worked closely a few years ago when he was a Northern Ireland Minister on the re-establishment of Magilligan prison in my constituency when there was a serious threat of its closure. He assured me at that stage that if a case was made, he would overrule some of the decisions that were going to be made in the higher echelons of the civil service. He was, as we all know, a man of his word, and he did that, and I pass on my sympathies to his family and his wife.
We all welcome the Secretary of State’s update to the House on progress regarding the Haass talks. Given the outstanding differences between the political parties to which she refers, does she agree it is essential that all parties get together as quickly as possible to try to hammer out those outstanding differences so that we get a widespread and comprehensive consensus, and can implement—voluntarily—a consensus across the divide that everyone in Northern Ireland will endorse?
Mrs Villiers
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. It is essential that all parties come together to try to resolve the outstanding differences between them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Mr Speaker, may I thank you for speaking for each of us in your very articulate tribute to Paul Goggins’s ethic and the esteem that he earned in this House and beyond? Paul was not a “selfie” politician. His question was not who would get the credit for a measure or change, but who would get the benefit from it. Those of us in Northern Ireland who benefited from his work are right, on this special day, to give him credit for so much of the progress that he helped to build.
Will the Secretary of State affirm clearly that, in respect of the past, the Haass paper has more balance and much more value than the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) sadly tried to suggest? Will the Secretary of State also affirm that the whole Haass process, and the papers we now have, do have the makings of a worthy, worthwhile and workable advance if the parties agree to work on that, and that what we need to do at this stage is not just maintain working contact between the parties, but have a clear and cogent working compact so that we deal with not only those areas of difference but, more importantly, those areas on which we have reached an understanding that is better than we have ever had before?
Mrs Villiers
I think that I can broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman on much of that. While I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I think that what is now on the table is not as unbalanced as she fears—yes, I do think that it has the makings of a workable solution. These proposals can be the basis for further discussions. Clearly, they are not there yet, because five parties have not agreed, but they certainly form a workable basis for moving forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I also add my comments about Paul Goggins? I met him in my previous life as a councillor on Ards borough council, when I found him to be compassionate and interested in the issues that we were bringing to his attention. When I had the privilege of being elected to this House, he was one of the first to shake my hand and welcome me. There was not a time when he would not come over and say a word of encouragement over your shoulder. I very much appreciate not just his contribution to me as an individual in this House, but the fact that he has left a legacy that we can all be proud to have been part of.
In light of the fact that terrorist organisations have no track record of telling the truth about their past activity, does the Secretary of State accept the genuine fears that any process that is designated to discover truth has the potential to be one-sided if the forces of law and order are subjected to full investigation and the terrorists remain unlikely to the tell the truth?
Mrs Villiers
It will certainly be important to ensure that, when agreement is ultimately reached, the procedures on the past are as balanced as they can be. I well understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others about the importance of ensuring that the process does not lead to attempts to rewrite history or focus exclusively on deaths when the state was involved, and I know that that is something on which the parties have been focused during the discussions. It is important for them to continue to work on that as they try to move forward from what is currently on the table to what I hope, in due course, will be a concluded agreement.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Given the extremely deeply rooted nature of the issues involved in talks about culture, tradition and identity, what role does the Secretary of State anticipate that there will be for schooling and education in helping to resolve some of those issues in the much longer term?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Involving young people in a debate about emblems and cultural identity could be very positive. I would have thought that it would be excellent if the commission engaged with children and young people to get their ideas on how to express identity in Northern Ireland in a way that is respectful to other views and communities.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and join all hon. Members in their tributes to Paul Goggins. In the journey of life, we all meet people who leave a lasting impression, and Paul Goggins certainly was one of those people. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this time.
Further to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), does the Secretary of State accept that there can be no fudging of the distinction between those who were the terrorist perpetrators of violence in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years and those victims who were on the receiving end of their violent deeds, and that, to that end, elements of the Haass text were deeply unsatisfactory?
Mrs Villiers
The UK Government have always made it clear that we would never find it acceptable for someone to draw equivalence between those who sought to undermine and destroy the rule of law through terrorism and those who sought to uphold it as members of the security forces. However, a lot of progress has been made on the proposals about the past—far more than most people expected. To make that progress and build up such a degree of consensus in just four months is encouraging. Some elements of what is in the Haass proposals are difficult, so I understand concerns about them, but this is an important opportunity to grasp and there is scope for compromise. The UK Government are prepared to be part of that compromise and we encourage the parties to continue to work on these matters.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I also join in the tributes to Paul Goggins? Unlike many Ministers who, when they leave Northern Ireland, forget all about the place, Paul was always interested and wanted to hear what was going on, which I think was an indication of the genuine interest he had in the job he performed in Northern Ireland.
Given the wide range of opinions and the deeply held views that were discussed in the Haass talks, does not the Secretary of State agree that no deal was better than a deal that would have exacerbated the divisions in Northern Ireland? While, as politicians and as a society, we have to continue to work at the issues, does she not agree that the best way of undermining those who want to wreck Northern Ireland is to change our education system, get young people into jobs and have a robust economy, rather than implement quick-fix solutions that simply involve more quangos and legislation?
Mrs Villiers
If any deal is to work, it is important that it commands a broad consensus. If we are to reach an agreement, some difficult decisions may be needed to get the compromises that are necessary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as well as working on the Haass issues, important though they are, it is crucial that efforts continue to be made to improve education in Northern Ireland, to boost the economy and to deal with all the other challenges with which the Northern Ireland Executive continue to grapple.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, would like to be associated with the tributes that have echoed from both sides of the House to our dear friend Paul Goggins. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, he was a particular and specialist help and a source of encouragement. When I had the honour of becoming a Member of this place in 2010, he continued to be not only a friend but, as I saw in the many Committees on which I served with him, an expert on matters of security. His expertise was a particular help. This House will be the poorer for his passing, but his Father’s house of many mansions will be the richer for his presence.
May I also say, Mr Speaker, that I think your tribute to him was touching? You described him as a man who was Labour to the core, but the least tribal of Members. I think that that captured the man and the moment, and we are richer for that.
Turning to the Haass talks, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I am known for speaking my mind and for calling a spade a shovel. I believe that my party was right to say no to the final text, and it will remain right to say no until it gets to a point when it is able to say yes to something that we can recommend to our community. I believe that we did the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing when it comes to saying no at the right time and saying yes when it is appropriate to do so.
The Secretary of State said that it was disappointing that it had not proved possible to reach an agreement on an historical investigations unit to take the place of the HET. Why would she try to fund such a unit, with its panoply of lawyers and additional experts, when there is a shortfall of £60 million, starting in 2015, for the current arrangement, which is the cheaper option, and when there is an additional shortfall of £36 million for security? Will she commit now to finding the money to allow the police to function for the next five years, rather than pursuing this fanciful idea of an historical investigations unit?
Mrs Villiers
It is important that the parties continue to work to find an agreed position on all these issues. I welcome the statement from the First Minister that he feels able to support substantial parts of the Haass proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of costs, which would need to be resolved in the event of an agreement. As I have said, the UK Government would expect the Northern Ireland Executive to fund that primarily from within the considerable resources provided by the block grant. We will obviously consider any application for top-up funding, but given that we have to deal with a deficit of such gravity, it is difficult to commit to additional funds at this stage.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I cannot help but feel that, by now, Paul Goggins would have made a contribution on this statement with his usual good sense, grace and compassion that would have added wisdom to our proceedings. That is why his passing is a loss not just to his family, friends and comrades, but to the House.
It might never be possible to agree entirely about the past, but it should be possible to agree that the future of Northern Ireland will be served only by continued dialogue in the present. To that end, will the Secretary of State do all that she can with Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the shadow Northern Ireland team to maintain the momentum achieved through the Haass process?
Mrs Villiers
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything that I can to maintain the momentum, working with all the people he outlined.
I would like to close by once again thanking the two Members of the House who were direct participants in the Haass process: the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long).
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues both for what they have said and for the way they have said it.
Points of Order
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. No doubt, you will have seen today’s Guardian front page, which reports a major rift between the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions over universal credit. Leaked documents in The Guardian report that the Cabinet Office has accelerated Government Digital Service withdrawal from universal credit. At the last Cabinet Office oral questions, I asked the Paymaster General for a full explanation of his role in universal credit, but he declined to answer. Has he given you any notice that he plans to come to the House to give us a full explanation of his role in the universal credit shambles?
Mr Speaker
I certainly confess to being a regular reader of The Guardian, among other newspapers. I have received no such indication, but the hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and they will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I think that we will have to leave it there for today.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In late October, I raised a point of order with you about the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer questions from Back Benchers. Twice he refused not only to answer my questions, but to make any reference to them. Instead, he ranted about Unite the union. You gave me some sound advice, Mr Speaker. You told me to write to the Prime Minister, which I did, on 31 October, but I am still awaiting a response. You also suggested that I speak to the Table Office. I have spoken extensively to the Table Office, which, after long discussions, agrees with me, as I understand it, that there is no mechanism in this place, when a Minister either refuses to answer a question from a Back Bencher or makes no reference to the question, to ensure that the question gets answered. If that is the case, is that a concern for the House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. All I can say today is that the Prime Minister is answerable to the House for his conduct in government, not for his private life. The hon. Gentleman can pursue the Government through all the procedural channels available to him. He has asked his questions and has received answers that he finds unsatisfactory. I am afraid that he is not the first and is unlikely to be the last hon. Member to have that experience. I can only encourage him to persevere. For today at least, we will have to leave it there, partly because I have nothing to add and partly because there are other points of order with which I need to deal.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 13 December, the House had its annual debate on fisheries, which was quickly followed by negotiations in Brussels on 17 and 18 December, at which the allocations for fish species were agreed. Following such negotiations, it is customary to have an oral statement in the House from the appropriate Minister. Have you received any indication of such a statement being forthcoming?
Mr Speaker
I have received no such indication, but the hon. Lady is an indefatigable Member. Her concerns will have been heard by the Deputy Leader of the House, and she will have to look for opportunities, either at Question Time or through the resources of the Table Office, to highlight her inquiries.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, with your permission, with pride and humility, I would like to associate myself with the tributes paid to Paul Goggins, our dear friend—and particularly your tribute, Mr Speaker. He was involved in many activities. I remember most his commitment to international development, which was shared by his family and his son Dominic. I know that our thoughts, as expressed by you, are very much with them today.
During our eventful break, to their credit the television media covered the significant events in South Sudan. That is understandable, given that 200,000 people have been displaced, 500,000 are waiting for humanitarian aid and awful violence continues. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication, either by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development, that a Minister intends to make a statement to the House? If not, may I seek your invaluable advice about how the matter might be pursued?
Mr Speaker
I have received no such indication from either Department. My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is to think forward to Tuesday 21 January, when there will be oral questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his team. The right hon. Gentleman might think that a suitable opportunity to raise the matters of concern to him. Who knows? He might be successful either on the Order Paper or in seeking to raise a supplementary question.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Cabinet Office released confidential documents to the National Archives relating to the then Government’s covert intervention in the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The documents confirmed what the National Union of Mineworkers and the Labour movement fully suspected at the time, but many people in the mining communities and the UK as a whole were alarmed to learn that senior Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the people of this country. Have you been approached, Mr Speaker, by the present Government wishing to apologise and to put the record straight regarding the then Government’s real intentions back in 1984-85, which were to close 75 pits, not 20 pits, as they insisted? If not, will you advise the House how this injustice can be rectified by the House?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no; I have received no such approach. It is, of course, open to the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate, in which he could set out his thoughts more fully and elicit a response. I have a sense that that is a course that the hon. Gentleman will in all likelihood follow.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. About 90 minutes ago, I raised a question with the Prime Minister about the situation of police officers patrolling by public transport in Bassetlaw, and the Prime Minister responded by saying that crime had gone down 27%—a fact that he miraculously repeated within seconds on Twitter, putting it out to the outside world. I have the statistics with me, and crime in Bassetlaw has not gone down by 27%; it has gone up by 2%, including in respect of all the serious categories. What advice do you have, Mr Speaker, about getting the Prime Minister to correct the record in relation to the objectively available facts about the change in crime in Bassetlaw?
Mr Speaker
My advice is twofold. First, all Members are responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of what they say. If a mistake has been made, it should be corrected. The procedure for making a correction will be well known to any and all hon. Members. Secondly, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, with due affection, that I first met him when we served on the Lambeth borough council together in 1986, so we have known each other for 27 years. He always struck me as an extraordinarily persistent blighter then, and nothing in the intervening period has caused me to revise that judgment.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of what you had to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) regarding the release of papers on the year-long miners’ strike, we are not talking about a day or two; we are talking about the sentiments and points of view expressed over a long period in the House by Ministers. It was pretty clear, according to the papers that have been released, that many things said by Ministers were based on something that was not correct. It therefore gets to the heart of Parliament when we realise that those statements made over a year-long period were shaping the views of all people, including the judiciary, which learned what it wanted to know about the nature of the strike based on ministerial statements on a continuing basis. That is why this issue is so important retrospectively.
You, Mr Speaker, have several times heard the Prime Minister apologise for some incidents involving Governments from way back. That applies to previous Prime Ministers as well as this one. I therefore think that it is your duty, Mr Speaker—an adventurous Speaker—to use your good offices on this matter. Since you assumed your office, you have already moved into some such territories, so it is important to check all the statements made in this House in violation of what we now know as a result of the release of these papers. If you do that, Mr Speaker, we will then be able to see how the course of events in that year-long strike were shaped, resulting in the judiciary taking action—on sequestration, on the imprisonment of people, on blacklisting and on other events. What flowed from the mouths of those who occupied the Treasury Bench at the time was the utterance of statements that we now know to be untrue. That makes this a parliamentary issue rather than one that is just broadly political.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I hope that he will recognise, as the House will have noted, that I have treated it with great respect. I have listened to him while he fully made his point. I would say two things in response. First, rather than give an instant response, I would like to reflect on what he said. Secondly, while noting his observations about my spirit of adventure, it may be that what he seeks on this occasion could conceivably be beyond my spirit of adventure—I do not know. I will consider the matter and if I think it necessary to revert to the House, I shall do so. We will have to leave it there for today.
Driving Offences (Review of Sentencing Guidelines)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the maximum penalties for driving offences causing death and serious injury; and for connected purposes.
I stand today to present this ten-minute rule Bill because of something that happened in the village of Overton in my constituency of Clwyd South in October 2009. That was when Robert James Gaunt, a nine-year-old boy, tragically lost his life. Robert was a schoolboy from the village. He was mown down by a driver while crossing the road. Young Robert was killed. The driver who so carelessly took Robert Gaunt’s life was unlicensed and uninsured. He hit Robert, killed him, and drove away. He not only failed to stop, but did not even report the accident. Even worse, he attempted to cover up his crime by re-spraying his car.
Robert’s life came abruptly and needlessly to an end—and for this, the driver incurred a pitiful sentence of 22 months. That was the very limit of what was possible under the law for that offence. This man hit a child, took a young boy’s life and, after driving away to leave that child to die, was sentenced to a grand total of 22 months and a four-year driving ban. The man served only 10 months in jail, which cannot be right.
After the injustice of this case and many others like it, people from my constituency launched a petition calling for sentences for this sort of crime to be raised. More than 1,300 names were added online and a further 2,000 collected on paper. The campaign continued, even though a change of Government meant an early closure to the online petition. Many of the people who signed the petition had probably never signed a petition before and perhaps never signed one since, but they did so on this occasion out of a passion for justice for Robert and for other victims of road accidents around our country.
As the local Member of Parliament, I stand here to give my support by calling for the law to be changed. This motion calls for the Government to bring in a new Bill to do exactly what the family of Robert James Gaunt was calling for back in 2009. We are asking the Government to look at the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death and serious injury.
Currently, those who cause death by driving face a number of charges and a large scale of sentences, ranging from mere months to 14 years. However, no driver has been handed a 14-year term since Parliament first lengthened the maximum sentence from 10 years in 2004. The reality is that sentencing guidelines mean that there must be a large and frankly improbable series of aggravating factors for a judge to issue anywhere near that sentence. Tougher penalties are not being used because judges are being held back by guidelines that prevent them from handing out longer sentences.
My own party in government was right to fight for higher maximum penalties in 2004, and the current Government, encouraged by the tireless campaigning of many hon. Members of all parties, are equally right to have incorporated into the Crime and Courts Act 2013 new rules on drug taking while driving and to have amended the Road Traffic Act 1988. Both Governments can rightly be proud of having brought in changes that go in the right direction—but, as we know, there is much further for us to go.
If a driver is caught driving with
“deliberate decision or flagrant disregard for the rules of the road”,
the starting-point for judges when choosing a sentence is eight years. This can be longer for a number of reasons, such as when a person is killed or when the driver is driving a stolen vehicle. Let us reflect for a moment on how subjective
“deliberate decision or flagrant disregard for the rules of the road”
is. If a driver is seen to be creating significant danger—the lowest level of seriousness—the starting point for sentencing judges is three years, and the maximum term is five years. If the driver is injured, the sentence is shortened; if the victim was a friend, the sentence is shortened; and on and on we go.
In general, I think it absolutely right that our criminal justice system distinguishes between those who make a mistake, commit a crime and acknowledge that crime, and those who, as in the case involving Robert Gaunt, flee, hide and pervert the course of justice. However, I feel that what we are seeing in relation to driving offences simply beggars belief. Drivers who plead guilty before their trials have their sentences automatically reduced by a third, and most will be released on licence after serving only half their given sentences.
The rules and guidelines set out by the law mean that drivers who end the lives of innocent people on our roads have their sentences reduced, reduced and reduced until, bit by bit, they decline to mere months. For the families of those who are killed, that is clearly not justice, which is why I am urging the Government to review the sentencing guidelines relating to penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. If we change the law and the sentencing guidelines are reformed properly, that will bring some measure of justice. I hope that it will also give people who are uninsured or unlicensed grounds to pause before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Today, I have spoken about the tragic case of Robert James Gaunt, but cases similar to Robert’s happen all over the country. Innocent people are killed by drivers who are given risibly low sentences. Families throughout our nation have lost loved ones through reckless, dangerous or negligent driving, and the law is not doing enough to hold those who take lives in this way accountable. Why should a sentence be so short when the injury has been caused by a car rather than a weapon? Sentences for assault are much longer, even when the act is not premeditated. The average sentence served by drivers who kill or seriously injure another human being while driving is currently just 11 months. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen other Members who, while probably agreeing on precious little else politically, are at one in urging reform on this issue. We know that there is a tremendous amount of support for a review from Members of all parties.
I firmly believe that this is about finding justice for those who have been let down by the system, and ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. Tragically, that is often not the case at present. I wholeheartedly support the provision of a range of different sentences for driving offences; what I am calling for today is a logical development of the current system and more consideration of what sentences are given.
My constituents embarked on their campaign to secure justice for Robert. Of course we can never secure true justice for a young boy who was so tragically and needlessly deprived of his life, but what I hope that we can do is to take action that will save more families from similar heartbreak in the future. That is why I stand here today—on behalf of the family of Robert James Gaunt, the people of Overton, and people throughout the country who share our concern—and urge the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death and serious injury.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Susan Elan Jones, Chris Ruane, Albert Owen, Mr Mark Williams, Ian Lucas, Julie Hilling, Karl Turner, Mr David Hanson, Ms Margaret Ritchie and Mark Tami present the Bill.
Susan Elan Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February and to be printed (Bill 152).
Opposition Day
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Government has failed to tackle the acute housing shortage which is central to the cost of living crisis and over the last three years has presided over the lowest level of new homes built since the 1920s, with home ownership falling, rents at record highs and rising faster than wages and a record five million people in the queue for social housing; further notes that net housing supply under this Government has fallen to its lowest level since records began, and that affordable housing supply dropped in the last year by 26 per cent, homes built for social rent dropped to a 20-year low, while there has been a 104 per cent increase in in-work housing benefit claimants since 2009; believes that the Government should take action to tackle the housing shortage; and calls on the Government to boost housing supply by reforming the development industry and introducing measures to tackle landbanking, bringing forward plans to deliver a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities and giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver the homes their communities need.
Before I begin, let me say that I thought that Mr Speaker spoke for all of us earlier in his eloquent and moving tribute to our dear friend and comrade Paul Goggins. His death is a tragedy. He was as decent, compassionate, principled and, I have to say, cheerful a man as one could have the privilege to meet, and we will miss him dreadfully. Our hearts go out to Wyn and to their three children, Matthew, Theresa and Dominic.
The fact that we face a housing crisis is common ground across the House. Why do we face that crisis? Because people are living longer and staying in their own homes, which is a good thing; because our population is rising; because every relationship breakdown increases the demand for housing; but principally because, as a society, we have not been building enough homes. Whether we look at starts, completions or net housing supply, the failure to build over the past three years could not be more starkly obvious.
It is good to see the Secretary of State taking part in today’s debate. By my count, he has participated in at least four major housing launches, and his Department has made nearly 400 announcements about housing in the past three years. I have brought some of them along. They are headed “Building more homes”, “Welcome rise in affordable housing”, “Plans to boost UK housebuilding”, and “Prevention is best cure for homelessness”. This is the question that the Secretary of State should answer: is he proud of his record over those three years?
The Secretary of State’s Department tells us that an average of 232,000 new households will be formed in England each year over the next two decades. However, in the three years for which he has been in charge, the number of homes completed in England has fallen to its lowest level since Stanley Baldwin was first Prime Minister. The number of affordable homes built fell by 29% last year, and the number of social homes built fell to its lowest level for more than 20 years.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend noticed last week that house prices in Hammersmith and Fulham rose by 25% last year, and that the average cost of a property in the borough is now £693,000. Will he join me in condemning Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is selling off council homes by auction as they become vacant, and has just entered into a joint venture with Stanhope, a private developer, to empty and demolish council estates and replace them with market or near-market housing?
Hilary Benn
I shall come to the issue of house prices in London later in my speech. However, the situation that my hon. Friend has described in his own borough should concern Members in all parts of the House. Given the need for more social homes in London—and, indeed, in the rest of the country—it is hard to understand why a responsible council should take such action.
The number of housing starts fell by 11% last year, and, although it is now rising, it is still far from where it needs to be. Net housing supply is at its lowest level since the statistics began to be collected a decade ago.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is keen to talk about the Government’s record in England. Will he comment on the fact that as of July last year the number of housing completions in England had risen by 34%, while in Labour-controlled Wales it had fallen by 32%? How can he explain that, if he believes that Labour has the panacea?
Hilary Benn
I am here today to talk about housing provision in England and if the hon. Gentleman wants to compare the Labour record with the Conservative record, I will take any time our record over 13 years in government—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I can help him out on this.
Hilary Benn
Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? That is help from an unusual quarter.
The record is 2 million more homes, 500,000 of them affordable. I watched with interest the contribution of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) to Channel 4 News last night, and I would just say to him on social homes—council houses and housing association social homes—that the Labour Government built more social homes in their last three years, which were the most difficult because of the recession, than this Government have managed to build in their first three years in office.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in London possibly more than most places, because of the ridiculous cost of private rented accommodation, it is essential that we have a supply of social housing? When the Government made a commitment to replace homes sold under right to buy, they said there would be a one-to-one replacement. Does he share my concern that that promise turned out to be totally worthless as they are replacing only one property for every seven sold?
Hilary Benn
Indeed; my hon. Friend points out yet another failure with the promises the Government made on—
Pete Wishart
I know the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to talk about the devolved Governments Labour has run, but does he know how many houses Labour built in the last four years in government in Scotland? Obviously, it is a difficult question, but the answer is six: six houses, and none of them were on the Scottish mainland. Shetland was lucky enough to get six houses from the Labour Executive.
Hilary Benn
In Scotland and elsewhere local authorities have responsibility for building houses, but we are here to hold this Government to account, and homelessness—
Mr Hamilton
I would like to respond to the previous intervention and correct the record. Labour Midlothian council was building 1,000 council houses at that time, in what is the second smallest land-locked authority area, so the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was talking absolute rubbish.
Hilary Benn
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. Perhaps I should have trusted my initial judgment and not given way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory Government have in fact cut the capital budget for Wales by 40% and obviously one cannot build more houses with less money?
Hilary Benn
That is an extremely good point and it matches what the Government have done in relation to England, which I shall come to in a moment.
The Government said that they wanted to prevent homelessness, but what has happened? It has risen every year under this Government and rough-sleeping is up by nearly a third since 2010. House prices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned a moment ago, are racing ahead of earnings. They are up 8.4% in the last 12 months according to Nationwide and up 15% in London, and today it takes the average family over 20 years to save a deposit for a house. If we are talking about records, that figure in 1997 was three years, so no wonder the rate of home ownership is falling. Therefore, it is not really working, is it?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
In Prudhoe in my constituency eight of the 10 houses that were purchased recently at the development by the hospital were bought under Help to Buy. Does the right hon. Gentleman now welcome the Help to Buy policy which has transformed the ability of people to bridge the difficulty he so correctly outlines?
Hilary Benn
I shall come to Help to Buy in a moment, but, yes, we have consistently said that we welcome measures that help people to buy, but there is a problem about supply and that is what this debate is about: the Government’s failure to ensure that enough homes are being built. The truth is we need to build a lot more homes as a country—roughly double the current rate. The question before the House today is not whether we are now seeing a rise in housing starts from the pitifully low level the Government have bequeathed themselves over the last three years. The question before the House today is: does the country have a plan that will see building on the scale required? Judging by the record so far, the answer is clearly no, and there is one bit of advice I suggest the Secretary of State takes, which he himself gave: he did at least have the modesty to put out one press release which was headed: “No complacency in the drive to build more homes.”
The Secretary of State should listen to the plans and proposals Labour have put forward about what more needs to be done. Let us consider affordable homes. What did the Government do? One of their first acts was to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was the largest cut they made. We have tried to persuade them to use the proceeds of the 4G auction to build affordable homes and to listen to the International Monetary Fund calling for an infrastructure boost by providing more affordable homes. They have not done that.
I come now to the new homes bonus. The National Audit Office said there is little evidence that the bonus has significantly changed local authorities’ behaviour, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says there is no credible data available to show whether it is working. Indeed, she has pointed out that the areas that have gained most money tend to be the areas where housing need is lowest and the areas that have lost most money tend to be those where the needs are greatest. That is a familiar story with this Government: whether it is local government funding or the new homes bonus, they like to take from those who are least well-off and give to those who are most well-off. What is more, the money that is taken from the least well-off goes to areas where in all probability the houses would have been built anyway, so in what sense is the new homes bonus
“a powerful incentive for local authorities to deliver housing”?
We know the new Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), does not think it is an incentive because he told us so. On 25 November he told the House that
“the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 11.]
That is what he said. If that is the case, what on earth is the new homes bonus for? Perhaps when the Secretary of State responds he could sort out the confusion in his own Department.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
When the new homes bonus policy came in, my local authority in Gateshead literally did not know what to do with its new homes bonus. Because the new homes bonus was netted off because of any demolitions that had taken place, Gateshead got a grand total of £64,000. We literally did not know what to do with £64,000 to implement a housing policy in Gateshead.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend illustrates the problem. As we know, this is money that has been top-sliced from all local authorities and is being redistributed in a way that clearly does not appear to be fair and, judging by the findings of the PAC and the NAO, is not terribly effective.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In my constituency in Brighton increasing numbers of people are on the council waiting list as people struggle under the Government’s austerity measures, yet for the whole country the Chancellor has increased the borrowing limits to build council houses by a mere £300 million, which is nowhere near enough. The Labour motion refers to
“giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver”
new homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that that means a Labour Government would completely remove the hugely damaging borrowing cap so more housing can be built, as well as ending the sale of council houses?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Lady may be aware, the Lyons commission established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is looking at that question. Labour councils are outdoing Conservative authorities in building new council houses because of the reforms to the housing revenue account the last Labour Government put in place.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the extraordinary story of the new homes bonus. The one thing he has not mentioned is the cost. Because it is a cumulative bonus that works over six years, the commitments that have already been made involve expenditure commitments of over £7 billion. Is it not extraordinary that a Government are committing to £7 billion-plus of expenditure on a policy that the NAO does not see having any effect and the Housing Minister does not believe acts as the incentive it is supposed to be?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend makes an overwhelmingly powerful case. That is the problem with the new homes bonus and that is why we are urging the Government to think again about it. Indeed, when the Chancellor tried to persuade the Treasury Committee that the Government’s actions were going to boost supply, the Treasury Committee said the arguments being made were “unconvincing”.
I shall turn now to the Help to Buy scheme. I said in answer to an earlier intervention that we support measures to assist people in realising their dream of home ownership, but if one of the consequences is that house prices move further and further out of people’s reach, there will be a problem. We cannot boost demand for housing, which is what Help to Buy is doing, if we do not also increase the supply. There is a growing list of voices expressing concern about the scheme, the latest of which belongs to someone who happens to sit at the Cabinet table with the Secretary of State. I refer, of course, to the Business Secretary. Talking recently about the state of the economy, he said that
“we risk it being derailed by a housing bubble…It’s not my job to tell the Bank of England what to do, but I get a sense that the Governor of the Bank does understand this is a serious problem.”
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to expand his remarks to cover areas beyond London and the south-east? As a Leeds MP, he will know as well as I do that there is not a housing bubble there, and that house prices are not running away. The Help to Buy scheme is making a real difference, because the price of a house in my constituency—and in many parts of his constituency—is eight to nine times more than the average salary in those areas. The scheme is really helping people there. He has made the point that prices are increasing in London, but will he please ensure that this debate is about more than just London and the south-east?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As he knows, the housing market varies enormously between different parts of the country. In the city that he and I have the privilege of representing, the council’s assessment—which is supported by all the parties—is that we will need roughly 70,000 new homes in the next 15 years. That is a question of supply.
Hilary Benn
I have given way a great deal. I want to make some progress, because lots of people want to speak.
Let us look at the situation in London. Here, we see new blocks being built and marketed to foreign investors, making it much more difficult for Londoners and others to get a chance to buy those homes. The shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), has said that that is wrong and called for action to require such homes to be marketed to Londoners and others who live in this country first, rather than being sold off-plan to investors abroad.
Hilary Benn
I want to make some progress.
In the capital, about 50,000 homes are now sitting empty. That is why Labour would allow councils to double the council tax on empty properties. We would also deal with the loophole that allows overseas owners to claim that a property is their second home, simply because they have put a table and chair in it.
I asked the Secretary of State a specific question last March about whether foreign buyers would be able to benefit from the Help to Buy scheme, and his reply could not have been clearer:
“This scheme will not be available for foreign buyers; this is a scheme to help people from this country.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1311.]
Will he confirm for the record that EU nationals who have come to the UK will not be eligible for assistance from the Help to Buy scheme? I will give way to him to allow him to answer. I notice that he does not wish to intervene. Perhaps a nod would do. This is the third time I have asked him about foreign buyers in relation to the Help to Buy scheme, and it is the third time he has been unable or unwilling to give me an answer.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Given that the Help to Buy scheme is such a major plank of Government housing policy, does my right hon. Friend not think that the Government should have made a detailed assessment of its likely impact on house building and house prices before introducing it? When the Treasury Select Committee asked officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government about that in November, they said that it was not a matter for them; they said it was a matter for the Treasury. When asked whether any officials at DCLG had had any discussions with Treasury officials about the impact of the scheme, they said no. Is not that a complete dereliction of duty on the part of DCLG with regard to this important policy?
Hilary Benn
I agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have called on the Bank of England to look into the operation of the Help to Buy scheme now, rather than in a year’s time, precisely so that those points can be taken on board.
I want to move on to discuss what else could be done to get the land, the finance and the planning consent required to build more homes. Ministers seem to argue that nothing is really wrong with the way in which the land market is working. I have to say to the Secretary of State that we disagree. The planning Minister, in his latest written answer to me, has said there are more than 523,000 units with planning permission, of which 241,500 have not yet even been started on site. That represents a lot of homes that could be built, yet companies are sitting on the land, with planning permission, waiting for it to increase in value and not building on it.
The Office of Fair Trading looked into this matter and found that strategic land banks, including optioned land, were worth 14.3 years, which is about enough land to build 1.4 million homes. That is why we think it perfectly reasonable for communities that have given planning permission to say to those who sought it, “Look, will you please get on and build the homes you said you wanted to build? And if you don’t, then after a time we will start levying a charge. After all, if you had built them, we would now be getting council tax revenue. In the most extreme cases, we will use compulsory purchase powers to take the land off you, with the permission, and sell it to someone else who will build the homes.”
I know that Ministers spluttered into their Cornflakes when we announced that policy, and that the Mayor of London described it as a “Mugabe-style” land grab, but I would gently point out that among those who support the idea of charging when permission has been granted but no houses have been built are the International Monetary Fund and someone who goes by the name of Boris Johnson, who, when I last checked, was the Mayor of London. Moreover, the planning Minister once called for a tax on land to “deter speculative land banks”. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen has also spoken up in favour of the proposal, and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has tried to claim it as a Conservative idea. With such illustrious backing, how could Labour’s proposal be anything other than a very good plan indeed?
Hilary Benn
I am going to make some progress.
When Kate Barker carried out her review of the housing market a decade ago she found two factors that we need to consider. First, she said that
“limited land supply means the competition tends to be focused on land acquisition rather than on consumers”.
Secondly, she found that
“many housebuilders ‘trickle out’ houses…to protect themselves against price volatility”.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members say that that was a decade ago, but it is still going on. Roughly translated, it means that not all house builders have an incentive to build all the homes for which they have planning permission as quickly as possible or as quickly as the nation needs them to. That is a problem, and we have proposed a way of dealing with it. Even when times were good, when mortgage credit was readily available and house prices were booming, the house building industry was unable to build the number of homes required.
Mr Marcus Jones
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous housing boom in 2006-07. Will he explain why the number of first-time buyers fell to its lowest level on record at that time, and why, following the moves made by the present Government, we are seeing the strongest growth in first-time buyer numbers for more than a decade?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there was a very difficult period—[Interruption.] No, there was a collapse in the global economy. It is no good the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen shaking his head. The problems that we experienced in the United Kingdom were caused in particular by problems in the housing market in the United States of America. That is why we should be concerned by the threat of a housing bubble returning to the United Kingdom.
One of the answers must be to get more people building houses. [Interruption.] I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen nodding in agreement. Forty or 50 years ago, two thirds of the houses in this country were built by small and medium-sized builders. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can carry on nodding; that is fine. I am grateful for his support. Nowadays, the figure is only one third, and when we talk to small and medium-sized builders about the problems they face, they mention two things: the difficulty of getting access to land and the difficulty in obtaining finance. Something needs to be done about both.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In addition to the situation facing small builders, is it not also an indictment that, at 20%, we have the lowest level of self-builders in Europe? In the housing policy we develop we need to encourage communities such as the one in Saddleworth where more than 20 people want to build their own individual homes.
Hilary Benn
I agree completely, and I shall say a word about that in a moment.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Let me take a step back in terms of land where planning permission has been obtained. We need to address the issue of big developers grabbing every large piece of land, as has happened in Stoke-on-Trent, and smaller developers who want to move on and develop land not being able to do so because the big pieces of land have already been snapped up and are held on to very firmly.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the nature of the land market, why reform is required and why that is one thing we have asked Sir Michael Lyons to look at in his work.
The next problem the Government should start looking at is the difficulty faced by local authorities in places such as Stevenage, Oxford, Luton and York, which want to see houses built to meet demand but do not have the land and neighbouring authorities are not co-operating and making that happen. Ministers recognise that there is a problem, because that is why they put the duty to co-operate in the national planning policy framework.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? On Stevenage?
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of Stevenage, where he went with some of Labour colleagues, without informing me, to launch their housing policy. Is he aware that Labour-controlled Stevenage borough council has still not asked neighbouring North Hertfordshire district council whether it will have any houses required in its local plan, because Stevenage borough council believes it can meet its need within its own administrative boundaries?
Hilary Benn
What the hon. Gentleman has just said absolutely does not square with what the leader of Stevenage borough council has said to me—
Hilary Benn
Excuse me. It also does not square with the figures that I have looked at on the proposals for development to the north of Stevenage, which have been consistently blocked. The truth is that a duty to co-operate is not a duty to help each other out or to reach agreement. So in those circumstances, what is a council supposed to do? That shows why the right to grow would provide a means of overcoming this problem by requiring neighbouring local authorities to work together to ensure that the houses that need to be built are built. It is not a top-down—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
No it is not. You are quite right, Mr Benn. I was just about to call Mr McPartland to make his point of order.
Stephen McPartland
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just made an accusation about Stevenage. I would just like to clarify things to the House, and I wonder whether that is in order.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order. Points of order are not clarifications of debates. The hon. Gentleman can, if he wishes, stand to try to catch my eye, but at the rate we are progressing through this debate he will be lucky if there is any time left, because this debate has to finish at 4 pm and a large number of Members are here. However, I am sure that he will try to pursue his point in other ways.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two other points to make, one of which is about new towns and garden cities. The Government used to be very keen on those at one point, but they seem to have become less enthusiastic. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about that when he responds, because it is hard to see how we will make progress without those things . We have to incentivise local authorities to come forward, which is why the Lyons commission is going to look at how we can help new towns and garden cities to be established and why a Labour Treasury would use guarantees—the Government are currently using guarantees for Help to Buy—for “help to build” for these new towns.
Finally, we need communities to take responsibility for building new homes. On that I am with the planning Minister, because I believe that neighbourhood planning is the way forward. For too long, we have had a system in which nobody has really taken responsibility for building new homes. Thame in south Oxfordshire provides a good example of the new community plan. If communities feel that the new houses that they give consent to will solve the housing problem in their own neighbourhood, they will be much more likely to give agreement. That is why we need plots for self-build and local allocation policies for social housing, and why we need to give local people first call on having the chance to buy new developments in their area. That will give communities confidence that the homes will meet their need.
The progress so far has not been considerable, but the task is. I do not know whether the Secretary of State in the end believed all his press releases and announcements, I do not know whether he thought that blaming councils would be enough and I do not know whether he was taken in by what I have to describe as the bombast of this Government’s first Housing Minister, who boasted consistently of the Government’s record. The problem is that the Secretary of State’s record speaks all too clearly for itself. Therefore, the country needs a new plan. The public need it because they are the ones paying the price for failure. Homes give us security and a sense of community: they are where we build and raise families; they are places for children to do their homework; and they are good for our health. However, rents are rising twice as fast as wages, house prices are moving out of reach of families, and 5 million people are in the queue for social housing. This country needs something different, and I urge the House to vote for this motion.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) spoke with considerable sincerity and eloquence, as did Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, in paying tribute to Paul Goggins. Before we go on, I wish to say that I had experience of Paul as a Minister when I pursued a constituency case, and I found him to be courteous, diligent and helpful. I also had experience of him when I was the Minister, and he pursued his constituents’ interest doggedly but always with enormous charm. I think it is heartbreaking that a man who had so much to offer to this House and, far more importantly, to his family has gone so prematurely, and I will miss him.
I welcome this debate. We have been through a difficult housing crisis but this is only the second debate on housing that the official Opposition have called, and we had to goad them into calling one of those. Throughout the period, I have never felt under any pressure from the official Opposition on housing, and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has eloquently demonstrated why that is. All Labour Members want to do today is talk down the economy, ignore the recovery and cast their heads in the sand about the sustained turnaround in the housing market. It has certainly taken some time to deal with the problems that Labour left us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Stanley Baldwin’s housing figures, and when I walked through the door of Eland house the spirit of Stanley Baldwin and those figures met me. That was our baseline—that is what we actually started from. Once upon a time—
Mr Pickles
I will give way in a few moments. Would it be possible for me actually to say something before the hon. Gentleman intervenes?
Once upon a time, the last Labour Prime Minister, advised by the current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Chancellor, announced that he had abolished “boom and bust”. It was a debt-fuelled illusion of a boom, resulting in the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and a crash that devastated the housing market—all that was on Labour’s watch. Let us cast our minds back to 2008—
Mr Pickles
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can remember 2008. The then Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), was photographed outside Downing street with her speaking notes. No doubt the right hon. Member for Leeds Central was in the Cabinet and waiting to be briefed. This is what her notes said:
“Housebuilding is stalling…New starts are already down 10% compared to a year ago. Housebuilders are predicting further falls.”
The notes also said:
“We can’t know how bad it will get.”
We know now that it would become far worse.
Geraint Davies
Will the Secretary of State confirm that lending from banks for mortgages now is at the 2008 level but lending from banks to business and construction is 30% down, which is why house prices are escalating out of control and real wages are falling through the floor? When interest rates go up in a couple of years there will be a burst of the housing bubble and sub-prime debt.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman needs to look a little outside London given where he represents. He could even look in some parts of London. Newham, for example, saw a drop of just under 1% in house prices. If we take out the London figures—figures for parts of London can be very spectacular—and look at the rest of the country, we will see that the increase in house prices has been very modest indeed. Not even in London have the figures reached where they were in 2007, so to talk about a housing bubble is ridiculous.
Alec Shelbrooke
As I tried gently to prod the shadow Secretary of State during his contribution, may I now say that I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for moving the debate beyond London and the south-east to areas in which my constituency and those of a great many of my hon. Friends are based?
Mr Pickles
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Our long-term economic plan is helping to pay off the deficit, keep interest rates down and let the housing market recover.
Mr Pickles
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but just let me make a little bit of progress.
According to the Office for National Statistics, house building is now at its highest level since 2007, based on new orders in residential construction. House building starts in the last quarter were at their highest level since 2008. The National House-Building Council agrees, with new home registrations at their highest since 2008. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has declared that
“every part of the country has reported growth since the beginning of the market crash six years ago.”
Contrary to the Opposition’s motion, statistics on net housing supply show that 400,000 more homes have been delivered in the first three years, which is in line with figures before Labour’s housing crash.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State is referring to figures, will he confirm that his Department’s statistics show that in 2007, 176,000 homes were built, in 2008, 148,000 homes were built, and in the latest 12 months in which he has been Secretary of State, just 107,950 were built?
Mr Pickles
Basically, if the right hon. Gentleman walks through the door of Eland house and embraces Stanley Baldwin’s figures, he will find that it takes a wee while to start to make progress. He should congratulate the Government on what we have been doing to get the thing going again, and it is a matter of some pleasure that that is the case.
Mr Pickles
I will give way to the distinguished hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I would like him to consider that brick makers stayed at work over the Christmas period—very unusually—to catch up with demand for bricks to build new homes. Including empty homes being brought back into use, the new homes bonus has made available more than half a million more homes to buy and rent. I must say that I have, after a fashion, become attached to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central [Interruption.] I am not pleased. I am worried about what will happen when he returns to Leeds, because he has been talking about the new homes bonus. He has been saying that it is going to all kinds of places, but which authority is in the top 10 for the receipt of new homes bonus? Which authority is at number six and challenging for the top position? Yes, I am talking about Leeds metropolitan authority. The right hon. Gentleman is sticking his nose up at the prospect of the people of Leeds receiving £27.2 million.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State will remember his visit to the Select Committee just after the Government were formed. I asked the then Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), whether success for the Government, when they are eventually judged on their record,
“will be building more homes per year than were being built prior to the recession, and that failure will be building less.”
The right hon. Gentleman said:
“Yes. Building more homes is the gold standard on which we shall be judged.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) has just said that we were building more than 200,000 homes a year before the recession. When will the Government hit their own targets and hit that figure?
Mr Pickles
Well, as we leave behind the ghost of Stanley Baldwin bequeathed to us by the Labour Front Bench, the figures demonstrate that we are really starting to move. The hon. Gentleman should be rejoicing in the fact that our policies are working.
In the 2005 manifesto, the previous Labour Government pledged that there would be 1 million more home owners. In reality, home ownership fell by more than 250,000. Yet the aspiration of home ownership has returned. According to the Bank of England, mortgages to first-time buyers are at their highest level. Both the Council for Mortgage Lenders and the Halifax report the same. Thanks to the action taken to tackle the deficit, we have kept interest rates down. The number of repossessions is at its lowest level for five years and continues to fall. The Bank of England reports that the number of new mortgage arrears cases is at its lowest quarterly level since its records began.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that of the 20 local authorities with the worst repossession record for mortgages, 17 are in London? Although he may not wish to address the problems of London, they are substantial and need his attention.
Mr Pickles
I have looked most carefully at the figures. It is not a surprise that the number of repossessions is dropping, and that is something about which we should be pleased. Mortgage approvals are at their highest level for six years. The Mortgage Advice Bureau notes that the number of mortgage products available to house buyers has surpassed the 10,000 mark, and cites Government action as the cause.
We are taking action to help those with small deposits. Since April, under the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there have been more than 20,000 reservations for new build homes, supporting house building and first-time buyers. Over 90% of the 1,200 house builders registered under the scheme are small to medium-sized developers.
The Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme has had a further 6,000 applications in the first month, helping hard-working families. The average house price guaranteed under the scheme is just under £160,000.
Mr Pickles
I am coming to supply in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient.
Labour might not have supported the scheme, but Santander has said that Help to Buy has been
“a major cause of increased confidence in the housing market.”
We are also helping the less well-off. More than 150,000 new affordable homes have been built in England in the past three years, assisted by our £20 billion affordable housing programme. Thanks to our reforms to the Housing Revenue Account, more council housing has been built in the three years of this Government than in all the 13 years of the previous Labour Government.
Jake Berry
As my right hon. Friend is on the subject of social housing, perhaps he could also confirm to the House that the previous Government, after 13 years, left us with 421,000 fewer social homes than when they took office.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and my speech will confirm that. The social housing stock on Labour’s watch shrunk by 420,000.
Debbie Abrahams
More than 2,300 households in Oldham are affected by the bedroom tax, and there are only 500 properties into which they can move. Furthermore, private sector landlords are not allowing tenancies for people on benefits. Where are those people meant to live?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady should get out more and stop reading reports in the newspapers. The private rented sector represents 70% of all homes and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such activity is widespread or happening in significant numbers. Why would people want to turn away good tenants? Frankly, I deeply regret the way in which she is stigmatising people on housing benefit.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I did get out and I was standing at my local bus stop, where there is an estate agent, reading the adverts. Nearly 70% of them said, “No DSS”—of course, landlords have not yet realised that the DSS is no more. That is a big change, as I have not seen that for many years, but those of us who get out are aware that that is happening.
Mr Pickles
I am shocked to hear that that is the situation in Scotland, because in England we have a far more civilised way of dealing with these matters.
John Prescott’s pathfinder programme demolished Victorian terraces across the midlands, but this Government have scrapped the wrecking ball and worked with communities, not against them. We have already brought 85,000 long-term empty properties back into use. We have reinvigorated the right to buy, reversing Labour’s savage cuts and helping social tenants get on the housing ladder.
It is a shame that Labour councillors and Labour MPs oppose the right to buy. Who is the biggest enemy of the right to buy? It is Labour-supporting unions such as Unite, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the GMB, waging class war against the working classes. By contrast, we are on the side of hard-working people. We have changed the rules on housing waiting lists to give priority to the armed forces and to local residents, whereas Labour doled out council housing to foreign nationals.
We are helping the vulnerable. Homelessness is half the average level it was under the last Labour Government. The average length of time households spend in temporary accommodation has fallen by a third. Housing waiting lists almost doubled under Labour, but thanks to the reforms in the Localism Act 2011, waiting lists have now fallen below the level we inherited. The Home Builders Federation notes that planning approvals for new homes are at their highest since 2007. A survey in September showed that the number of people wanting to extend their home has trebled, thanks to the flexible planning rules that we introduced to restore economic confidence, which were opposed by the Opposition.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my astonishment at the noises coming from Labour Members about house building levels when we all know that in the one area of the UK where Labour is actually in charge, house builders such as Redrow are pulling out? They are doing so because of the increased burden of red tape that the Labour-run Welsh Assembly is putting on the housing industry.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I shall come on to it in a few moments.
We have scrapped Labour’s regional spatial strategies, which enveloped the planning system in red tape and hindered local plan making. The number of planning appeals has fallen, meaning more local decision making and more decisions “right first time”.
At the same time, we have protected the environment. The latest official figures, produced last month, show that the number of homes built on the green belt is the lowest on record—four times lower than it was a quarter of a century ago. We have made it easier to get brownfield land back into use by allowing surplus office space to be converted into homes. A survey in September of just 15% of councils reported more than 260 different schemes under those new rights, but the Labour response, from Labour MPs and from members of the London Assembly, is to oppose those new homes.
We are not just backing large developers—we are supporting self-build by abolishing development taxes such as section 106 and the community infrastructure levy, getting the state off the backs of those who want to build their own homes. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) will welcome that. Labour’s response has been silence, no doubt because Labour councils want to tax people to the hilt.
We need only to look at Labour’s policies, which we have heard about from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. Labour has a five-year plan and has reinstated a national housing target of 200,000 homes a year. The previous Labour Government had a target of 240,000 homes a year, yet house building fell to its worst peacetime level since the 1920s. It is a little like the state targets for the tractors that failed to roll off the Ukrainian production lines.
How would Labour build new homes? I understand the Opposition have three policies. First, the shadow Housing Minister has called for five “new towns”. I remind her that the last Labour Prime Minister promised five new eco-towns in 2007, and then, when they were not built—perhaps in a silent, unconscious tribute to Nikita Khrushchev—increased the number from five to 10. Not a single house was built. Not one. The only thing that eco-towns built was resentment. Labour has simply dusted off and reheated its old policies under a different name. The Government are supporting locally led large scale development, with more than £500 million of investment. We have kick-started new homes in the likes of Cranbrook, Wokingham and Sherford, and Ebbsfleet will follow very soon.
Labour’s next policy is so-called land banking, as we have just heard, and is a solution to a problem that does not exist, according to the Office of Fair Trading, Savills and Kate Barker. Of the half a million units with outstanding planning permission, almost 90% have started or are working towards a start. The number of homes on stalled sites is just 59,000 units. The Get Britain Building investment fund, worth more than £500 million, is helping unlock those sites, and we have made things easier by enabling unrealistic section 106 agreements to be renegotiated, making such stalled sites viable—a move opposed every single time by the Labour party.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
In Stockton borough, planning permission for hundreds of houses on brownfield sites has existed for years, yet developers are not doing anything. Is it not time that they were helped and encouraged to build more homes on those sites by the idea that they might lose the land, as we suggest?
Mr Pickles
Perhaps we could nationalise them—[Interruption.] I thought that would get the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) excited. Perhaps we should confiscate the land. Perhaps we should use a North Korean solution and start arresting and executing them for failing to do that—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it is that rather daft rhetoric that will dry up all housing supply.
Labour’s policy of new development taxes and state confiscation of land would have the reverse effect of that desired, discouraging developers from complex land assembly projects. House builders will just let their planning permissions lapse or be more cautious about applying for permission in the first place. It is a recipe for fewer homes and a slower planning system.
Labour’s third policy is the right to grow, another Labour land grab to allow Labour councils to dump urban sprawl on their rural neighbours and rip up green belt protection. Labour cites the likes of Stevenage—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—Oxford and York. In every case, the green belt is providing a green lung for those towns and cities and the Opposition want Labour councils with no democratic mandate to rip it up.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, not least because he missed Luton off his list of places that Labour has suggested might need a right to grow. In the period running through to 2030, Luton borough requires about 30,000 new homes to keep up with population demand but can only build about 6,000 within the borough. What should Luton do?
Mr Pickles
They should begin to talk to their neighbouring authorities, and stop trying to bully North Hertfordshire council—I have had an opportunity to meet that council—and using terror tactics and being extremely unpleasant. It is the return of Stalinist top-down planning, and the biggest threat to the green belt that the country faces.
Labour’s policies are like buses: you wait for years, then three come along at once. It has even asked Sir Michael Lyons to come up with a couple more. Under the Labour Government, Sir Michael was paid £400,000 for his last review of Department for Communities and Local Government policy, so I hope that the Labour party is getting him at a cheaper rate. For all Labour’s lame attempts at policy making, we can see what Labour would be like in reality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) suggested. In Wales, where housing is devolved, Labour runs the Administration, and its record on housing there is a disaster. According to the National House-Building Council, while new home registrations are up in England, they have fallen successively in Wales. Labour has hit the housing market with extra red tape, adding £13,000 to the cost of a new home with measures ranging from building regulations, to fire sprinklers and waste site management plans. House builders Redrow say that owing to the burden of regulation:
“Wales is the most difficult area in the UK in which to operate”.
Persimmon Homes has pulled out of development in south Wales and the construction firm Watkin Jones has shifted its development to England rather than Wales.
Labour failed to support the housing market, and has belatedly introduced a help to buy equity loan scheme. Watkin Jones said that
“it is difficult to comprehend why the Welsh Assembly Government are failing to recognise the importance of following the UK Government’s lead in getting much needed homes built.”
The Welsh Government, true to Labour form, have slashed right to buy. In microcosm, this is the real face of Labour: high tax, high regulation, the enemy of the free market, and the enemy of aspiration.
I have outlined how the coalition Government’s long-term economic plan is turning the housing market around, but there is more to do to build more homes to meet demand and deal with demographic change. The next spending round will see a further £23 billion of public and private investment in affordable housing. We are looking at further reforms to the housing revenue account to help councils build more homes. Our £1 billion build to rent fund is bringing institutional investment into the private rented sector—something that no Government have achieved before. Further change of use reforms will make it easier for redundant and under-used buildings to be converted to housing. We will deliver fairness in social housing by ending taxpayer subsidies to high-income social tenants—people like Bob Crow.
Our economic plan is for the long term. Contrary to the doom and gloom of the Labour party, which wants to talk our nation down, our economy is on the mend, thanks to the hard work of the British people, and thanks to tough decisions to tackle the deficit left by Labour and to clean up their mess. Our policy is firing up the kilns, bringing the brickies on site, and getting Britain building again. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Labour motion, and I commend the Government’s housing record to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
There will be a four-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions. The next speaker is Ronnie Campbell.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I listened intently to the Secretary of State. I remember—this is going back a long time; I have been here 26 years—that when we came to power in 1997 on the back of 18 years of Tory rule, houses were crumbling and falling to bits. If Members look at the record, they will see that in that period Labour put at least £9 billion or £10 billion into refurbishing houses. In my constituency, I remember new kitchens and bathrooms going in, and new roofs going on the houses. A lot of work was done, so when the Secretary of State knocks the Labour Government, he should remember what they did to refurbish houses that were neglected in the previous 18 years of the Tory Government.
I want to talk about Northumberland. The county council has a waiting list of 10,000 people. It is not a big area, but it is rural and sparsity is an issue. A lot of houses are needed in the countryside and there is a big problem, as the Secretary of State said. There are not many brownfield sites in the countryside, and in extreme circumstances we may have to use green-belt areas, as has been said. There is always a problem in the countryside, because it does not want houses to be built, so there is a big demonstration about it. I do not know where the kids are going to live—sometimes we have to put houses in the countryside.
Northumberland county council has a plan to build 2,000 houses a year, which would constitute 300 jobs a year. That would put a lot of money into the economy—the council reckons £10 million, if it can get the programme going. The only problem is that, at this moment in time, it is completing 191 affordable houses. I do not have a problem with Help to Buy—if young people have a bit of money and want to buy their own home, that is their right—but we need houses for the poor and those people who cannot, even with Help to Buy, afford to buy. We need to build homes for them. There are 10,000 people on the waiting list in Northumberland, which has a population of only 300,000, and there is a problem with people trying to get houses.
Under the county’s core strategy, at least 30% of the 2,000 houses that it is trying to build will be affordable for poor people who cannot afford to buy a home on their own. There are three sites in my constituency where building is under way. I am going tomorrow to have my photograph taken at one where the last house is just being finished—I will be proud to see it, as it is an affordable house. Something is being done, but it is very, very little—it is not enough—and the engine needs to go faster and faster so that we can build more.
We have land in Amble, Berwick, Corbridge, Craster, Embleton, Shilbottle, Rothbury and Wooler. They are not in Blyth—I am in the big town—but in the countryside, where we have land to build. One or two sites might encroach on the green belt, but not by very much, and Northumberland county council really does not want to use that land, as it wants to build houses where they are needed. They are needed in those places in the countryside. I hear Members saying, “You can’t build in villages; you can’t build here,” but we have to build in villages, as they have to survive.
The green belt is a problem, and I hate to see it being built on—
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is entirely right that we should debate the serious issue of housing this afternoon, but I am afraid that the Opposition have picked the wrong time to table a motion with such wording, as it does not reflect the state of the market, which is decidedly upbeat. However, those words might have been appropriate in 2010, when under Labour house building fell to its lowest level for nearly 100 years and Labour was consistently breaking promises on what it would do regarding housing.
I took the trouble to read the 2007 conference speech made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—his first speech after becoming Prime Minister—in which he promised that Labour would provide 240,000 new homes a year. The following year, the figure for new homes was 115,000—the lowest since the 1920s. Labour said that it would build eco-homes, and it kicked off with five communities, which went up to 10. That was going to be the centrepiece of its housing policy, but none of the communities was ever built or developed. Labour presided over a period of regional spatial strategies, with a top-down “central Government know best” system, but that simply failed to push forward land for development.
The words in the motion are wrong, because things are starting to happen with housing. The Government’s policies have begun to bear fruit, and nationally nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010, and starts are up by 23%. The improvement applies not only to owner occupation: 99,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2011, which is halfway towards delivering the 170,000 homes that the Government seek to deliver by 2015.
The Government’s initiatives to encourage home ownership are working. The Help to Buy scheme, which was launched in April 2013, is allowing people to get started on the housing ladder. There were 5,000 sales in the first six months and 1,000 house builders are registered. The importance of small and medium-sized developers has already been mentioned, and some 90% of the developers registered under Help to Buy are small or medium-sized companies. There are now 11 lenders covering the scheme. We are also meeting the aspirations of those in the social housing sector who wish to buy their own home by invigorating the right to buy.
My constituency is in the middle of England, and it sits in the middle of many statistics. In 2010, the number of new builds in Rugby fell by 62%, which was inconsistent with the level across the country as a whole, but in 2012-13, housing starts in the constituency increased by 260% to their highest level since 2007-08. Included in those figures is the gateway development of Eden Park, which the Housing Minister visited last February, where three developers are building 1,400 new homes—and selling them as fast as they can build them. The positive attitude to development in my constituency is reflected by an application for 6,200 new homes that will come before the local authority’s planning committee tomorrow, so things are moving across the country, especially in my constituency.
What would have happened if Labour was in power? With regard to measures on land banking, we have heard about state confiscation. The Home Builders Federation, the industry’s trade body, has said that there is no incentive for land banking.
Mr Marcus Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between his constituency and mine, where we have a Labour-run local authority, is that his local authority works with local people to deliver these things, rather than imposing things that people do not want?
Mark Pawsey
My local authority has a record of going out and consulting local people. It has brought together a local plan. We are living in a plan-led system, and those authorities that do not have a plan in place will experience difficulties, as I know is the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Confiscating land is no way to solve the problem. House builders want to build houses and there are no incentives for sitting on land. The Opposition’s policy would result in fewer houses being built, because house building would become a risky business to invest in and fewer people would invest in house building companies. Developers supply what the market demands. There has not been demand in the market in recent years, but the steps that the Government have taken, such as Help to Buy, have reinvigorated demand.
Labour is also calling for new towns and garden cities, but its eco-towns did not work. A much better way of delivering houses is through sustainable urban extensions, such as those coming forward in constituencies like mine.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State, as he departs the Chamber, on a brilliant knockabout performance that bore as close a resemblance to housing policy as my garden shed does to One Hyde Park. He emphasised what the Government have achieved, but they have achieved very little; what he gave us was a rehash of old figures.
We are facing a housing crisis that has been preceded by 30 years of housing neglect due to 18 years of disinvestment under the Conservatives and 13 years of inadequate investment under Labour, simply because there were other priorities at the time, such as education and the health service. We have since had four years of cuts and low-level production. Members have talked about levels of house building not seen since Stanley Baldwin’s time, but when the Government came into office, why did they not seize the opportunity to boost the economy by building houses, as was done in the 1930s—in Stanley Baldwin’s time—as a means of recovering from recession?
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government did not build enough houses, but I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) on the significant investment that went into the existing stock. My borough of Gateshead benefited from nearly £200 million as part of the decent homes programme to reinvigorate the existing stock.
Austin Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right. We did a good job on decent homes and a limited job on home building, but it was just not enough, given the scale of the problem.
Our present commitment is to build 200,000 houses, which I welcome. However, I argue that we also need a commitment to more public housing for rent. Let us talk not about affordable housing, because it never is affordable, but about public housing for rent, because that provides for the greatest need. Two fifths of the population—the figure is higher in some parts of the country, especially London—simply cannot afford to buy and cannot raise the money for a mortgage without long years of struggle or winning the national lottery. Those are the people who we need to help. We need a big build of public housing for rent to provide for their needs, and that is also needed to bring down the housing benefit bill, because the reason why it is now so high is that we have not built council and social housing, which is much cheaper to provide.
The Government’s proposals, inadequate and belated as they are, will make things worse because increasing the discounts on the sale of council houses means reducing the stock of available housing to meet people’s needs. That policy will certainly not generate enough revenue to pay for new building. We should have a rule that every council house sold must be replaced by a new one. If we had introduced such a sensible provision from the start, we would have maintained the housing stock.
The fact is that private sector build has not risen to 200,000 for many years. According to Shelter, its highest ever total was 175,000. We need a more public housing for rent, which we always had in the past. We could provide for that by removing the cap on local authority borrowing and channelling money into contracts to build. We could ease the situation—perhaps as with the Bank of England’s quantitative easing—by helping the housing associations, which currently face huge problems with arrears, largely because of the bedroom tax. They need help, so they must be allowed to revalue their stock so that they can raise money.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, all the evidence points to a need for a massive attempt to build public housing for rent, which would energise the economy and put people back to work. That is the only way out of a crisis resulting from 30 years of neglect and house building rates well below the target that we need, which is 240,000 a year.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I will focus my remarks on my constituency and on Leeds. The housing stock obviously needs to be increased, but I have taken issue with the Leeds core strategy and the amount of housing it says needs to be built over the next 15 years. The university of Leeds—that august institution is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—has stated that building 70,000 houses in Leeds would not be completed until 2060, which raises the question: why should they be built over the next 15 years? There is therefore an argument to be had about housing figures in different parts of the country.
I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, about villages needing to expand to cope with the housing crisis. One of the major pieces of legislation that this Government have brought in introduces neighbourhood plans, which allow people in the villages in a local area to say, “If we want our village to survive—the little local shop to carry on, the pub to survive, continued use of the village hall, and so on—we need to invest in housing.” People in some of my villages may feel that we need more bungalows for elderly people, while those in other villages may feel that there is not enough affordable housing and that we need to build two-bedroom terraced homes that would help young people to stay in the village where they were brought up.
The problem that we have in Leeds and in my constituency is that as soon as these plans are proposed, the developer says, “Well, that’s very good, but actually I want to build not 20 houses there but 200 or 400 houses.” That would completely change the nature of the villages in my constituency. Leeds city council has deemed that the constituency overall has to take 1,200 houses. If we put that in the context of there being 41,000 houses to start with, we can see that it represents an enormous expansion. Under these plans, the villages of Micklefield and Kippax and the town of Garforth will all blend into one huge development. I believe that the figures are wrong, as I said when I gave evidence on the core strategy, and if I had more time I would expand on that. However, the local authority has the power to identify more sensibly where larger-scale developments could go.
I am unashamed to say on the record that I support the idea of freeing up land in the northern part of my constituency in an area called Headley Fields, which is out towards the parish of Bramham, the village that I reside in, although nowhere near it. That land could take the housing allocation for the next 15 years proposed by Leeds city council. Because it was there and could be planned from day one, proper infrastructure such as transport facilities, pubs, schools, and doctors surgeries could be put in place. At the moment we face the problem of 5,000 houses coming in through what I call death by a thousand cuts—putting 400 houses into a village here and 400 houses into a village there. That would mean that not enough would come out of the new homes bonus to provide the extra facilities, such as the local schools, that were needed.
I do not believe that we should build garden cities, but there is certainly an argument for building new villages in areas and not expanding the existing villages. Planning as a whole in order to have the necessary facilities built in those villages is a better way forward than adding developments on to each village. The neighbourhood plans that this Government have empowered local communities to use can then be put into full effect.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Like me, many Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches but perhaps others as well, will have had the experience of knocking on doors in our constituencies, peeking behind the door and seeing people living in terrible squalor in poor private sector rental accommodation in the hands of their landlords. When we talk about housing, we are not just talking about building new family homes, important though that is; it is also incredibly important to realise that a lack of housing supply hits the most vulnerable the most.
I want to say a few words about the place where I live, was born, grew up, went to school, and now represent—Luton—and why I believe that it is time for radical action. In Luton, through to 2030, we will require some 23,500 to 33,500 new dwellings. That is an enormous number. It points to the fact that Luton is a town with a young population and large families and has a large population that has increased through the migration of successive generations. It has always had to look just beyond its boundaries in order to expand. That process has ground to a halt, and we are facing serious challenges.
There is limited capacity regarding developable land in Luton. We reckon we could squeeze in about 6,000 homes in the next 15 to 20 years, but we have to balance that against other competing needs. What is the point of a house without a job to go with it? How do we provide good-quality green space? We have a massive problem with primary school allocation that will become a massive problem with secondary school allocation. We need to build new schools, let alone new houses. This is where the challenge arises, and I can appreciate it because I hear about it in many of the places that I visit. I am a Labour activist, and I sometimes share the frustration about our record in government in delivering more homes. However, people forget that, from 1997 to 2010 across the six counties in the east of England, we built the equivalent of a seventh county in terms of housing, and that was still not enough to keep up with the demand that existed.
It is important that we have new towns, garden cities, and so on, but, particularly in the south-east of England, we need to grapple with the problem whereby towns feel that they are unable to expand when we know that there is a great social need for them to do so. That is why I welcome the proposals made by Labour Front Benchers on the right to grow, which would give local authorities powers that they otherwise would not have. It is very different from a top-down solution such as the former regional spatial strategies that set a specific target. We need a new arbitration body to enable discussions between local authorities to take place, but also, crucially, to reach a conclusion whereby we agree together what we need to build and how we are going to build it.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will have heard the Secretary of State’s rather tongue-in-cheek proposal to nationalise brownfield sites, which really do need development. At the same time, his Department is approving development on greenfield sites in the neighbouring constituency to mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should incentivise brownfield site development in order to get building done there instead?
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pendulum has swung away from brownfield development as a result of this Government’s changes. That is why we should bring in a right to grow in conjunction with the pendulum swinging back towards using brownfield first. These things are not rocket science, but there is political ideology behind them. That is why the Secretary of State’s dismissal of our proposals was so short-sighted. We all recognise that we need more housing and further housing growth. That requires a mechanism that balances the requirements of local authorities to deliver for the people in their borough boundaries with the need to be good neighbours as well. Ministers are scaremongering about greenfield sites being used, but that would take place within the context of the existing national planning framework.
If we are to find a workable solution to many of the problems we face in allowing towns to expand, we will need to have an overall mechanism, but this Government have put in place a series of different mechanisms. They try one, try the other, try the next, change the rules, issue a press release and make an announcement, but we have not seen the delivery, and that is because it is hard to do this stuff. Bold political leadership is required to bring it about.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I start by making a declaration—not one that appears in my entry in the register but to say that I spent 13 years working in the architects department of a new town, putting up homes, factories and shops. It was very easy to do that because there was no local consultation, no involvement of local democracy, no hassle, and no localism. I want to hear a little from Labour Front Benchers about the strong tension between the words in their motion about creating new towns and their recent paper-thin conversion to a commitment to localism.
I also want to hear from Labour Front Benchers, as I heard from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), a word of apology. In the 13 years that Labour were in Government, Stockport lost 2,683 social homes and none were built in their place, and 421,000 homes were lost from the social housing stock across the whole of England, which the hon. Gentleman, to his credit, pointed out.
At the height of the boom in 2003, 90,000 homes were lost. In 2004, 71,000 were lost and in 2005 the figure was 69,000. In those three years alone, 230,000 social homes for rent—a quarter of a million homes—were lost from the housing stock. That took the number of homes in the social rented sector below 4 million for the first time since 1955. At that time, the current shadow Chancellor was telling us that there should be less regulation of banks and the then Prime Minister was telling us, solemnly and repeatedly, that he had got rid of boom and bust. He turned out to be 50% right: he had got rid of the boom. It would be good to hear a word of apology for not just the housing situation we inherited, but the financial situation, too.
The coalition Government have started to put things right. Our £4.5 billion investment programme is delivering social homes for rent at only half the public subsidy required under Labour. Labour took us below the 4 million homes mark nine years ago. It took another six years of Labour Government to take us a further 72,000 homes below that, but I am very pleased indeed that it has taken three years for the coalition Government to bring them back.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that one of the reasons he is able to stand up and say that the subsidy for building affordable homes will be lower is that they will not be truly affordable homes? That will result in yet another ratcheting up of the housing benefit bill. The cost, therefore, will be considerable.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact of the matter is that we are replacing social and affordable homes that should never have been lost in the first place: 421,000 homes were lost from the stock. As every expert, academic and, indeed, politician recognises, if we want growth in housing overall, there has to be growth in social housing. Labour blew its chance to deliver that and it is the coalition that is creating the opportunity for it to happen.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, this country now has a policy whereby, when a social home is sold, another will be built in its place. He would be right to say that it takes a little while to get the planning permission and other stuff in place, but the policy and the delivery of it are there. [Interruption.] I ask the groaners on the Opposition Benches: where was that policy during their 13 years? Some 400,000 homes were lost and no attempt whatever was made to replace them, leaving the waiting list at a record level. As the Secretary of State reported, it has now, thank goodness, dropped.
The Liberal Democrat influence on this coalition Government means that we are delivering more social homes and, at the end of this Parliament, we will have an increased stock, not a reduced stock, which is exactly what Labour left us with—a reduction of 421,000. We shall have an increase of 150,000. I am proud of that, and all Government Members should be proud of it, too.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
If people listened to Government Members, they would not think there was a housing crisis in this country—but there is, because there are people who come to my surgery who cannot get a home to live in or who cannot get a home that they need. They cannot afford the rising prices or the rising rents. That is this country’s housing crisis.
I challenge the Secretary of State with the comments made by his then Housing Minister to the Communities and Local Government Committee three years ago, when he said that the “gold standard” on which the Government would be judged was building more homes than were being built before the recession. The Government have been building about half the number of homes that were built before the recession. However they choose to dress up the figures, they have failed by their own standards.
As some of my colleagues have said, that is not a terribly hard standard to meet, because the Labour Government did not build enough homes. We built more homes than this Government are building, but we did not build enough. We had a brilliant record on the decent homes programme and on putting right the wrongs of the underinvestment of the previous Tory Government, who allowed the stock to deteriorate, but we did not build enough homes.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Labour Government spent £18 billion in 1997 to sort out 1.5 million homes.
Mr Betts
Absolutely, and that brought great delight to many tenants up and down the country.
The Government can pray in aid the fact that with the fallout from the banking crisis the private housing sector in this country suffered a decline in demand, but they compounded the problem by cutting the social housing budget by 60%. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) was at that time a Minister in the Government who allowed that to happen, and he should stand up and apologise for it. The reality is that the cut was 60%. Government expenditure as a whole was cut by 20%, but social housing capital expenditure was singled out for the biggest cut of all major Government programmes, which has compounded the problem.
I welcome the Labour leadership’s commitment to move towards building 200,000 homes in this country by 2020. That is a good commitment, but I want to see it go further in the longer term: we must get to 250,000 to get demand and supply back in sync. The reality is that the construction industry in this country is now in such a mess that it could not respond more quickly to a higher target: prices of bricks and labour are already going up in the industry, because it has got down to such a low level. It is therefore realistic to set that target.
The issue is that the private sector in this country, as has already been said, has never built consistently more than 150,000 homes. If we are to get up to a figure of 200,000, a large part of that must come from the social housing sector, from local authorities and housing associations. To enable that to happen, we will have to spend some public money. We must all recognise that: if this is a crisis that is a priority for us to deal with, some public expenditure will have to go in as well.
I hope that we can get to a general situation in which we recognise that to achieve the stabilisation of house prices and rents, as has happened in Germany, housing supply has to meet housing demand in the long term. To achieve that will require the sort of cross-party agreement that we had in the 1960s and 1970s, when successive Governments of different political persuasions built the homes that the country needed. I hope that we can get back to such a situation.
I want to refer to my Select Committee’s 2012 report on “Financing of new housing supply”, in which we considered and proposed the idea of a housing bank, with guarantees for institutional investment to go into the social housing and private housing sectors. I recognise that the Government have gone a little way towards that, but not sufficiently. That has been done in the Netherlands; why can we not do it here? Instead of giving guarantees for mortgages, let us put them into building homes.
We could take the cap off local authority borrowing, and 60,000 homes could be built immediately. I think that that has cross-party support in the House, so why do the Government not do that? It would not cost any more taxpayers’ money, and it could be done instantly.
We could look at the housing grant paid to housing associations, which lies on their books as a debt. If it was released tomorrow and that grant was written off—again, there would be no cost to the Treasury, because it has already been paid out—we could free up housing associations’ ability to borrow and build more homes as well.
We could look at self-build, which is the hidden element in a potential housing renewal. The Government could go to see what has been done in the Netherlands, where there is not so much self-building as self-constructing, which involves getting local authorities to lay out sites and getting planners involved on a simple basis. They could go to see how people in the Netherlands, often with the involvement of small builders, are building their own homes—the homes they want, because they have designed them—at about 80% of the cost of a house bought from a private developer. That could be another element.
There is no one silver bullet, but the report includes several measures which, if the Government implemented them straight away, would help to remove the immediate problems of the housing crisis and set us in the right direction.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I will be very brief, but I want to pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) about the good initiatives taken by this Government. The fact is that there are more social homes than when we took office in 2010. Progress has been made, and one could rattle off the many good things that have been introduced. They include, for example, encouragement for empty homes to be brought back into use, which is a win-win situation. There is also the whole concept of neighbourhood planning—really involving communities in making important decisions that will increase the supply of housing.
Obviously, however, there is more to do. I appreciate that the limit on the housing revenue account has been raised, but I want the borrowing cap to be raised for all councils. I would like more initiatives to increase land supply. There was a pledge to pilot community land auctions, and I would be interested to know what progress has been made on them. There are therefore innovative things that we can do. The answer is not to knock the very good work that has been done, but to accept that there is consensus on tackling our real housing crisis, and on the fact that by tackling it we can contribute to economic growth and create important jobs and apprenticeships for young people. We can create a win-win situation.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. We have had a wide-ranging discussion about housing, which is an issue that is close to the hearts of many of my constituents and important to people across the country.
It is patently clear that the Government are in complete denial about two things: the scale of the housing crisis that we face and the scale of their failure to tackle that crisis. I was astonished that the Secretary of State came here today to tell us that we should rejoice in the “sustained turnaround” in the housing market. His statements fly in the face of the facts. Last year, only 107,000 homes were completed. That is not even half the number of homes that is needed to keep up with demand according to the figures of his own Department.
It is regrettable that the Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s. If the current trends were to continue, there would be a breathtaking housing shortage of some 2 million homes by 2020. The housing shortage is central to the cost of living crisis. Young people and families across England are struggling to get on the housing ladder and struggling with rents that are at a record high. The first thing that the Government did when they got into power was to cut the affordable homes budget by 60%—a huge cut. It is therefore no surprise that in the last year alone, there has been a 29% drop in the number of affordable homes that are being built.
There are fewer home owners since the election, despite the previous Housing Minister, who is now Chairman of the Conservative party, claiming that the Government would increase home ownership. Tragically, homelessness and rough sleeping have risen in every year under this Government. Both are up by about a third since 2010. The number of families who are in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation is tragically at a 10-year high.
What is the Government’s approach to the biggest housing crisis in a generation? It seems to be a flurry of announcements. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said in his opening speech, there have been no fewer than 400 announcements in the past three and a half years. However, their many warm words have not been matched by action.
It seems that the Housing Minister recognises that that is a problem. He came to the House in November and told us that
“the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 11.]
Rather confusingly, he said later in a written parliamentary answer to me that it was an incentive to build homes. Perhaps today—third time lucky—he will clarify what the new homes bonus is for. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both concluded that it has had little impact on housing supply.
On the demand side, the Government have introduced Help to Buy. We strongly support help for first-time buyers but, crucially, Help to Buy must be matched by help to build. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who sits around the Cabinet table with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the cross-party Treasury Committee and the former Governor of the Bank of England have all said that the scheme carries risks for the economy. The Prime Minister’s new housing adviser, Alex Morton, has gone even further by saying that it risks detonating a bomb under the British economy. However, the Government continue to do next to nothing to boost supply, which is pushing home ownership further out of reach for young people and families.
While the Government are clearly complacent, the Labour party understands the scale of the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced in September that a Labour Government would build at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020. That is a realistic but ambitious agenda. We have asked Sir Michael Lyons to chair a commission that will draw up a detailed road map towards that aim, which is effectively to double the level of house building. There are specific areas that the commission will consider and specific problems that the Government are reluctant to recognise. I will refer to those briefly. The first concerns problems with the land market, the second is the restriction on communities’ right to grow, and the third is the lack of any action by the Government on new garden cities and new towns.
First, there are deep and structural problems with the land market. My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) have stressed that even in the good times the private sector did not deliver anywhere near the number of homes we need to keep up with demand. It is clear that developers are sitting on land and waiting for its value to increase. The Government seem to be in denial about land banking—although some of their Back Benchers seem to recognise it as a problem—but the International Monetary Fund and the Conservative Mayor of London clearly say it is a problem. We intend to give local authorities the power to escalate fees on developers who sit on land and, if that does not work, to use compulsory purchase orders if those developers still refuse to get on and build the houses that this country so desperately needs and for which communities are crying out.
We also have a problem with the dominance of big house builders. Small house builders face major problems accessing land as well as finance, and the market is dominated by a few big house builders. That was not always the case; in the late 1980s, small and medium-sized house builders delivered two-thirds of new homes, but now SME builders build only around one third of new homes. We must find ways to make the market more diverse and competitive—I hope we can agree on that.
Secondly, over the past three and a half years we have had warm words—in particular from the Deputy Prime Minister, but also earlier from the Prime Minister—about garden cities, yet not one measure has been taken to put in place conditions to deliver them. It was even reported last week at the start of the new year that the Prime Minister has forbidden Ministers from identifying any sites for potential new towns during this Parliament. Some would say that is pouring cold water on the proposal; others might say it is putting it into a deep freeze. Labour, on the other hand, is committed to new towns, which must form part of the solution to the housing crisis. The post-war Labour Government started 11 new towns because they had the determination and vision to act. That is exactly what we need now and what the Government are lacking. The Lyons commission is looking at ways to incentivise local authorities to come up with sites, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor recently committed a Labour Treasury to using guarantees—much like those provided for the Help to Buy scheme—to support the building of new towns.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I understand that the hon. Lady is on the record as saying that five new towns will be built in the first five years of a Labour Government. What funding does she have for that?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his time as Housing Minister. I actually said—he did not read out a direct quote—that I would love to see a Labour Government starting four or five new towns. We are looking at current legislation on new towns, and also to learn lessons from the generation of new towns that were delivered in the post-war period. We have asked Sir Michael Lyons and a panel of experts, including the Town and Country Planning Association and the big home builder Barratt—[Interruption.] Well, we have done more than the Secretary of State is doing. He may chunter at me from a sedentary position, but he has done exactly nothing on this agenda and is incredibly complacent.
Emma Reynolds
I will not give way again to the same person.
Finally, the Government are in complete denial about the situation of towns and cities such as Stevenage, Oxford and Luton—which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) spoke eloquently about—where local communities are crying out for new homes but neighbouring local authorities are blocking them every step of the way. The Government introduced the duty to co-operate, but they must accept that those fine words are not translated into action. Half a million pounds has been paid out to lawyers in Stevenage over the dispute with North Hertfordshire. I would rather that money was spent on bricks and mortar.
Emma Reynolds
I am running out of time and I think the hon. Gentleman had a chance to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). In conclusion, in order to boost the number of homes being built, crucially we need leadership from both central Government and local government. Regrettably, this Government are failing to step up to the plate. Warm words are simply not good enough and our constituents deserve better. Other countries manage to get this right and it should not be beyond us to do so too. That is why I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support tonight’s motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
May I first offer my condolences to the family of Paul Goggins? When I was appointed to this position, he very kindly welcomed me. He was generous in the way that he approached many Members across the House, and he was passionate about housing too. I put on record my condolences to his family and friends.
This is a valuable and important debate. Like the Secretary of State, I congratulate the Opposition on securing their second debate on housing since 2010. The Leader of the Opposition says that housing is an important part of their agenda, but to have secured only two Opposition day debates in that time does not demonstrate the passion that his party claims it has for housing. The debate gives us an opportunity to remind the House and the country of the mess left by the previous Labour Government, and of the Opposition’s preference for old, top-down diktats by which they tell the country what to do, and tell councils and local people what they should be doing and where they should be living.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the right to grow policy, which Labour launched in my Stevenage constituency without telling me in advance, is already in tatters? Stevenage borough council’s published draft local plan makes no reference whatever to the need for additional housing in North Hertfordshire district council. There have been no representations made between the offices of the two different authorities, and North Hertfordshire is currently doing its local plan.
Kris Hopkins
If it is the case that those representations have not been made, my hon. Friend may want to write to the Prime Minister. If that was my local council and my neighbouring council was going to raid my green belt and green spaces to facilitate housing in a neighbouring council, I would imagine that, like my hon. Friend, I would be extremely unhappy.
Despite the Opposition’s claims, it was under the previous Administration that house building fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s, with only 107,000 homes completed in 2010. They imposed regional targets on local communities as part of their top-down regime. Their approach is that Whitehall and Labour know better. The complete failure to invest between 1997 and 2010 resulted, as has been said, in some 427,000 fewer social houses. Under this Government, come 2015 there will be more social housing—something that Members recognise—and we can be extremely proud of that. In contrast to Labour’s record, we have given people local control of neighbourhood planning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has just said. I encourage local authorities that have not completed their local plan to get on with it, to engage with their local communities and give power to local individuals to shape their community, and to remove red tape.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree that all the Government’s progress in this Parliament in allowing local people to engage with local authorities on planning would be completely undermined by a Labour Government who would go back to the Stalinist tactic of land seizure and building wherever they want?
Kris Hopkins
It is clear, as an hon. Member said earlier, that localism is just paper thin for Labour. The number of first-time buyers is at a five-year high. Help to Buy has made a significant contribution, helping hard-working families to buy their own home; promoting quality and choice in the rented sector by bringing in private incentives and not just using expensive taxpayer subsidies; and helping small and medium-sized builders to get back on their feet—more than 1,000 registered builders are now supporting the Help to Buy equity scheme.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
On public subsidies, is the Minister happy that for every £4 that goes in housing benefit, only £1 is spent building homes? Surely, it would be better to reverse that and build homes at affordable rents that people can live in.
Kris Hopkins
If we did not have a £180 billion deficit, we might be in a better position to offer more public subsidy, but we do not have that opportunity because the last Government nearly bankrupted the country.
Kris Hopkins
No, I will not take any more interventions.
One of the common themes of this debate was that, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) recognised, Labour did not deliver enough housing while in power. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) is a huge supporter of housing growth, and I know from my conversations with him that he is committed to ensuring that local communities shape their own housing. I look forward to further debates about large-scale housing, which I know he greatly supports. On land banking, he said that confiscating land was not the way forward and that if Labour’s policy was implemented, it would result in fewer houses being built.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) said many things and recognised that Labour did not deliver enough houses, but he also referred to his garden shed. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) talked about local plans and a strong local voice, and I know that he is a powerful voice in his community. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) talked about localism and the increasing number of social houses. He also pointed out that Labour delivered 50% of its desire to get rid of boom and bust—it got rid of the boom bit. [Laughter.] I am sorry for stealing the line. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House should listen to the Minister.
Kris Hopkins
The Chairman of the Select Committee also recognised that Labour did not deliver enough houses when in government.
On this issue, as on many, Labour has a problem with credibility. It was the party that allowed access to mortgages six, seven, eight times individuals’ salaries. It was a totally unsustainable path that contributed to the banking crisis that led to the deepest recession since the 1920s. Even in the boom years, it failed to deliver the required housing. The total build dropped to the lowest number in 100 years. It promoted eco-towns—10 in total—but not one appeared. New Labour at its finest: all spin and absolutely no delivery.
Not only did Labour fail to deliver the houses promised, having nearly bankrupted the country, but it took the livelihoods of 250,000 construction workers and destroyed thousands of businesses by its actions. It talks about a cost-of-living crisis, but how many families did it break by its actions? How many meals did it take off the table by its actions? How many summer holidays were lost? How many more homeless people were created by its actions? Yet it never apologises. It always blames somebody else. It is the “Not me, guv!” party. In 2007, the number of housing completions reached 176,000. By 2010, that had dropped to 107,000—a drop of 70,000 houses in three years. That is what it achieved. That is what Labour did for housing in this country and that is why we are still putting things right.
As Housing Minister, I have had the privilege of meeting mothers from Peckham who have secured a shared ownership home; a right-to-buy couple from Swindon who have now got their own home; a young couple who have a house as a consequence of Help to Buy; builders in Sheffield building houses yet again; and businesses and brick factories in Stoke, working flat out. We know that houses are important to the economy, which is why we are determined to deliver more of them.
Question put.
Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 225 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that the clustering of betting shops in or close to deprived communities is being driven by increasing revenue from fixed odds betting terminals (FOBT) rather than traditional over the counter betting; believes that this has encouraged betting shop operators to open more than one premises in close proximity to one another; is aware of the growing concern in many communities about the detrimental effect this is having on the diversity and character of UK high streets; is alarmed that people can stake as much as £100 every 20 seconds on these machines; is further concerned that the practice of single staffing in betting shops leaves staff vulnerable and deters them from intervening if customers suffer heavy losses thereby undermining efforts by the betting industry to protect vulnerable customers; further believes that local authorities should be able to establish a separate planning class for betting shops and that they should be given additional licensing powers to determine the number of FOBT machines within existing and proposed shops and to require that the machines are modified to slow the rate of play and to interrupt when people play for long periods; and calls on the Government to put local people before the interests of the betting shop operators and give local authorities the powers they need to respond to concerns from their local communities and stop the proliferation of FOBT machines and betting shops.
Many people throughout the country are concerned about the impact of betting shops on their high streets. They are worried that the shops are clustered in close proximity to one another, and that they are too often close to communities with high levels of deprivation. We are not suggesting that there is a problem in every community, which is why we are not proposing that the Government should introduce a blanket ban. Instead, we are calling for local councillors to be given real powers so that they are able to respond to the concerns of their local communities and to act responsibly in the interests of the people who elect them. Too often, we hear of councillors being frustrated that they are unable to support local residents. Time after time, people turn up at local planning or licensing meetings and watch in disbelief as councillors who are known to oppose plans are forced to allow another betting shop to open because the legal process favours the lawyers representing the interests of the betting shops. That cannot go on. It causes people to lose faith in local democracy, and we will stop it. Councillors must be allowed some discretion; they should not be expected simply to rubber-stamp such applications.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I chaired the local licensing authority in the city of Hull when the Gambling Act 2005 was brought in, and we were absolutely frustrated in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the House for that legislation, which gave local councillors such as me no discretion at all?
Clive Efford
The legislation that brought in fixed odds betting terminals actually predated the Gambling Act, but in that Act we limited the number of machines to four per shop. What is unprecedented is the fact that the amount of money that can be taken from the machines is now greater than what can be taken from over-the-counter betting, and that is what is driving the clustering of betting shops on our high streets. However, the Government are refusing to deal with the problem. They must accept that there are more betting shops close to areas of high deprivation. This is borne out by research—
Clive Efford
I will certainly give way when I have finished making this point.
A report on machine density by experts in gambling including Heather Wardle, who leads key studies such as the gambling prevalence survey, has stated:
“The distribution of gambling machines in Great Britain…displays a significant association with areas of socio-economic deprivation. The profile of the resident population living in HDMZs”—
high-density machine zones—
“mirrors the profile of those most at-risk of experiencing harm from gambling.”
We cannot stand back and allow this to continue.
Alex Cunningham
In my constituency there is one fixed odds betting terminal for every 700 people who are eligible to play them, and the vast majority are in areas of high deprivation. In Broadland, a southern constituency, there is one machine for every 18,300 people. Is that not a clear confirmation that the poor are being targeted by this empty promise of great wealth? Do we not need to do something about this?
Clive Efford
Sadly, that situation is repeated in too many places throughout the country, and it is time that the Government recognised that the problem can be dealt with only at a local level.
Clive Efford
I shall give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about how betting shops and fixed odds betting terminals are proliferating in some of our most deprived areas. We have 70 FOBTs in Brighton, Pavilion alone. Does he share my concern that some betting shops are now cutting the hourly wages of their staff, but offering them the chance to make up the loss if they can increase the profit from the machines? Is not that completely unacceptable?
Clive Efford
It is, and it flies in the face of the betting industry’s claims about how it trains its staff to deal with problem gambling, because the industry is incentivising them to encourage people to gamble more.
Mr Burrowes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his promise. A briefing from the Salvation Army says that after the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, the number of gambling addicts increased by more than 50% between 2007 and 2010—a rise of 115,000 people. What—or, more pertinently, who—is responsible for that?
Clive Efford
We could have a debate about that question itself, because there are many forms of gambling that lead people to become addicts, especially given the rise in online gambling, which has grown into a £2 billion industry over the past few years. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate who is responsible. However, we should do the appropriate research into the impact of FOBTs on problem gambling.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I understand why Government Back Benchers want to deviate from the subject, given that it is about deprivation and targeting poorer communities. There are 136 such machines in my constituency, which is double the number in its prosperous neighbouring constituencies. This is the betting industry targeting the poor.
Clive Efford
I certainly think that the machines are an example of Cameron’s Britain, where there is one rule for our constituents and another for the big businesses that run the betting shops.
Mr Sheerman
My constituency of Huddersfield has 28 bookies. In 2012, £102 million was bet and £3 million lost—that scourge just vacuums money out of our community. I actually do not agree with the motion; I think we should get rid of these iniquitous organisations.
Clive Efford
The motion addresses the concern expressed by my hon. Friend by calling for local councillors to make decisions about the economic activity that takes place in their town centres.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I admire the shadow Minister’s guile in bringing the debate before the House, but do the facts not speak for themselves? In 2000, there were no FOBTs in the UK, but by the time his party left office, there were 30,000 of them. Would not the most dangerous gamble facing the British public be if they were ever to consider voting Labour at the next general election?
Clive Efford
I will let the Conservatives in on something—the world changes. Since 2000, a £2 billion online gambling industry has emerged. The gambling industry is evolving. When we passed the 2005 Act, we made it clear that these FOBTs in betting shops were on probation and that we would keep them under review. We are saying that the time has come to deal with the situation, but this Government are refusing to do so.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservative party seems not to be taking any responsibility for things that are happening on its watch. Let me add some further evidence about deprivation—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady will be brief, but she must be heard.
Lucy Powell
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did think that the Conservatives were in government.
In my constituency, which is one of the most deprived in the country, £190 million was spent on these machines last year alone. That is more than the council spent on services in my constituency, and in one ward alone there are now 500 of these machines. What local councils need are more powers.
Clive Efford
All the examples we are hearing, including that one, show the problem of clustering.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
At the risk of paraphrasing Mrs Merton, what first attracted the multimillionaire Peter Coates, the chairman of bet365, to donate £400,000 to the Labour party, £100,000 of which was given in the 12 months after the passing of the Gambling Act 2005?
Clive Efford
Bet365 is an online gambling company and we are not dealing with that industry today. However, I will just say that Mr Coates’s company is one of the few that has stayed in the UK, that employs people in the UK and that pays taxes in the UK, which is more than can be said for Lord Ashcroft.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When we introduced the legislation that resulted in these machines, we were not aware, and could not have been aware, of these unintended consequences. Now that we are aware, we call on the Government, who have the power to act, to do something about it.
Clive Efford
Let me make a little bit of progress before I give way again.
The Government have consistently said, “Problem, what problem?” They might not be aware of the problem, but the people in our communities are and they want action. There have been numerous complaints. People talk about the crime and antisocial behaviour associated with betting shops, and about clustering and the detrimental impact on the character and diversity of our high streets. In her report on our high streets, which was commissioned by the Government in 2011, Mary Portas says:
“The influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets.”
The Government are aware of the concerns, yet they have consistently refused to give local people powers to stop new shops opening in their communities. There is widespread support from local government for what we are calling for. In 2012, when the Local Government Association commissioned an opinion poll on people’s attitudes to planning and our high streets, it found that more than two thirds—68%—of local people were against existing rules allowing betting shops to take over banks and building societies without planning permission.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Tote has its headquarters in my constituency. Is he aware that the people who feel most strongly about this are the staff who work in betting shops and see problem gambling? They are determined that there should be local powers to deal with the problem.
Clive Efford
Absolutely, and the people who represent staff in the betting industry have been vocal. There are concerns not just about the single staffing of premises and the safety of staff, but about training. To be fair, although the industry has come to the issue of training a bit late, it has started to introduce it for its staff, but it must create an environment in which it can be effective.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman help me by explaining something? How would stopping new shops prevent addictive gambling when we know that there are already so many shops out there and when in the last three years of the Labour Government, when it was known there was a problem, they did not think that anything could be done about it?
Clive Efford
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has been lured by briefings from his own side. This motion is not about problem gambling, but about giving local authorities powers to deal with the proliferation of betting shops in our high streets—for planning and economic regeneration reasons, as well as because of concerns about the social impact of fixed odds betting terminals. We are not trying to suggest that passing the motion will solve problem gambling in relation to FOBTs, and the Prime Minister was mistaken today when he answered the Leader of the Opposition’s question on that matter.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
All the evidence that has been cited, especially by the shadow Minister and Labour Members, has put paid to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that we need evidence. We need action, and we need it now.
Clive Efford
I will come on to the evidence later in my speech, as what was said about that today really needs to be clarified.
There is widespread opposition to the Government’s position on this matter. Back in 2012, when the Local Government Association published the conclusions of its opinion poll, Sir Merrick Cockell, the chairman of the LGA and former Conservative leader of Kensington and Chelsea, said:
“This opinion poll shows local people want government to give councils the powers to tackle unsightly clusters of sex shops, bookies and takeaways that can blight so many of our high streets. People want action so the places they live, work and shop can be revitalised to reflect how they want them to look and feel.”
The Government talk about localism, but they do not grant the powers even when they are asked to do so by their own colleagues.
I assume that the Government have heard of a character called Boris Johnson. He is the Mayor of London and his office issued a statement on the issue of betting shops, saying:
“They have grown in number with an increased supply of premises such as vacant banks and pubs that do not require planning permission to be used as a betting shop. Betting firms are attracted to busy high streets and town centres with a ready supply of such premises. This has resulted in clustering in less prosperous areas like Hackney, which has 64 betting shops in the borough, 8 in Mare Street alone, and Deptford”—
in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)—
“with seven betting shops on one street.”
The would-be leader of the Conservatives supports our view. His statement goes on to say:
“The Mayor proposes that betting shop operators wishing to open up a new outlet should be required to apply for planning permission for the chosen premises, which would allow proper consideration to be given to each proposal for a betting shop and its effect on individual centres.”
The Conservative chairman of the LGA and the Tory Mayor for London are both calling for the Government to act. In fact, it is hard to find anyone who supports the Government’s view. Local people want more powers, local government wants more powers and the two highest-ranking Tories in local government want the Government to act, too. Everyone seems to be in agreement except for the Government—well, except for certain parts of the Government.
We have had another Liberal Democrat pledge. The Liberal Democrats have been at it again. One might have thought that they would learn their lesson over university tuition fees, but once the flashbulbs start popping they cannot hold themselves back. They have been photographed saying “Ban the FOBTs” at the Liberal Democrat conference. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Minister for Schools, who is also a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) were all photographed backing anti-FOBT campaigners.
The Liberal Democrats also passed a motion at their conference in September. What did it call for? It said that local councillors should
“be empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”
and called for
“Betting shops to be put in a separate planning use class”.
The motion was not from some fringe group but from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am strongly opposed to FOBT machines in betting shops, but my opposition is governed by their impact on addiction and the complex interactions of addiction. The shadow Minister said that that was not part of his motion. Is he motivated at all by the addiction issue and, if he is, why did he not include it in his motion?
Clive Efford
I shall explain later my exact position on stakes and prizes, which has not changed for two years. I have consistently made my argument on stakes and prizes and I will give the hon. Gentleman a response when I come to that.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about local government, but does he recognise that there are powers available through the use of article 4 directions, which both Barking and Southwark council have chosen to use? I appreciate that they might be a bit cumbersome, but powers are available now that councils can use.
Clive Efford
If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will deal with article 4 directions.
I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is time to stop posing for photos and posturing with fine words in the motions at their conference. Lib Dem MPs are clearly confused, so let me make it clear to them: today, they are deciding whether to empower local authorities to take control of their high streets, as they said they would at their conference, and to back their councillors, the members of their party and their Chief Whip, or to vote along with the gambling industry. They have made their claims, so they should stand up for them today.
I turn to the words of the Minister, who commented on our choice of topic for the Opposition day debate. She claimed that my position contradicted the need for research. She said:
“Just a few weeks ago Clive Efford”—
that is me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is in the quote—
“said that there was no evidence to support a change in the stake and prize levels for FOBTs, yet now he is trotting out a totally contradictory line, written for him by his political masters.”
I know that the Minister has not been in the job for long, but she really ought to get a better grip on her brief, because there is nothing in the motion about stakes and prizes. She should know that early last year, in response to the triennial review of stakes and prizes, I called for changes to be made to the software of these machines, and all those changes are in the motion: longer periods between play; pop-ups to break play and to remind people how long they have been playing; requiring people to load the machines over the counter to force interaction with staff, to give staff the opportunity to interact with customers who may be gambling too much; and an end to single staffing. We have been consistent on these issues, but we have had nothing from the Government except some Lib Dems posing for photographs.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On the question of addictive gambling, my hon. Friend will know that I have raised the issue and with the help of the Daily Record exposed the fact that an active gambler in my constituency is banned from every betting shop within 10 miles, but can walk into any of those shops and play those fixed odds betting terminals. There is no one he talks to, no one vets him being there, and he gambles his wages away every week.
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and technology should be used to protect people against problem gambling. That is something else that we have consistently raised.
Clive Efford
How can I not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has so much knowledge of the gambling industry?
Philip Davies
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I ask the shadow Minister about his position on this issue, because he has always supported research by the Responsible Gambling Trust, on which his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) serves, so I am sure that he has every confidence in it? He has always said that we should wait for research, so why does he support the research but is not prepared to wait for it? Is that not a ridiculous state of affairs?
Clive Efford
I repeat: today’s motion is not about stakes and prizes. It is about empowering local authorities, which have called for powers to deal with a wide range of issues that go beyond gambling. It is about economic regeneration; it is about economic vitality and diversity in town centres; it is about the concern about the effect that the clustering of betting shops has on the character of town centres. I will deal with the research, and I will come on to it very soon if hon. Members are patient.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the motion allows local authorities to deal with the current situation in which there are far too many of these shops? Why is the motion not about the odds and the stakes, because that is the important issue?
Clive Efford
I will come on to the issue of stakes and prizes, but it is complex and it will take a great deal of time to explain. The motion calls for extra licensing powers and a change in the law. I accept that it would be difficult to introduce retrospective legislation to go back and take licences for those machines away from betting shops, but that is what is included in the motion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is calling for, he can vote with us.
Perhaps the most damning fact is the Government’s claim that councils have powers to stop the clustering of betting shops. Again in her comments on today’s debate, the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister—I am getting ahead of myself and am about 18 months too early—said:
“Councils already have planning powers to tackle the proliferation of betting shops, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems and we have already acted to ensure the industry puts in place the types of player protection measures that Labour are now, at long last, calling for.”
If that is the case, why do councils such as Newham have to go to court to try to stop more betting shops opening in their area? Why are so many local councils passing motions calling for more powers?
Sir Robin Wales, responding to the Minister’s comments yesterday, said:
“Current legislation leaves councils effectively powerless in their ability to tackle the clustering of betting outlets, which causes immeasurable harm to local communities and the high street. The only planning power available to councils (an Article 4 direction) is unwieldy and slow, and some betting shops don’t even require planning permission to open.”
In 2004, Sir Merrick Cockell described article 4 directions as “unwieldy and bureaucratic”. The Local Government Association’s view of article 4 powers in the same year was equally negative:
“Article 4 directions are costly and complex to use. Local authorities need to give notice of the restrictions coming into effect for a year to avoid being at risk of paying compensation. This is an obvious disincentive to the widespread use of Article 4 directions by local planning authorities, which undermines the effectiveness of this measure. Article 4 directions can also only be used across a whole use class—meaning they cannot even be used when a bank becomes a betting shop.”
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Government seem to object to this simple proposal, which would give local authorities more powers to decide whether to allow fixed odds betting terminals, which is something that local authorities want? It is not a controversial proposal, so I am surprised that the Government object to it.
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives claim to be the party of localism, but they do nothing to encourage it.
Clive Efford
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, because many Members wish to speak. [Interruption.] I know that what I have to say is upsetting for Government Members, but I am afraid that they will have to hear it all.
The Minister will no doubt say in her response that that is all Labour’s fault. In fact, she has already said just that:
“Any concerns about fixed odds betting machines should be laid firmly at Labour’s door. In 2000, these machines did not exist—by the time of the last general election there were over 30,000.”
FOBTs appeared in betting shops in 2001. In 2005 we limited them to four per shop. The Secretary of State at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), set out on Second Reading of the Gambling Act 2005 that the impact of the machines would be reviewed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) made it clear in 2009 that he would do just that. It is no good going back to 2005, because the world has moved on. Online gambling has grown from nothing into a £2 billion-a-year industry. The Government rejected our proposals to regulate that, so we will take no lessons from them.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I did call for FOBTs to be looked at again in 2009, but I also called for the industry to provide £5 million for the Responsible Gambling Trust, which looks at problem gambling. I hope that my hon. Friend admires the work being done by the trust, a charity that has five independent directors and five from the industry.
Clive Efford
Absolutely. There are eminent people in the Responsible Gambling Trust and I endorse what my hon. Friend says, but I do have something to say about the research.
The concerns about FOBTs and the impact that betting shops have on our communities are not just about gambling. We will wait for proper research, but the Minister needs to understand that saying that we will wait for the research and then doing nothing to gather the information that we need to make informed decisions is just not good enough. After all, this Government scrapped the gambling prevalence survey. Let me quote again from her press release:
“This Government is undertaking the biggest ever study into the effect of these machines and have made clear that we will not hesitate to take action if the evidence points in that direction. To act without evidence is inappropriate and extraordinarily cynical, even by Labour’s standards.”
The Government are deluding themselves if they think that all the answers will come from the current study. In December, NatCen published a scoping report that states:
“Across the category B estate in Great Britain, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the level and type of data collected.”
That will seriously undermine the ability of the Responsible Gambling Trust to give us the information we need to make informed decisions when the research is completed next autumn. As the Minister well knows, the report will come out six months away from a general election, yet it will be inconclusive because the data are not robust enough to allow us to make informed decisions on FOBTs.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Labour’s motion says that local authorities should have the power to license the number of FOBTs in existing betting shops. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that would allow a local authority to increase the number per shop on the high street today?
Clive Efford
No, because we would not allow the cap to extend beyond four per shop.
Clive Efford
The motion says that local authorities would have to limit the number. We certainly would not lift the cap.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
On the powers that the shadow Minister is seeking for local authorities, would he have those powers made retrospective so that local authorities can remove planning permission for existing betting shops?
Clive Efford
No. We are saying that we would place betting shops in their own category so that local councils would have to receive a planning application if someone wanted to open a new betting shop.
Today’s vote is not about stakes and prizes; it is about putting power back in the hands of local communities and the councillors who represent them. Taking decisions in the face of opposition from the betting industry will be tough for local councillors, particularly when it comes to removing existing machines. I happen to believe passionately in local democracy; I spent 12 years as a locally elected councillor. I believe that well-informed local councillors are capable of making important decisions that benefit their communities, and that, too often, we here in Westminster have tied the hands of locally elected representatives. It is time to put local people before the vested interests of the powerful betting industry. We should put our trust in local democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before I call the Minister to move the amendment, it might be helpful for the House to know that I am obliged to put a limit of four minutes on the length of speeches by Back Benchers because there is a very considerable demand for time to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I beg to move an amendment to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“understands the public concerns around fixed odds betting terminals regulated by the Gambling Act 2005; notes that the Government has made clear that it considers the future of B2 regulation to be unresolved; welcomes the Government-backed research into the effect of fixed odds betting terminals on problem gambling; believes that any development in the Government’s policy on this matter should be evidence-led; calls upon the betting industry to provide the data required for a proper understanding of the impact of fixed odds betting terminals; and further notes that local authorities already have planning powers to tackle localised problems and target specific areas where the cumulative impact of betting shops or other specific types of premises might be problematic, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems.
I find it remarkable that we are all here having this debate today. I remind the House that fixed odds betting terminals did not exist 17 years ago, but then the Labour Government came to power, liberalisation began, and the Gambling Act 2005 came about. By the time of the last general election more than 30,000 fixed odds betting terminals were in existence. Yet we find ourselves debating what this Government should do about them—discussing, again, how we should clear up Labour’s mess. That shows rank hypocrisy, total cynicism, and great opportunism.
Yes, I do think these machines are concerning, but the silence of Labour Members on this topic before they ended up in opposition was quite deafening. They brought these machines into being, yet they have the audacity to sit here with a motion that seeks to blame this Government for any harm the machines might cause.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I am very clear that the mess was created by the previous Government and I do not accept excuses about not knowing the likely consequences. However, we seem to have the solution in our hands in the form of the Localism Act 2011. Would it not be possible to empower our local communities, through their local elected representatives, to use, for example, saturation as a reason for saying that they really cannot sustain any more?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The hon. Lady accuses Labour of cynicism and opportunism, but cynicism and opportunism are the besetting sins of politicians. What my constituents want to know is: what are we as a House going to do about the betting shop scourge? One of the main roads in Hackney—Mare street—has eight betting shops full of these machines. Something must be done.
Mrs Grant
I can see that the hon. Lady is concerned. If she bears with me, I will explain exactly what this Government are doing. This is the Government who have pushed for the research, who are doing the research and who are actually pushing the industry to provide the data we need to tackle problem gambling. Before I deal with the hon. Lady’s point, I want to tell the House what the Government are doing in a little more detail.
This Government conducted a review last year of gaming machine stake and prize limits and looked very closely at the available evidence on fixed odds betting terminals. In particular, our review looked at evidence to support claims that these machines present an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. The review found that there are real concerns about fixed odds betting terminals and that some players have experienced considerable harm in using them. This Government therefore concluded that the future of these machines is unresolved, and we are undertaking urgent work to establish how they can be made safer, especially to those individuals who may be at greatest risk.
Alex Cunningham
I agree with the Minister that we have learned a lot from the introduction of these terminals. BBC Tees today highlighted the fact that a 17-year-old boy is already addicted to them. His is just one of many lives that are being damaged, yet the betting industry seems to think it is okay to have single-person staffing without any support in its betting shops. Does that not illustrate that it is putting profit before the interests of the people it calls its customers?
Mrs Grant
No, I do not accept that. The Gambling Commission, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, has a requirement that under-age individuals are not allowed to gamble in licensed betting shops. Obviously, if the rules and conditions are breached, the operator is at risk of losing their licence. I will develop that argument further and say a little more about staffing and security numbers as I progress.
The motion raises a wide range of issues, but fails completely to focus on the evidence and activity that is well under way. In order to make appropriate decisions about fixed odds betting terminals, we need better to understand how they are used and the real impact on players. That is why the UK is conducting the largest ever programmes of research into gaming machine usage.
The Opposition acknowledge—notwithstanding what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), said in his opening speech—that there is insufficient evidence to support a reduction in stakes and prizes. That is why we have focused our attention on improving the evidence base, so that we can determine whether a reduction in speed of play or a reduction in maximum stake will make the machines safer.
Mr Spencer
I was taught at an early age that the only thing anyone needs to know about the bookies is that there are four windows to pay in and one window that pays out. Surely education is one of the solutions to this problem. Will the Minister assure the House that she will do all she can to make sure that the gaming industry does what it can to educate its customers?
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am carefully following what she is saying. Will she explain how—no matter how much care is exercised and what change might happen—areas of real multiple deprivation, such as my constituency, have so many betting shops with terminals, while wealthy areas do not? There is an absolute contrast, and our case is that the industry is targeting areas such as mine. Does she deny that, or not?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but the location of betting premises and shops is to do with footfall, not deprivation. It is simply a matter of supply and demand.
The Government are in no doubt that there is scope for the industry to improve its ability to identify people who might be at risk and to intervene early to minimise harm. That is why we have demanded that the industry introduce better player protection measures.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept the point made so forcefully by Mary Portas that the prevalence of betting shops, particularly in deprived areas, has a very damaging effect on retail centres?
Mrs Grant
We have of course looked carefully at the Portas review. We fed into the review, and the Government response made the point that article 4 directions exist and can be used by local authorities, in addition to the local authority licensing conditions that were recently used very successfully by Newham.
Andrew Percy
May I go back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)? Is not the real reason that those betting premises are in her constituency the legislation for which she probably voted? Under the legislation, when a local councillor faces an application for a premises licence, the operator will already have received an operating licence from the Gambling Commission. With its three very strictly limited objectives, the legislation simply does not allow local councillors in her constituency to reject a premises licence application.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, but I think that the Labour party’s motion is cynical and opportunistic, given recent history. Does the Minister not think that the Government’s case would be much more compelling if they were prepared to observe the precautionary principle of looking at the £100-a-spin game before the demonstrable empirical evidence is published in the autumn, particularly in respect of the impact on vulnerable people?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister has indicated that she is not giving way at this stage. Hon. Members must allow her to continue her speech and listen to her.
Mrs Grant
I think that I have been pretty generous so far. I want to make a little progress and then I will take more interventions.
On player protection, I have been consistently clear that the onus is on the betting industry immediately to develop and implement harm mitigation measures, and to make data available for independent research. I met the chief executives of the five largest UK bookmakers in December, and I challenged them to develop a plan by the end of January to link players with play in a way that allows us better to understand player behaviour and to assess the effectiveness of harm mitigation measures. That could include much more extensive use of card-based play on gaming machines to track player behaviour more systematically. I am not prepared, however, to delay taking action while we await research outcomes or industry plans to be developed. For that reason, I have challenged the industry to press ahead with its social responsibility code and to implement precautionary player protection measures at the earliest possible opportunity.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the research will include player behaviour analysis, which has been opposed by the industry? Indeed, it did not allow the university of Cambridge to take that forward. Such analysis is crucial to an understanding of how the machine and the player interact.
Mrs Grant
I can confirm that.
The precautionary player protection measures include the implementation by March 2014 of suspensions in play when voluntary limits are reached, automatic alerts when customers have been playing for 30 minutes or when a certain amount of money has been spent, enhanced responsible gambling messaging, and a considerably improved and expanded system of voluntary self-exclusion, which will make it much easier for players to exclude themselves from multiple gambling premises.
I do not accept the accusation that those measures are unsatisfactory because the code is not mandatory. I have made it clear that if the industry does not make sufficient progress in implementing those measures or if it cannot demonstrate to me that they have been effective, the Government may act on a precautionary basis anyway. Additionally, the implementation of those measures does not preclude further action at any point, should it become necessary.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
A major bookmaker in my constituency has just retired, so he is more honest than most. He tells me that this kind of gambling is like cocaine—it is totally and absolutely addictive. There are examples of that. A man wins £13,000 in the morning, but he is allowed to play until 8 o’clock in the evening and he loses every penny that he has won. That is how addictive it is. This problem is polluting our high streets. Shops are disappearing and in their place, we are getting bookmakers. This is a ridiculous situation and a decision is needed sooner rather than later.
Mrs Grant
That is why there is no green light for fixed odds betting terminals. Their future is absolutely unresolved, pending the research that we have started.
The Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research to better understand how people behave when playing on gaming machines and what helps people to play responsibly. It is the largest piece of academic research that has ever been undertaken on the issue. It aims to understand patterns of gaming behaviour and to identify when there is robust evidence that consumers may be experiencing problems.
Philip Davies
Will the Minister confirm that the bookmakers have provided all the information that she has asked for? If that is not the case, will she set out what information she would like from the bookmakers that they have not provided her with?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need the information from the bookmakers. That is one reason why I met the big five bookmakers in December. They have indicated that they will provide the data we need. To make sure that they do provide the data, a further meeting has been set up with them for 30 January.
I met the Responsible Gambling Trust in December and pressed it to make progress with the research programme. I emphasised to it the importance of obtaining tangible research outcomes by the autumn of 2014. I am clear that the industry must rapidly share data to allow the research aims to be met within the required timetable.
Mr Sutcliffe
I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the work of the Responsible Gambling Trust, which is made up of five independent members and five members from the industry. Will she condemn the attacks that have been made on the Responsible Gambling Trust by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, which is rubbishing any work that comes from the trust?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
In December, the public health survey looked at this issue for the first time. It stated:
“Among both men and women, there was no difference in gambling prevalence by area deprivation, once age was accounted for.”
That was true except among people in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation, who were more likely to participate in bingo. There is further analysis relating to FOBTs and quintile four. However, the most recent data that we have show that, in essence, there is no difference by area.
Mrs Grant
That is an interesting and important point, and I believe that that piece of work also indicated that levels of problem gambling had fallen from just below 1% to just below 0.5%. Notwithstanding the drop in the number of problem gamblers, the Government are concerned about any level of problem gambling and will, of course, urge the industry—as we are doing—to make real and proper progress on that matter.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
The Minister is arguing that there is a serious problem, and she keeps wagging her finger at Labour Members and saying it is our fault. [Interruption.] Listen for a moment. She seems to acknowledge that there is a serious problem, so will her Government legislate to address the problem before the next general election?
Mrs Grant
We believe in doing things properly. We are waiting for the research and have put pressure on the industry to produce the data. Reports will be coming out imminently, and precautionary protections will be put in place by the industry at the end of March. We will do whatever is needed to ensure that people are protected. Although planning is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, my officials are in regular discussion with colleagues from that Department about betting shop clustering.
Mrs Grant
No, I will not; I am going to make some progress and I think I have been generous.
Changes to the national planning system are not the answer to local problems. Local authorities already have a range of powers available regarding betting shops, and a local planning authority can consult and make an article 4 direction that removes permitted development rights, where it considers that necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of an area. The London boroughs of Southwark and of Barking and Dagenham have brought forward article 4 directions, thus requiring a planning application for any new betting shops. That will enable them to consider the application against their local plan. The betting shop must also comply with its licensing conditions, and where those are breached, the local licensing authority has power to intervene, including removing the licence to operate.
As we have heard, the motion before us calls for local communities to ban gaming machines in their areas. The Government agree that responsibility for managing high streets should rest with local areas, but the truth is that local authorities already have powers to control gambling premises in their areas. Local authorities have power to reject an application for a gambling premises licence, or to grant one with additional conditions should that be necessary. They have power to review licences after they have been granted, and to impose licence conditions after review. Many local authorities have already used those powers to good effect. For example, in November 2013, the London borough of Newham—which has been mentioned this afternoon—imposed conditions on a betting shop because of its concerns about crime, disorder and under-age gambling. The conditions stipulate that a minimum of two members of staff must be on duty throughout the day. Additionally, the betting shop must carry out an undercover, under-age test purchase to ensure that minors are not gambling, and it must send the results to the council and the police.
The Government believe it is right for the industry, in conjunction with local authorities, to agree on the appropriate level of staffing in betting shops, depending on the circumstances of the local area. Local authorities already have powers to ensure a minimum level of staffing where appropriate. The Government urge local authorities to fully utilise powers at their disposal to limit the number of betting shops in line with local demand, and to apply appropriate licensing conditions where they have cause to tackle issues of problem gambling in local communities. Adopting the motion would lead to a patchwork of regulation right across the country where it is okay for gaming machines to be located in some areas but not in others. I do not believe that that is the right way forward. The industry must instead introduce better targeted and more effective player protection for users of gaming machines in all locations.
Player protection is at the heart of the Government’s approach to fixed odds betting terminals. I have made it clear to the industry that it must urgently develop targeted player protection measures for those players who are at greatest risk. I do not believe that the motion can achieve such an outcome. However, I do not rule out any action that may be necessary to make machines safer. I am clear that if the betting industry fails to deliver on its commitment to implement enhanced player protection measures by March 2014, and does not share data for independent research, and if the balance of the evidence suggests precautionary action on stakes and prizes or other measures are required, the Government will not hesitate to act.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
If one crosses Barking road from East Ham town hall to go into East Ham High street north, there is a Paddy Power on the corner at 387 Barking road, a Betfred just around the corner at No. 6, and two more Paddy Powers at 20 High street north and directly opposite at No. 11. At No. 56 is a Jenningsbet and, set back in Clements road directly opposite No. 45, there is a Coral. In the short walk along the high street to East Ham station, there are two more Betfreds, another Paddy Power, a Ladbrokes and a William Hill, which was the subject of the licensing committee meeting in November to which the Minister referred. On the other side of the station, there are two more Paddy Powers and a Ladbrokes.
I think that represents a concentration. It is certainly related to the economic character of the area and not simply a question of footfall. All those shops open at 7.30 or 8 in the morning. They stay open until 10 o’clock at night seven days a week, and one of them has just asked for permission to stay open till 11pm. I would be very grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the measures she is discussing with the industry will be taken up by organisations such as Paddy Power and Betfred, which account for such a large number of the recently opened shops in our area.
Andrew Gwynne
It seemed that the Minister was not aware that the Local Government Association said that article 4 directives were not sufficient to prevent the proliferation of betting shops on the high street. Is that not precisely why we need to reclassify betting shops out of the A2 classification so that situations such as the one on my right hon. Friend’s high street are not able to continue?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly the view of Conservative local authorities and, as we have heard, of the Mayor of London. I think it would also be the view across the House, were it to be tested.
To gauge public opinion when there was an application for two more Paddy Power branches last year, I held a drop-in surgery at a local community centre in my constituency. One person who came in was a former Paddy Power manager. He said that he had seen a large number of families destroyed and businesses ruined, as well as students who gambled away their student loans. He told me that by spending a day in a Paddy Power shop, one would meet half a dozen people whose lives had been destroyed by their addiction.
Last year, when Newham council refused a licence for two new Paddy Power branches, the organisation appealed. Impressed by the phalanx of sharp lawyers—and, I have to say, sold-out former police officers—who appeared, the judge duly nodded the appeal through. The truth is that existing planning and licensing powers are hopelessly inadequate, as my hon. Friend said, and need to be strengthened in the way laid out in the motion. The claim in the Government’s amendment that local authorities already have enough powers is simply not the case.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Bellshill’s small main street has seven of these premises. The local council, North Lanarkshire, supported by Bellshill community council, turned one application down, only for the Scottish Government to use their powers to overrule it, so how can it be said that local authorities have these powers?
Stephen Timms
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Government planning inspectors in England routinely overturn refusals, so the powers are inadequate. We have 87 of these shops in my borough. I think that there were nine new ones in 2011 and a similar number in 2012, which shows the scale of the problem. To underline the point, in the Paddy Power case in Newham, the judge awarded costs against the council to punish it and warn others against thinking of challenging this growth. The council was using the powers mentioned in the Government’s amendment, so those powers are clearly inadequate.
I was grateful to the Minister for acknowledging my point about Mary Portas’s review. I think she said that she agreed with Mary Portas, so why are the Government not going to act? One of the people who came to my constituency drop-in was the owner of commercial properties on East Ham high street. Frankly, he has a guilty conscience about letting his properties to betting shops, but he made the point that betting chains paid more than anyone else to occupy the units. They are very attractive tenants and, by extracting huge sums from people who cannot afford it, they are making money hand over fist. The law needs to change urgently to deal with the problem.
As the Minister said, there has recently been modest success in East Ham. The William Hill opposite East Ham station has been a magnet for drunken antisocial behaviour for a long time. After it allowed a 15-year-old to use its machines, an application was made to revoke its licence. There was the usual phalanx of lawyers and former police officers, but the upshot was that the council committee required the company to make some improvements. Among other things—I am pleased that this point has been picked up in the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)—the bookmaker was required to have at least two members of staff present whenever it was open, instead of the usual one. As far as I can tell, however, there is only ever one member of staff in the other betting shops on the high street. I understand that this is the first time such a condition has been applied and accepted by a bookmaker, and I hope that our motion suggests that that will be a precedent for elsewhere.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that many of these employees do not have much training in dealing with problem gamblers? Despite what the industry says, many staff are given a job and then start work straightaway.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right. In any case, these members of staff are one person on their own in one of these shops, many of which are quite big. They are sitting behind a glass screen, so what are they supposed to do if there is someone with a problem in the shop? There are often fights outside. Interestingly, Community, on behalf of its members working in betting shops, has supported our very good motion, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the debate as an opportunity to bring some light to the subject, rather than the large amount of smoke that has obscured it so far, but that might be a statement of hope rather than experience.
It is important to bring some perspective to the debate. Gambling is a legitimate activity that brings considerable pleasure to millions of people in this country, that generates a lot of economic activity and that provides employment and tax revenue for the Government. Betting shops are not a blight on the high street; they are regulated and controlled environments that provide employment and, in some cases, a social benefit.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says that gambling raises revenue for the Government, but in actual fact the Government receive about £3 billion a year in revenue and the profit on fixed odds betting terminals is about £1.5 billion. It costs the state £3.6 billion to deal with problem gamblers, so does that not suggest that this is bad economics?
Mr Whittingdale
I shall come on to problem gambling, but it is a myth to suggest that that is entirely a result of FOBTs. There is a difficulty due to problem gambling, and a small number of people suffer from addiction—of course they need some protection. It has always been a principle that the harder forms of gambling are permitted in more controlled environments. To that extent, it was something of an anomaly that the previous Government allowed B2 machines on the high street while there were restrictions on those machines in adult gaming centres and casinos. It was ironic, too, that the previous Government wanted to introduce category A gaming machines, for which there were no limits on stakes or prizes, in super-casinos. Perhaps those anomalies should have been addressed. That was why, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at the problem, we recommended allowing up to 20 B2 machines in casinos and some B2 machines in adult gaming centres.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is all very well restricting stakes and prizes in betting shops, there is nothing to stop the people involved going back home where they can play exactly the same games on the internet with unlimited stakes and unlimited prizes?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I was going to come on to that point.
The latest statistics in the English health survey show that something like 0.5% of the population might be suffering from problem gambling, which represents a drop from the previous figure in the gambling prevalence study.
Mr Whittingdale
I am sorry, but I have very little time, so I shall have to continue.
Although that figure might have fallen and although only a small number of people are involved, I accept of course that those people still need protection, which was why the Select Committee looked at various technologies that might help to address the problem. We looked at self-exclusion, taking periods of rest between playing machines and mandatory pre-commitment. We should consider such measures, but before taking any action, it is important that we act on the evidence. That was why we recommended that more research should be conducted so that we could establish whether B2 machines presented any greater risk of attracting problem gamblers than other types of machine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out, the strongest growth in gambling is taking place online, but there are far fewer controls online for people who have a problem. It is much more difficult to verify someone’s age online and for someone to self-exclude.
Mr Whittingdale
I am sorry, but there are strict time limits on speeches, so I want to press on. I have explained why I believe that we need much more research.
The issue of clustering has been raised, too, and it was also recognised by the Select Committee. We recommended, although this was widely misinterpreted, that there should be some flexibility for local authorities so that if it could be shown that a large number of betting shops had opened to get around the limit of four machines in a shop, one solution might be to allow local authorities to permit more machines in individual betting shops precisely to stop more shops opening. We suggested that such flexibility should be applied in an upward rather than a downward direction.
I support localism, but the problem with the Opposition’s motion is that, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) confirmed, the proposal would not be retrospective. It would apply only to new shops, so he would not seek to close existing betting shops on the high street.
Mr Whittingdale
I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to clarify his position.
Clive Efford
The licensing powers relating to the machines could be retrospective. The number of machines per shop could be reduced.
Mr Whittingdale
But the hon. Gentleman is not proposing to revoke the existing permissions for shops that are currently on the high street, so what he suggests would not be likely to make any great difference. It would act as an anti-competitive measure that would benefit the people currently operating on the high street and prevent new entrants from coming into the market. Generally, that would be detrimental to consumers.
The Select Committee’s overall conclusion was that before we take action in this area, we need much more research. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is a member of the Responsible Gambling Trust, pointed out that a thorough study is under way, with a report due in the near future. The Opposition’s motion pre-empts the work that the trust is doing and draws conclusions before we have even seen the results of its research. That is completely the wrong way round, and it is for that reason, in line with what the Select Committee recommended, that I shall support the Government’s amendment and not the Opposition’s motion.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a happy new year to you.
I was extremely heartened to hear the Prime Minister express concern about the prevalence of fixed odds betting terminals from the Dispatch Box for the second time earlier today, because the issue is of concern to Members on both sides of the House. This is a new technology linked to high-stake gambling. It seems to me that there is a clear remedy, namely to banish the machines from the high street, or else to reduce the stakes significantly from £100 to £2, which would in effect turn them into the old-style arcade fruit machines that we probably all remember from childhood. However, that approach has not yet found favour, and I think that the next best solution is offered by the Opposition’s motion.
I have time to focus on only one issue, namely how we commission, fund and respond to research in the context of public policy. I want to caution the Minister: I think it is a little foolhardy to set so much store by the findings of a report that is the outcome of a complex set of arrangements that make it hard for allegations of too much influence from vested interests to be overcome.
The problem for the Government and the House is this. We are awaiting the findings of a study that is intended to establish what harm is being caused to individual players. Those findings are due to be published later this year by the Responsible Gambling Trust, which is funded by a voluntary levy on the gambling industry and chaired by a former industry executive. The gambling industry should not be seen to have influence over a body that is, in effect, conducting research on itself.
In 2008, the Gambling Commission recommended a tripartite structure for research, education and treatment. The commission argued that if those programmes were to be funded voluntarily, it was essential for strategy, fundraising and commissioning to be run by separate bodies so that a conflict of interest could be avoided. Otherwise the industry, as the sole funder, might have influence over what research was commissioned.
Mr Sutcliffe
As my hon. Friend says, at that time it was difficult to bring together various bodies to fund research, education and treatment for problem gamblers. The NHS does not fund such programmes, and the Responsible Gambling Trust provided the best possible deal at the time. What I find regrettable is that the Campaign for Fairer Gambling should attack the integrity of that individual body of research on gambling, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not do the same now.
Mr Watson
I am going to attack the arrangements, although I am not decrying my hon. Friend. One can choose whether to work within the system to improve things or to try to influence them from outside, and we have taken a different path in that regard, but I am sure that our policy goals are the same.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that much of the anecdotal and experiential evidence is very clear, and that it is really a question of whether the Government are prepared to take on vested interests? Time and again, when that question is put to them, their answer is no, they are not.
Mr Watson
I do think that there is a timidity when it comes to the big gambling lobby. In my view, it is hard not to conclude that the complex relationships that I have described constitute an attempt to hide the influence of the industry on public policy. Whatever the outcome of today’s debate and whatever action we take on FOBTs in the future, the current arrangements for the commissioning of research require decisive modernisation.
The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board was set up to recommend strategic objectives to the commissioning body, which at the time was the Responsible Gambling Fund. A body called the Gambling Research Education and Treatment Foundation, popularly known as GREaT, took over fundraising. It was headed by Neil Goulden, who was the chief executive officer of Coral and is now the chair of the Association of British Bookmakers. Subsequently, trustees from the Responsible Gambling Fund resigned as they felt the fundraising body had too much influence over what research was to be commissioned. So that is a concern, and I think it is one we should all address.
Mr Watson
I am sorry, but I cannot take another intervention as I am running out of time.
There is also a revolving-door policy with some of the regulators. There is a guy called Andrew Lyman who now works for William Hill and is a rather truculent tweeter. He used to work for the commission when it stressed the importance of separating fundraising from commissioning and research, and now he works for William Hill lobbying against that. So I think there is an inherent conflict of interest in the system that we have put in place and I hope that when the Minister responds to this discussion, she will be able to answer this question: how can the House have confidence in a report when we cannot be confident that it is truly independent?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I once again refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In the limited time available I want to just dispel some myths, but I shall start by saying it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), my former sparring partner on the Select Committee. However, I should point out that at the time the Committee carried out its report into gambling, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee but I do not think he turned up to any of the sessions. Perhaps if he was so concerned about this issue he might have turned up and listened to some of the evidence because he might have learned something as a result.
Mr Watson
I apologise for not turning up. There was another vested interest that I had a personal interest in at the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but when that debate was going on I thought to myself that not even the hon. Gentleman would be dumb enough to ask for more FOBTs in bookies rather than fewer. I was wrong.
Philip Davies
If the hon. Gentleman had actually turned up, he would have known the report was unanimously supported by all members including members of the Labour party.
The first myth I want to dispel is that there has been an explosion in the number of betting offices and machines. The number of betting offices has actually declined from a peak of 14,750 in the mid-1970s to around 8,700 today and that figure has been virtually the same for the last 10 years. FOBTs—B2 machines—are also in decline: according to the Gambling Commission 4% of adults played them in 2010 and the figure dropped to 3.4% in 2011-12, and in 2013 all bookmakers reported a decline in the gross win from FOBTs.
Even in areas considered to have huge numbers of bookmakers—for example Hackney—they make up about 2.7% of all retail units. Let us take Greenwich as an example of what has happened. The number of bookmakers has gone up in Greenwich by 8% at the same time as the population in Greenwich has increased by 13%. Of course bookmakers are often in densely populated areas and some of them happen to be poorer areas, too, but the relevant fact is that they are in densely populated areas not poorer areas.
Stephen Timms
There are 12 bookmakers in the short stretch of East Ham high street between East Ham town hall and East Ham station. There has never been anything like such a large number in that small area before. Something dramatic has changed and it needs to be fixed.
Philip Davies
The right hon. Gentleman says that, but many of his constituents work in them, of course, and many of his constituents enjoy going into them. If they did not enjoy going into them, they would not be open.
It is true that more bookmakers have moved on to the high street in recent years, but their overall number has not gone up; instead they have moved from the side streets owing to lower rents because of the recession largely caused by the Labour party, and they will probably move back on to the side streets when the economy recovers and rents on the high street go back up.
Anyway, where are the legions of retailers wanting to open up on the high street in place of bookmakers? It is not a decision between having Next on the high street or William Hill or having M&S on the high street or Paddy Power. It is a choice between having Ladbrokes on the high street or a boarded-up shop.
Philip Davies
I cannot give way again as I have taken the two interventions allowed.
People ask for a demand test and there is a demand test: it is called a customer demand test, which is the ultimate demand test.
The second myth is that bookmakers target poorer areas. There are two bookmakers per square mile in the most deprived areas. That compares with nine pubs and 11 takeaways. If the Opposition are saying that bookmakers are targeting the poorest people in society, what do they have to say about pubs and takeaways targeting those people? Do we hear anything about that? We do not, because this is not about the poorest in society being targeted; it is about people who are anti-gambling and anti-bookmaker. Bookmakers are not targeting poorer areas. This is about middle-class people being patronising towards working-class people by telling them that they know best how they should spend their money.
The third myth is that the machines are used by the poorest people. Again, that is untrue. The health survey published in recent months shows that gambling prevalence was highest in the top quintiles of household income, with 6% of people in the highest income quintile playing FOBTs, compared with 4% in the lowest quintile. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East said that he did not want surveys to be linked to the gambling industry, but this is the health survey, which has nothing to do with the gambling industry. That survey makes it clear that richer people are much more likely than poorer people to play FOBTs.
Only two gambling activities in that health survey were engaged in more by poorer people than by richer people. They were scratch cards and bingo. Poorer people spend more on scratch cards and bingo than do the richest people. What are the Opposition saying about scratch cards and bingo? Nothing, because they do not think that it would be popular to say anything about them. This is just a case of crocodile tears.
Philip Davies
I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very good man on these issues, but I am afraid that time does not allow me to do so.
The fourth myth is that the amount of problem gambling is going up. The health survey shows that, according to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, 0.8% of men and 0.2% of women were identified as problem gamblers in 2012. That is down from 0.9% in the previous prevalence study. So problem gambling is going down, not up. If B2s and FOBTs were the cause of such problem gambling, it would presumably have gone through the roof in recent years, but it has actually gone down.
We often hear FOBTs being described as the “crack cocaine of gambling”, but by whom? No one impartial describes them in that way. The first recorded instance is Donald Trump describing video keno games in New Jersey as the “crack cocaine of gambling”, because he feared that they would keep people out of his casinos. This is a ridiculous debate on a ridiculous premise, and I cannot possibly support the Opposition motion today.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us on both sides of the House who represent poor and working-class constituents can see the effect that these machines are having on lives and families, and their impact on our inner towns and cities, especially where a proliferation of betting shops provides an opportunity to play the machines, or where category B1 and B2 machines are to be found in clubs. Any Labour Members who attend trade union and labour clubs, and any Government Members who attend political and sports clubs, will regularly see people pouring hundreds of pounds into these machines, while often getting very little back.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just said, it cannot be a coincidence that bookies in the top 50 unemployment black spots profited from FOBTs to the tune of £173 million last year, while those in the 50 lowest unemployment areas made a profit of only £44 million? Does not that illustrate my hon. Friend’s point?
Mark Hendrick
It does, and I commend my hon. Friend for his comment. These machines disproportionately affect those who live in poorer, working-class areas.
The problem of the B1 and B2 machines is highly pervasive. If someone in a club is drinking too much and clearly has an addiction or a drinking problem, they are often asked to leave. If they become a problem customer, they are shown the door. However, problem gamblers pouring money into machines are not warned that their gambling is excessive. In fact, they are encouraged by the fact that the machines are placed next to the bar, so that any change put across the bar is put into the machine as quickly as possible. Additionally, a person may be drinking at the bar, and a machine next to the bar offers a comfortable place to park a drink while using the machine. The companies that provide gaming machines to clubs, pubs and bookmakers use all sorts of techniques to maximise profits from the machines.
The Gambling Commission does not license pubs, clubs, working men’s clubs or family entertainment centres operating under a local authority permit. The Government claim that the commission does not collect data for those businesses. That is their explanation for not having sufficient data to deal with an obvious problem. The fact that data on those businesses are not collected does not necessarily mean that the Government cannot publish a report or carry out an inquiry to get such information. If society has a problem with gambling, it is the Government’s job to get to the bottom of it, not just to pass enabling legislation to make limits even higher. FOBTs allow almost unlimited winnings, as well as huge losses. Given the technology that the multibillion-pound gambling industry is using in this day and age, it beggars belief that it cannot collate the information that will allow the Government to make informed decisions about what the limits should be, and about how machines should operate, where they should operate and at what times of the day. If anything, I believe that there is a deliberate attempt by the industry to cover up what is happening. The impact assessment does not give us a true overall picture of the situation.
Communities are becoming poorer. We have heard from the Government about an increase in employment, but there has been a large increase in part-time employment, and low pay is the problem it always was. Poor people are being drawn in initially to try to make money for essentials, rather than just coming along for amusement, and are then getting drawn into habitual gambling, which we are all seeing on our high streets. People know what is happening with high-stake, fixed-odds machines. The Government know what is happening, but they have deliberately chosen not to take action and to kick this into the long grass. They are in fact helping the industry by increasing the limits in the way they have. We know what is happening with Wonga and payday loans. We know what austerity is doing to poor and unemployed people, and people on low incomes. People are trying to get money from any source, and gambling seems like a quick fix, and it is much more prevalent than it used to be. I have seen in my own town of Preston a huge increase in the number of betting shops and bookies. Payday loan businesses are taking over premises that were once shops, and reputable companies and businesses as well.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has talked about the accumulation of data, and the Government say that they wish to look at the data before they make any judgment. He identified the fact that the data we are seeing every day with our own eyes are telling us the truth, which is that these things are increasing day upon day on our high streets.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend is right, and it does not take a genius to see what is going on; we are all seeing it every day on our own streets with our own eyes. Poor and unemployed people, who have been hit by austerity measures, are being drawn to the clubs and bookies to use these machines on a scale that has never been seen before. The current limit of four FOBTs should remain the limit, and local authorities should be given the powers outlined in our motion, which I ask hon. Members to support.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. I served on the Select Committee when it investigated this issue between 2011 and 2012. It was a useful inquiry to undertake several years after the Gambling Act 2005, because although, as has been said, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, one role of Select Committees and of legislators is to step back and ensure that we are looking at the real data, as opposed to other people’s interpretations of them.
Let us have a bit of a history lesson. FOBTs appeared in high street bookmakers’ shops in the early 2000s, and, after a code of conduct was agreed with the industry, restrictions were put in place: the game type was restricted to only roulette; a cap was put in place on the stakes and prices; a minimum time interval between bets was introduced; and a limit was put in place on the number of machines per shop. That was a useful compromise, but the whole point of reviewing legislation is to see whether there have been any unintended consequences. One of the most obvious unintended consequences has been mentioned by many hon. Members: as the machines are popular and there is a demand for them, what we have been seeing in high streets in different parts of the country is that more and more betting shops are appearing. That may be partly due to the fact that premises are readily available. There have been mergers of various banks and building societies, which are in the same planning class as betting shops. Ultimately, those shops would not open if people did not want to use them.
Graham Jones
Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Government have not mentioned the survey that 2CV did in Newham, which is a reputable data gathering company? She talked about how folk go into these premises and are addicted to these machines. The survey, which questioned 500 customers as they left betting premises, revealed that 62% admitted to spending every last penny in their pockets and leaving the shop only when all their money had been spent.
Dr Coffey
I think I have seen that survey. It was commissioned by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. I do not deny that that was the outcome. Professor Orford, who is known to be anti-gambling, gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that we are the most studied country in the world, with three public prevalence surveys since 2000 and even more public health research. Despite that, our Committee was not able to substantiate the fact that gambling addiction is driven by fixed odds betting terminals.
Philip Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware that about 160 illegal machines were confiscated in the south-east last year? Does she agree that if FOBTs were banned, as the Opposition want, it would drive the gambling underground and even more of these machines would be played illegally?
Dr Coffey
I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise that if we displace an activity in a controlled environment there is the risk of creating an uncontrolled environment. We should also consider some of the briefing we have been given. The Gambling Commission says we cannot use the gambling prevalence survey results specifically to identify the causation of problem gambling. Some of the research, which alluded to secondary data research, said:
“Virtual gaming machines had the strongest association with gambling-related problems, but few people endorsed that they had played these games during the past 12 months. These findings suggest that popular perceptions of risk associated with specific types of gambling for the development of gambling-related problems might misrepresent actual risk…The range of gambling involvement frequently is a better predictor of disordered gambling status than type of gambling. This finding is important because it represents a deviation from the tendency to focus on specific games, such as fruit/slot machines as central to gambling-related problems.”
We should be looking instead at global behaviour characteristics. That is the research that was referred to by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, but it does not support its own particular view.
There are different surveys on whether poor people are being targeted, including from Public Health England. Table 3.9 of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010 specifically sets out the participation in gambling activities in the past year in relation to FOBTs by the index of multiple deprivation and shows that there is no particular difference between the classes. Scotland has the highest prevalence of FOBT use in the country as a whole.
I do not deny that there are individual cases. We know that there are problem gamblers—the latest estimate suggests between 300,000 and 400,000, and those individual cases will be absolute tragedies. We may have heard them on the radio or met them in our surgeries. They may have bet the family silver. Families are torn apart by the problem, but this is no different from what happens when people are driven to similar distraction by other addictions, such as to alcohol or drugs.
I respect the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but he says that all he is talking about is a few more powers. The basis of our English law is that we can do what we want unless the Government and the law intervene to restrict us, and we see that with crime, planning and so on. We must be careful when we stop legitimate gambling on the basis of anecdotal research. It is a bit like the many campaigns that we receive. We tend to hear from less than 1% of our constituents, and we cannot assume that everybody thinks the same.
Dr Coffey
I am sorry but I only have 45 seconds left.
We need to think carefully about any changes that we propose. I supported the Select Committee’s report and we need to take a measured approach. We need to continue to work to try to tackle the problems of problem gamblers, but that does not mean that we should throw away the freedoms people rightly enjoy to gamble, whether that is on our high streets or elsewhere.
I cannot support the Opposition motion. The Government’s amendment provides a reasoned approach to ensuring that we continue to tackle the problem and I will therefore support the Government.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The key issue at the heart of the debate is localism—the ability of local authorities to act in the interests of the people they represent. I was most surprised when the Minister referred to localism as an unacceptable patchwork, as that is an unacceptable approach to take when considering local authorities and their responsibilities.
The debate is not about gambling in general but about specific and growing concerns about fixed odd betting terminals in betting shops. Every 20 seconds, £100 can be gambled, often with disastrous results for individuals. Research has shown that the people using those facilities particularly include young unemployed men.
Mr Whittingdale
Has the hon. Lady ever played a fixed odds betting terminal? They have one of the highest rates of return of any gambling machine and it is virtually impossible to lose hundreds of pounds as the majority of the money one puts in comes back out again.
Mrs Ellman
I am concerned about the negative aspects of the activity, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to some of the information contained in the report of Landman Economics, which I have quoted.
There is certainly a link between the growth of such facilities and areas of deprivation. In Liverpool, Riverside, which I represent, there are now 189 such terminals—one of the highest levels in the country—and it is a very deprived area. That deprivation has been recognised by and has caused deep concern to the local authority, Liverpool city council, which is why it raised the issue last November and called for increased powers to enable it to deal with this specific concern.
It is often local authorities that recognise the cumulative effects of such facilities, and the impact on local communities and individuals. The city council has cited in its debates many cases of people who have turned to loan sharks in desperation, having got into debt because of these facilities, and the problems that they have experienced. Indeed, the Landman Economics report provides evidence of the economic impact on local communities. In fact, there is information that suggests that an increase in spending of £1 billion on such terminals rather than other services can lose the equivalent of 13,000 UK jobs. There is concern about the development of such facilities, about the fact that they are uncontrolled in areas of deprivation, and about the impact on individuals and local communities, and it is important that local authorities are given the necessary powers to deal with the issue.
Government Members seem to have said a number of different things about local authority powers. Some have suggested that local government has sufficient powers, others have said that such powers are perhaps difficult to find and others have cited examples of where such powers have been found to be failing or simply do not exist. The key point is that local authorities should be able to deal with the issues they consider to be important to their areas. That does not mean that they should be forced to take a particular course of action, but they should be enabled to do so when they feel that it is necessary.
The proposal is not about gambling in general and certainly would not deal with the significant growth of online gambling. This is about another very specific issue, as it is extremely important that local government is given the powers it requests to react to problems.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is making powerful points about the contradictions in the points made by Government Members about localism and nationalism and about addiction. In the 2CV survey of 500 punters in Newham, 87% said that these machines were very addictive and, as I said earlier, 62% said that they would put every last penny into the machines before they left the shops. Is that not shocking?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I urge Government Members to recognise that the heart of the motion is about empowering local authorities to take the action they consider necessary in the interests of the people they represent. It does not preclude other decisions being made when further research has been carried out, and I urge the Government to support the motion.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Just before Christmas, I was one of only four Government Members to vote against the Government in a deferred Division on this issue. Unfortunately, although I have great sympathy with many of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I cannot support the Labour motion. I will not rehearse the reasons for that, but the motion is cynical, opportunistic and, not least, confused. The Leader of the Opposition launched a campaign in the summer about stakes and problem gambling. It was about the generic issue—it was not just about use class orders and planning, which is what the hon. Member for Eltham is telling the House today. I have been partly reassured by the Minister’s approach.
Mr Burrowes
I have been similarly reassured by the Minister’s response. My hon. Friend shares my concern—I am sure he will discuss clustering in Peterborough, which is similar to the clustering of betting shops in Green Lanes in my constituency—that there should be greater local powers. My local area wants to set up a neighbourhood plan that involves the high street. Does he think that in the review and the response the promise to leave no stone unturned should include greater powers in relation to planning and licensing?
Mr Jackson
Absolutely. That is an integral part of any remedial powers that the Government take to deal with the serious and legitimate concerns of many of my constituents. There are 22 betting shops in central Peterborough, with 81 FOBTs generating about £3.2 million. I am disappointed, because this could have been a genuine cross-party debate on information and research provided by bodies such as the Methodist Church, which has not always supported my party, and the Salvation Army. I declare an interest as a member of the good neighbours board of the Peterborough citadel of the Salvation Army.
Unfortunately, from the Labour party’s point of view, the debate has been rather confused. Undoubtedly, there is a problem. The precautionary principle is not that there should be unambiguous, completely definable evidence of a causal link between critical problem gambling and FOBTs. It is about the risk of problem gambling. One of my worries, which has been partly ameliorated today, is about the precautionary principle on the maximum stake. I was concerned that the research on the impact of those £100- spin games on the most vulnerable people in our constituencies should be undertaken by independent individuals. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) has defended the Responsible Gambling Trust, and he is right to do so. I do not distrust the RGT, but there are serious concerns.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend talks about the precautionary principle in gambling and problem gambling. That is an argument for banning gambling altogether, because in any form of gambling there are people who become addicted. On that logic, his argument is to ban gambling altogether. Is he aware that someone can place a bet on a 5-furlong sprint at Epsom that takes 50 seconds with an unlimited amount of money? There is no limit whatsoever.
Mr Jackson
It is interesting that my hon. Friend, for whom I have enormous respect—I think that he is wrong on this issue—should touch on the cumulative displacement impact on horse racing¸ football and greyhound betting.
Mr Jackson
I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman is very engaging, but I must resist his blandishments on this occasion.
I am not a devil take the hindmost, freemarket libertarian. I am a Conservative—I am a social conservative. I believe that there is a compact or bond of trust with the most vulnerable people in our society. There is a problem with problem gambling. As a Christian, I have compassion for those people who are stuck with the mindset of feeling that they have to gamble, but my concern is mostly for the children and families affected by problem gambling. We have a responsibility and a duty. We have regulatory regimes for many things in our society. I think that it would be wrong, when so much money is being made, and from some of the poorest people in society, to walk on by and say that we do not need to look at this again. Labour was catastrophically wrong on this issue. I think that this is the worst motion the Opposition have ever chosen, because they are on very weak ground.
I believe that the Minister is right to look at the precautionary principle and to demand all the up-to-date information on the B2 machines, which are very sophisticated, from the gambling companies. A code of practice is not good enough, because we are not talking about Mother Teresa; we are talking about some pretty ruthless business organisations that are protecting their interests, and some of them are preying on the most vulnerable in society. We need the information. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that we need to base our decisions on data that can be proven and tested, not on anecdote.
Having said that, I believe that the Salvation Army has produced a great deal of data. We heard earlier about the increase in the number of problem gamblers in recent years. Some 23% of the money spent on FOBTs was spent by people with gambling problems. According to Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones, the lead consultant at the NHS national problem gambling clinic, 50% of the clinic’s patients reported FOBTs to be particularly problematic.
In short, we are a Government committed to localism, so let us give local authorities more powers to look at use class orders, to crack down on clustering and to look at the absolute number of FOBTs, all of which I agree with. But let us have a consensus across the House, rather than vindictive, party political point scoring, because this is too important an issue for our families and communities for that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were to step off the train at Sunderland station, you would see a betting shop straight away, and you would not need to walk far to see several more. According to the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, in 2012 there were 30 betting shops in Sunderland Central, with 109 fixed odds betting terminals, with gross gambled amounts of nearly £120 million, the second highest in the north-east. The machines have been referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling so often that it is easy to become blasé about their effects, but the reason they are referred to in such terms is that their relentless speed and high stakes can be devastating.
Problem gambling is associated with a number of mental and physical health issues, including depression and insomnia, in addition to comorbid disorders such as alcohol abuse. Problem gambling is a significant health issue, both from a public and a private perspective. Although treatment is needed and sought by many, prevention of extreme gambling behaviours should be boosted by giving local authorities the power to restrict the number of betting shops opening in their areas and revoke or reduce the number of FOBTs in each branch.
FOBTs are purposefully and cynically targeted at the most vulnerable in society. They target areas of deprivation and take money away from those who can least afford to lose it. In an article published this morning, Dirk Vennix, chief executive of the Association of British Bookmakers, claimed that misinformation was being spread on the issue, citing the 2012 health survey for England, yet the same study shows that nearly twice as many people in the most deprived quintile use FOBTs than in the least deprived. It drags vulnerable people into cycles of debt, exacerbates our cost of living crisis and turns other shoppers away from our already struggling high streets.
GamCare, which provides support and advice to anyone suffering from a gambling problem, has shown that 40% of all calls to its helpline named FOBTs as the main problem. There is a clear link between problem gambling and debt problems. Research from GamCare and the Money Advice Trust has revealed that debts of up to £60,000 might be common among problem gamblers. It also stated that there is an urgent need to improve education about gambling for young people in schools. Education is crucial, but often it is all too late. Problem gambling encouraged by FOBTs affects not just adults but an estimated 60,000 young people aged between 12 and 15. Furthermore, young people are far less likely to seek help for their gambling problems.
The industry is stoking fears that any changes to FOBTs will inevitably lead to job losses, yet there is an inversely proportional relationship between the net takings of FOBTs and the number of employees in betting shops. As many branches are single-staffed, it can be difficult to monitor users and detect problem gamblers, and it will be even harder if the industry has its way and has the number of machines in each shop increased.
Betting shop clusters do far more harm than just to gamblers. The Portas review said that
“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.
Indeed, it puts many people off going shopping on our high streets. FOBTs are bad for problem gamblers, bad for our high streets, and bad for public health. I very much hope that the Government’s promise of localism and greater local decision making in planning will count for something today, and that they will join us to put local communities before the profits of betting shops.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, which sets out a sensible and measured approach to any future changes to policy on fixed odds betting terminals or local authority powers in licensing and planning that is based on research into the effect of these terminals on the 1% of gamblers identified as problem gamblers.
When I visited a local betting shop on a high street in my constituency, it was, unexpectedly, a rather quiet, low-key activity. I certainly did not recognise the picture painted by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who said that betting shops attracted drunkenness and bad behaviour. Gambling is as legitimate a leisure activity as going to football matches, pubs or the cinema.
Stephen Timms
Is the hon. Lady aware that it is well established that the staff of betting shops are instructed not to report violent incidents inside the shops in order to keep them out of the crime statistics?
Dame Angela Watkinson
I can only say how strongly that contrasts with my experience of visiting a local betting shop in Hornchurch.
Gambling is enjoyed by 8 million people nationally, and betting shops provide local jobs and help to stimulate the economy. People have the right to choose how they spend their disposable income. I have no gambling instinct personally. I choose not to gamble, but that choice is open to everyone, and I defend the right of others to gamble responsibly if that is their choice.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. One of the key points is that in fixed premises on the high streets people cannot drink alcohol. If we were to push more people into online gambling, who knows what would happen, as people can sit and drink and gamble at very quick speeds?
Dame Angela Watkinson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The betting shop I visited was more like a coffee shop, because tea and coffee were being served.
I question the claim that betting shops are too numerous or not wanted. Clearly some local people do want them, otherwise they would not remain viable. Passers-by were not being dragged into the shop off the street—in fact, most people passed by—and nobody inside was being coerced into betting against their will or spending more money than they had planned. The well-trained staff knew most of their regular customers and were trained to notice any addictive behaviour should it occur. Help and advice was available to any individual who needed or wanted it.
There is a consensus in Parliament and within the gambling industry that help should be available to the 1% who are unable to gamble responsibly and become addicted. We are right to be concerned about problem gambling but should seek ways to deal with it without spoiling the legitimate enjoyment of the 99% of responsible gamblers. The Association of British Bookmakers is bringing forward new measures as part of its code for responsible gambling and player protection. They include allowing players to limit their spending and the time they spend playing. Mandatory alerts will tell customers when they have played for 30 minutes or spent £250. Staff will also be alerted. The industry also raises nearly £6 million each year voluntarily for research, education and treatment for problem gamblers.
The Opposition’s motion claims that they are
“alarmed that people can stake as much as £100 every 20 seconds on these machines”.
That really over-eggs the pudding and makes the motion cynical and gimmicky. The Association of British Bookmakers states that it is impossible to credit a machine that quickly. There is more chance of winning the national lottery for three consecutive times than of losing £18,000 in one hour on a gaming machine. Data show that most people play for an average of 15 to 20 minutes and spend about £11 an hour.
It is very important that accurate evidence is gathered on the effect of fixed odds betting terminals on the 1% of problem gamblers; on the range of measures being undertaken by the gambling industry to prevent, identify and treat problem gamblers; and on whether the powers of local authorities as planning and licensing authorities are appropriate and effective. Any changes must also have regard to the 90% of responsible gamblers and the important contribution made by betting shops to local jobs and to the local and national economy, including 45,000 jobs and £1 billion in tax revenue. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also a non-paid, independent trustee of the Responsible Gambling Trust.
The trust was set up under the previous Labour Government, who wanted the gambling industry to contribute to a voluntary levy towards research, education and treatment. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) said, nearly £6 million has been raised towards that end. There are five independent and five industry trustees under the chairmanship of Neil Goulden. I wanted to intervene earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who is no longer in his place—perhaps that is not unusual—to point out that Neil Goulden is not the chairman of the Association of British Bookmakers. The trust commissions work to look at the core issues affecting problem gambling and, indeed, the treatment of problem gamblers. It has an excellent chief executive in Marc Etches, who has considerable experience across the piece.
I raise the trust’s work because the argument that this industry is unaware of its responsibilities on problem gambling is unjustified. The trust has commissioned detailed, independent research into fixed odds betting terminals and related matters. The important sub-committee that deals with the research and findings is chaired by a senior independent trustee, Liz Barclay, who is a respected broadcast journalist and producer. It has been made clear to the industry that whatever recommendations the research throws up, the trust will stand by them. An interim report is expected in March, with a full report to follow.
Today’s debate is important because there are continuing concerns about FOBTs, especially among the Local Government Association and its members, as well as parliamentary colleagues. Those concerns are usually connected with the perceived proliferation of betting shops. The betting industry employs 40,000 people directly and there are 8,773 betting shops in Britain, which is far fewer than the 16,500 betting shops that existed in the 1970s.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, as usual. Will he confirm that about a third of those betting shops make about £15,000 or less in profit each year, and that half of them are independent, family-run businesses—I was brought up in a family-run betting shop—and not big corporate companies, as the Labour party likes to portray them?
Mr Sutcliffe
I accept that there are many independent betting shops, but the problem, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his speech, is the perceived proliferation of the main bookmakers on the high street. As he said, the reason is that they used to be on side streets, but they have now moved to the high streets. The problem for the gambling companies is that they are associated with payday loan companies and others on the high street that are causing great concern, especially among our local government colleagues.
That is why I have no problem with the motion with regard to local government and its powers. Powers already exist alongside the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act, and many local authorities may use those powers if they think betting shops are acting outside those objectives. It is understandable that local authorities want more powers. As we have heard, FOBTs have always been on probation, and we should reflect on the fact that the deal done on the Gambling Act restricted betting premises to four machines.
We must have evidence, however, and I think that it will be forthcoming through the Responsible Gambling Trust, which has asked bookmakers to provide it with a whole range of information. To counter the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, the independent directors will look at the report and recommendations, and will report to the full trustees. As was said by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), that Committee looked at the issue and determined that the number of machines and betting shops should be decided locally by local authorities.
My problem is with the antics of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. It is right and proper for the campaign to set out its view, but it is not right for it to try to vilify those who oppose its views. It sets out to rubbish any analysis that is not its own and, in particular, to try to rubbish the work of the Responsible Gambling Trust, which was set up to look at issues of problem gambling. If it is a real campaign for fairer gambling, why is its only focus on FOBTs? There are many other areas of problem gambling, as the gambling prevalence survey has shown. For instance, there are issues due to the price of national lottery tickets being increased from £1 to £2 and because people are able to buy them at 16, although they cannot go into betting shops until they are 18. There are many other issues to consider, including online gambling, which has already been talked about.
I believe that the debate did not need to be emotive and that we could have got to the core of the issues. The point about local authorities having more powers was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I believe that we need to look at the subject sensibly and wait for the research to come out, and then make decisions based on that evidence.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I first want to add my tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, Paul Goggins. This cannot be said about many politicians, but I have never heard a bad word said about Paul by anyone on either side of the House. He was a very courteous Minister, and in opposition he treated Ministers with respect. He will be sorely missed on both sides of the House, and my thoughts are with his family and close friends at this difficult time.
It is more interesting to see what is not in the motion than what is. Votes on Opposition day motions make no difference to Government policy, and we have come to expect from the Labour party motions on aspects of disagreement between the two coalition parties. I therefore fully expected to see yet another Opposition motion that matched Liberal Democrat policy—in other words, a commitment to reduce stakes and prizes, and plans for a separate use class for betting shops so that local authorities are given more powers to restrict the number of licensed betting shops on our high streets and in our local centres. Back in September, the Liberal Democrats called for betting shops to be put in a new separate planning use class, which would allow local authority planning committees to control their numbers. Just three months later, Labour announced that it would legislate to put betting shops in a separate use class so that councils could use planning powers to control the number opening in their area, so it is good to see Labour following our lead.
Some, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), have claimed that the Government have missed an opportunity to proceed with a reduction in stakes and prizes on fixed odds betting terminals. I am therefore rather surprised that the motion fails to address the fundamental problem of people being able to stake £100 a spin. Instead, it simply focuses on slowing down the rate of spin. Even if the rate was slowed to the pace of a normal roulette table, with 50 spins an hour, someone could still lose up to £5,000, rather than the current £18,000.
Liberal Democrat Members will not be lectured by Labour on fixed odds betting machines. After 13 years in government, its cultural legacy to our high streets and town centres was 24-hour drinking, lap dancing and fixed odds betting terminals. In the face of Liberal Democrat warnings, Labour allowed the introduction of these highly damaging and addictive gaming machines that have wreaked so much damage to people’s lives, although obviously we are delighted that Labour has finally woken up to the damage that its policies have caused to deprived high streets throughout the country.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman says that he will not be lectured by the Labour party, but will he be lectured by Derek Webb, who is the Unite of the Liberal Democrats—I believe that he has given £150,000 in donations to the Lib Dems over the past year? He heads the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. Will the hon. Gentleman set out what Derek Webb’s background is and where he got all his money from?
Mr Leech
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. However, I will take no lectures from anyone on either side of the House about political donations.
To be fair to the Labour party, some of its Members have accepted that they made a mistake on FOBTs. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State has admitted that Labour made a mistake. However, Labour’s motion fails to address the problem of the £100-a-spin stakes that are still allowed on our high streets. I am happy to reject the motion not only on the basis that it would not solve the problems that are created by FOBTs, but because the timing of the debate is ill judged, given that the coalition Government are undertaking research into the impact of FOBTs.
The Government have challenged the betting industry to implement enhanced player protection measures by March this year or face precautionary measures. If the industry fails to deliver on its commitments, or if at any time the balance of evidence suggests that action is required, the Government must not hesitate in imposing a precautionary reduction in stakes and prizes.
It is no secret that there is disagreement between the coalition parties. Liberal Democrats believe that there is clear evidence that harm is caused by FOBTs. I am confident that the research will prove that there is a need for action. GamCare’s figures for last year show that 39% of the calls to its helpline came from people who specifically cited B2 machines. The Salvation Army estimates that the number of people with a problem increased by 30,000 between 2007 and 2010. Research conducted by Professor Gerda Reith at the university of Glasgow suggests that B2 machines pose a particular risk to problem gamblers because of their rapid rate of play that offers addicts the quick fix that they are looking for. A 2010 study in the European Journal of Public Health found:
“Virtual gaming machines had the strongest association with gambling-related problems”
of all the activities it studied, which included horse race betting, football betting, the lottery, online gambling, casino—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have to drop the time limit to three minutes to get in as many Members as possible. If we could have fewer interventions, it would be helpful.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In debates of this nature, we are in danger of dividing the sector into good and bad gambling companies. Betting shops are seen as bad, while the national lottery, which has not even been mentioned in this debate, is seen as good. There can be no doubt that FOBTs have a high potential to cause gambling addiction, but there is a tendency to blame betting shops for everything.
There has been no talk today of the presence of FOBTs in pubs and motorway service stations. When I drive down the M4 on a Monday and back up it on a Thursday, I can walk into a service station and think that I am in the middle of a mini-casino. Who is policing those places? Equally, there has been no mention of the dominant position of the national lottery. Newsagents up and down the land have lottery terminals, and scratchcards can be bought anywhere. They are far more accessible and far more addictive than FOBTs.
We have to look seriously at FOBTs and other gaming machines. However, we must work not only with the betting industry, but with the pub industry, the owners of motorway service stations and amusement arcades, and Camelot. If we are to legislate properly in this area, we need a strong academic survey of the impact of prolonged use and of the clientele who use these machines. It is easy to bash these machines and the industry. Anecdotal evidence is all very well, but we need facts and figures before we intervene.
Since such gaming machines were introduced in 2002, there has been no significant change in the level of problem gambling. It is not me who says that, but a study that was commissioned by the Gambling Commission in 2010. The same study indicated that problem gamblers played up to nine different products. They do not stand at FOBTs feeding in note after note; they look for other outlets for their addiction. As well as using the machines, a problem gambler bets on the horses and the dogs, and buys scratchcards. I have not heard anybody talking about how many people are addicted to scratchcards, yet people can just walk into a newsagents and buy one. No hon. Member would disagree that our aim should be to protect the customer, but my concern is that by not debating the issue properly, we are not dealing with problem gamblers.
In the short time I have left—only 30 seconds—I must also mention single staffing, on which a briefing has been provided today. That was a problem when I worked in a betting shop, and was the cashier and the manager. It is all very well saying that that was due to footfall, because only 20 people walked through the door, but those 20 people might want to put on bets at the same time. That situation put me under stress. I did not have to deal with FOBTs, but such a situation can stop members of staff policing them. There is also a social issue. I was being paid only to be the manager that day, not to be the cashier, so I was earning below the minimum wage. If the situation is still going on, it needs to be dealt with.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and his thoughtful, careful speech on this sensitive subject. The Government’s approach is that we need firm evidence before any change is made to our gambling laws. That is absolutely right, and when I sat on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, our gambling inquiry showed that it is an incredibly complex area with a lot of contradictory evidence.
Several Members have asserted that there has been an uncontrollable, unsustainable boom in gambling, but a study of the facts simply does not support that. There was an increase in the use of FOBTs after the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced, but the number of them on the high street has declined in the past three years. Betting shops are changing location, but there has been no explosion in their total number. Some Members have cited the gambling prevalence survey, which they say shows a 50% increase in problem gambling, but that increase is from 0.6% to 0.9% in problem gambling, according to surveys taken between 2007 and 2010. The change in numbers in those two studies are within the margin of error, so not necessarily statistically significant, and other studies since 2010 have demonstrated that instances of problem gambling are declining. That is why we must have a sensible evidence-based approach.
The scenario that the Labour party paints about gambling on the high street, the prevalence of FOBTs, and the clustering of betting shops was created entirely by the 2005 Act. Was the decision of the then Labour Government based on robust evidence and science? No. The Act perhaps had good intentions, but it has had massive unintended consequences. When Richard Caborn gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was asked why the previous Government settled on having four FOBTs in betting shops—what was the reason for that number? He responded:
“There was no magic, scientific arrangement for four, I can honestly assure you. It was an agreement saying what was reasonable and what we believed—with the evidence that we had—was proportionate at the time. That is exactly how it happened.”
It was their best guess, and it has led to the clustering of FOBTs on the high streets. Because there is demand for FOBTs and not enough premises to play them in, bookmakers have opened new betting shops so they can have new terminals.
I was interested in the shadow Minister’s response to my earlier intervention when I said that, on face value, the wording of the Labour motion suggested that local authorities could retrospectively change the number of terminals in a shop, but only downwards. I think that refutes the idea that the motion is localist or about giving powers to local communities in any way. If it was, it might do what the Select Committee recommended and give local authorities the power to say, “Perhaps we will have more terminals in fewer shops, and fewer shops on the high street” and have the power to make that decision. This is not a localist motion but one in which the Labour party is asking councils to do what it wants—close betting shops and get rid of FOBTs altogether.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
In the little time available I will restrict my remarks to the impact of FOBTs on increased criminality and money laundering on our high streets. We might criticise the Gambling Act 2005, but it clearly states that gambling machines must prevent
“gambling from being the being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime”,
yet that is exactly what is happening on our streets. These machines are being used to launder millions of pounds of money from criminality, drug dealing, loan sharking, people trafficking and so on.
There is a particularly nasty crime family in my constituency, and the Home Secretary has spoken on numerous occasions about the good work that County Durham has done to tackle organised crime. That crime family in my constituency has been moved on from “cash for crash”, drug dealing and so on, but where are they now? They are all over these FOBT machines. The Remote Gambling Association admitted in September that FOBTs represent a
“high inherent money laundering risk”.
The European Union is likely to include the machines in directive 4 on money laundering, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about that. Even the United Nations office on drugs and crime has warned that these games are used by organised crime to launder cash. The EU, the UN and even the Government recognise how dangerous this is. Despite the assertion from the gambling industry and the Association of British Bookmakers that they fully comply with the law, it is clear that, however inadvertently, these machines are now an integral and increasing part of the machinery of organised crime and money laundering. In the little time I have left, I plead with the Government to take seriously, in their review, the impact of FOBTs on money laundering and their increasing use, and to limit the stake.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
This is a serious issue, one that I have campaigned on locally and spoken on in this House. I hope the shadow Minister will look at my previous contributions before we go on local radio tomorrow morning and he will see what I have said on this issue in the past.
I will not be supporting the Labour motion this evening. I will be supporting the Government’s amendment, because a lot of progress is being made. The tone of the debate—that the proliferation in our high streets is the Government’s fault—is a bit rich when Labour’s 2005 Act, which liberalised much of the regulation and legislation, has caused the problem we are all now concerned about.
I share the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about the impact that FOBTs are having on our constituents, but it is wrong and misguided for Opposition Members to say that the issue is applicable only to those in deprived areas. I represent a constituency with areas of multiple deprivation. The figures for the amount being gambled in FOBTs in those areas are the same as those for the amount being gambled in the much more affluent areas of Kent, such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells, so it is difficult to say that this issue is confined to more deprived areas.
It is important to consider the evidence, collect all the necessary data and ensure that we respond accordingly. My only concern, if I were to have one criticism of the Government’s policy, is that that should be done more quickly. Having an interim report early next year and a report later in the autumn will not be quick enough to deal with the issue, because it is an increasing problem. I am not opposed to giving councils more flexibility to deal with clustering, but the problem is not exclusive to bookmakers. As a consequence of previous legislation, it is also the case with payday loan companies, pawnbrokers and licensed premises.
We do not necessarily need legislation to deal with this problem. Conservative-led Medway council has been working with other organisations and has implemented a voluntary code of conduct with the ABB to try to ensure that we deal with problem gambling directly. That is a much more sensible way forward and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of that partnership.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She took part in an Adjournment debate I secured in April on this subject, and she agreed that we should give local authorities the opportunity to provide part of the solution. I understand that she will not be voting for the motion, but the Government should listen to the spirit of what she has said, particularly on the rapidity of the research—that was a point well made.
You can get odds of 66:1 on Fulham winning the FA cup this season, Mr Speaker. I had my usual annual bet before the third round. Both Fulham and Norwich tried to lose, but we are still in the cup. I mention that to make the point to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that not everybody who has concerns about FOBTs is anti-gambling or views it as anathema.
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has indicated from a sedentary position several times during the course of the debate that the number of FOBT machines has gone down, but that is not the case in my constituency. The point of the motion and the debate is about those areas where the number of machines and betting shops is increasing. I invite him to come with me to Cambuslang main street, in my constituency, a small main street that now has five betting shops, each with four machines, within 200 yards of each other. Before my Adjournment debate last April, I visited several betting shops in my constituency, and in Glasgow close to my constituency and in London, and each time I saw people on the machines for long periods putting in significant amounts—I could see that just by standing there. The Government must take cognisance of that, instead of just saying that the number of machines has fallen. This is a problem about proliferation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said at the start of the debate.
My interest in this subject arose in late 2011 when a constituent came to me having lost £25,000 in a single month on a machine in a betting shop in my constituency. It was no surprise to me that the betting shop was in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. He came to me not because he thought he had a problem, but because he thought the machines were fixed. That underlines the point. I spent some time with Hamilton gamblers’ anonymous. Strikingly, several younger people in that group had accepted they had a problem, had gone for help and were trying to resolve their issues, but they had a problem relating to these machines. The situation was very different with the older people in that group. The Government ought to take that seriously.
We have heard a lot about the staff in the shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) knows from his experience that people in those betting shops often feel under pressure not to report things. They have said very clearly that they want to be bookmakers, not bouncers, and that they find themselves intimidated into not reporting incidents. All these are important issues, but the proliferation and concentration of shops in particular areas is the big issue that the Government should address first.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Some 400,000 people in this country are problem gamblers and 3.5 million are at risk of developing a gambling problem. These are not small numbers. Furthermore, 50% of problem gamblers reporting to the National Problem Gambling Clinic say that fixed odds betting terminals are a disproportionate cause of problem gambling. We can understand why that is when we hear that these high-stakes machines can take bets of £100 per game and that up to £1,800 can be lost in an hour. Every year in the UK, people lose more than £1 billion on FOBTs, of which problem gamblers lose £300,000.
Users do not need to be addicted for catastrophic problems to be caused to them and their families. It is not just an individual problem, but a grave social and public health issue that we need to recognise and deal with. Phill Holdsworth, head of external affairs at Christians Against Poverty, says:
“Where we work with families…where one member…has a problem with gambling it is very difficult and often impossible to provide any form of debt solution. It is not possible to put forward a solution without them receiving help or support for their addiction. This means the other family members”
continue to suffer. He continued:
“A debt solution is very difficult to apply when gambling problems are present.”
Problem gambling costs society £3.24 billion a year, and the addition of each problem gambler severely affects the lives of about eight individuals around them. As such, about 3 million people are now affected by problem gambling—every one an individual, every one a blighted life, many of them children. We urgently need a concerted Government approach and—I believe—a cross-party approach to address the economic, social and health costs associated with problem gambling. The Salvation Army, whose work I pay tribute to in this respect, says:
“Problem gambling particularly affects the young… Problem gambling amongst young people is an emerging public health issue. In the UK, over 10% of children who gamble are problem gamblers, whilst 18% of them are at risk gamblers.”
I agree with the phrase used by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), when he said that many people viewed gambling as anathema. I do. We need to review our whole approach towards gambling. The average treatment for a problem gambler costs £675, meaning that £274 million would be required to treat all problem gamblers in the UK, yet the gambling industry’s contribution is just £5 million.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I understand that the terminals generate about £300 million of tax revenue. Given my hon. Friend’s comments, has she considered the impact that Labour’s proposals might have on the Exchequer?
Fiona Bruce
They might generate that amount of revenue, but the gross gambling yield for the industry is £5.6 billion a year. I consider inadequate a contribution of £5 million to research, education and treatment activities related to gambling, which equates to less than 2% of their income. As I say, we need a wholesale review.
I oppose the Opposition motion, which is wholly inadequate, not least because the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who introduced it, said that the motion was not about problem gambling. Well, it should be. I support the Government amendment, but I exhort the Minister to expedite the research and extend the Government’s work on the devastating causes and consequences of all problem gambling, not least for the sake of our next generation.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Let us start on a note of cross-party unity: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has just said. I have limited time, so I will cut directly to the chase. I see five Ministers on the Treasury Bench, all of them well educated and intelligent people, so I ask them to think about the contradiction in the case they are making. They tell us that the Gambling Act 2005 was a mistake, which has intentionally or unintentionally given rise to the current problems, although those of us present in 2005 will remember that we did not talk about fixed odds betting terminals at any length, but about super-casinos and other matters. Ministers tell us that that 2005 Act, introduced by a Labour Government, has created a major problem. They blame us for bringing it in and then for doing nothing to correct the situation over the subsequent five years.
I say to those Ministers that if there is a problem—they accept that there is one, as we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—they have a five-year window in which to do something about it. Let me challenge the Minister: will the Government legislate during this Parliament to correct what they have told us today about the grave errors in the 2005 Act? I lay down the same challenge to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is going to reply. If Ministers seriously believe that the accusations made against Labour Members are correct—that there is a serious problem, which I believe there is, and that it needs solving—let me say, “The ball is in your court, chum”. Are Ministers going to bring forward legislation before the general election?
Secondly, Members of all parties have rightly pointed out that the top 10% of constituencies with the highest use of, and with the highest profits taken from, FOBTs are largely in deprived areas, although they are not all in those areas. I would like to mention a group of places in the top 10% that I would call tourist destinations. They include my constituency of York Central, Blackpool South, Brighton Pavilion, Bournemouth West, Cambridge, Great Yarmouth, Kensington, Norwich North, Oxford East, Torbay and the two Westminster constituencies.
I do not believe that the proliferation of high-street gambling in these tourist destinations is good for tourism. If someone comes to York and has a flutter on York races, that is part of a day out, and if £20 is lost on a race, so be it; it can probably be put down as part of the cost of a good day. If someone comes to York and loses £1,000 on one of these terminals, they will not think that they have had a good day out, and they will not forget it. For tourist towns as well as the deprived areas, this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
We have had an extremely lively debate this afternoon on an issue that many Members across the Chamber clearly feel strongly about. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister was breathtaking complacency and the usual “blame Labour” mantra, but it will not wash. It is this Government who are failing to take action on the issue and who have facilitated a proliferation of FOBTs and betting shops on our high streets. Despite the Minister’s speech, a number of Government Members seemed to agree with us that additional powers should be given to local government. It will be interesting to see whether they rediscover their commitment to localism and vote with us in the Lobby.
A number of Members have made excellent speeches this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke of the inadequacy of local government powers to control betting shops, and pointed out that action under those powers can be overturned on appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who has done a great deal of work on this topic, helpfully drew attention to the inadequacy of the Government’s research strategy. My hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for York Central (Hugh Bayley) noted the prevalence of gambling outlets in low-income areas, the problems of debt that that causes, and the negative impact of too many betting shops on the high street. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham also noted the rise in criminality that is associated with betting shops in some areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) injected a much-needed degree of sense into the debate by returning us to the central issue of localism. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke of the importance of getting regulation right, not least because of the large number of people who work in the industry.
Neither I nor my colleagues object to a betting shop or two on the high street, and I appreciate that the industry has a code to encourage responsible gambling, but, as a number of Members have said, that does not go far enough. It is vital for the Government to take action to recognise the wishes and needs of local communities. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are more than 33,000 FOBTs making £1.5 billion each year for the big bookmakers—that constitutes about half their annual profits—and traditional bookies throughout the country are being turned into mini-casinos where people can gamble up to £300 a minute. Liverpool alone contains 559 terminals, which took £607 million last year. Newham in east London contains 87 betting shops with 348 terminals, and figures released recently by the Greater London Authority showed a 13% increase in the number of betting shops in London’s town centres between January 2010 and December 2012. We have heard how some players have become addicted to FOBTs, and how the machines, and the proliferation of betting shops that promote them, are causing debt and misery, as well as acting as a magnet for crime and antisocial behaviour.
We always made it clear that FOBTs were on probation, and it was said during the Second Reading of the Gambling Act 2005 that we would keep them under review. In 2009, when we were in government, we said that we would conduct a review because we were concerned about these machines. The current Government, however, have decided to do nothing: five years on, there has been no review. Government Members claim that local authorities have the powers that they need to regulate betting shops, but we have heard time and again from councillors of all parties that that is simply not the case. The next Labour Government will change planning and licensing laws to give councils the right to control the number of betting shops in their areas. If betting shops are not a problem, as the industry is keen to emphasise, they have nothing to fear from such a change.
There is considerable cross-party agreement on this issue. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out during Prime Minister’s Question Time today, the Mayor of London and the Conservative head of the Local Government Association have said that local authorities do not have the power to limit the number of FOBTs. Indeed, the Prime Minister acknowledged during Question Time that there was a problem in the gaming and betting industry, and stated that we need to “sort it out.” If he recognises the problem, why is he not supporting our motion this evening?
As for the Liberal Democrats, during their annual conference in September they agreed to a motion that would give councils the power to limit the number of betting shops in their area, agreeing specifically to put betting shops in a new separate use class, although they had previously voted against such a motion in the House of Commons. That, of course, is typical Liberal Democrat behaviour. The wording of their motion was very similar to the wording of our motion today. I urge Government Members to recognise that, and to support our motion in order to implement their own policy commitments.
The country is experiencing a cost of living crisis. The average person has become £1,600 worse off since the current Government came to power. People are facing extreme difficulties in affording child care, rail fares and heating their homes. While the Members on the Government Benches are handing tax cuts out to millionaires, millions of people are struggling, and it is at a time such as this that the most vulnerable in our society need protecting. That is exactly what my colleagues and I are proposing in this motion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) highlighted when he launched Labour’s policy last month, in the poorest areas these betting shops are spreading like an epidemic along high streets with the pawn shops and payday lenders that are becoming symbols of Britain’s cost of living crisis. Our local high streets must meet the needs of local communities, not simply the wishes of betting companies and other similar groups.
We know that the most urgent case needs to be made for changing again the system of use class orders. Use classes play a central role in the planning system by defining the potential uses of buildings. They not only protect certain uses, but also streamline the system by allowing for some changes without the need to apply for planning permission. However, over the course of last year the Government have decided to do away with the protections offered by the use class system and in doing so have stripped communities of a say in the shape of their high streets. In May 2013 the Government introduced changes to use class orders to allow retail use to change to financial institutions without planning permission for a period of two years, allowing the possibility of more betting shops on our high streets and they also now have the audacity to say they may make this change permanent. We are arguing that the Government should do what they say they want to do and give powers to local communities to have a say over what is happening in their high streets, so that if a problem is identified with an over-proliferation of gambling and betting shops local communities are able to pull the plug on these gaming machines, which are unwanted in many of our areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
I understand that traditionally Opposition debates were designed to allow Her Majesty’s Opposition to attack Government policy but since 2010, when I was elected to this House, there has been a constitutional innovation, as I am sure you will have noticed, Mr Speaker. The Labour party uses these debates to attack Labour Government policy and to condemn those like the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) who implemented those policies and to repudiate anything inherited from the period which many Labour Members like to think of as the Blairite apostasy. So this debate is nothing more than an elaborate exercise in exorcising the ghosts of new Labour’s past.
Let us examine those ghosts. In 2003 the Labour Government doubled the number of gaming machines allowed in licensed premises from two to four and increased the maximum prize from £25 to £250, but that was not enough. In 2006 the Labour Government saw the gambling industry as the handmaiden of the regeneration of cities like Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle and they were not just proposing a row of little betting shops: they wanted super-casinos with unlimited jackpots.
There are very few people on the Opposition Benches whom I admire more than the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell)—I believe the Olympics would never have happened without her contribution—so in researching this debate I wanted to read her words as Secretary of State when she was promoting gambling as the best regeneration policy for Britain’s inner cities. Imagine my shock, Mr Speaker, when I discovered that all of her speeches have been erased from the Labour party website, and not just her speeches, Mr Speaker, but every speech, every policy document and every press release predating the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in September 2010.
We have all heard of communist regimes rewriting history and airbrushing photographs of the politburo, but Soviet measures pale by comparison. The history of new Labour is not just being rewritten; it is being deleted. The noble Lord Mandelson had better watch his step, or, before we know it, he will have gone the way of Kim Jong-Un’s uncle and been thrown to the ravenous dogs.
We have established that the true purpose of this debate has been to heal the Opposition’s psychological traumas. I think we can agree that we are on familiar ground. Labour has decided that another of its policies in government was a mistake. My hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party and my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) have consistently and honourably raised their concerns about that policy. In Prime Minister’s questions today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed his desire to address those concerns sensibly, steadily and with evidence, and to achieve a proper balance.
The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) has set out in a measured way the work she is doing with the gambling industry, with the Responsible Gambling Trust and with other bodies to do what the Labour Government did not do before introducing the Gambling Act 2005—namely, to conduct research into the impact of those measures. That is the research that my hon. Friend is leading, and it will produce a result.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), raised the issue of planning controls and article 4. She asked for more powers for councils to introduce restrictions on the proliferation of betting shops on their high streets. I think I had better introduce her to one of her colleagues, a Labour councillor, Fiona Colley. She is a councillor for Southwark council, which only three months ago introduced immediate article 4 directions to prevent the conversion—
Nick Boles
I am sorry, I will not give way; I have only two minutes.
That Labour councillor introduced an article 4 measure with immediate effect to prevent the conversion of more premises from other use classes to that of a betting shop. Let me quote that Labour councillor’s words on the Southwark council website—[Interruption.] She is a Labour councillor, and Labour Members might want to listen to her. She knows a lot more about this than they do. Councillor Fiona Colley, who is soon to become my favourite councillor, said:
“This innovative, proactive approach to addressing planning legislation will make a tangible change to the lives of people living in areas where so-called ‘financial services’ businesses are so prolific.”
Those article 4 measures, which this Government have made it easier to use because they no longer require the approval of the Secretary of State, are good enough for Southwark. They are also good enough for Barking and Dagenham. In fact, 122 local authorities have made 270 article 4 declarations to restrict permitted development rights in the past three years. If one Labour authority in London thinks they are a good thing, and if 121 other local authorities think they are a good thing, it seems pretty clear to me that we need no more planning changes to enable councils to do what they want to do to protect their local communities. This debate has no doubt been helpful for the psychological catharsis of the Labour party, and I wish Labour Members well as they come to terms with their abiding grief about the record of the previous Government. This Government will continue, with the help of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UKTI (West Midlands)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My debate is on the performance of UK Trade & Investment in the west midlands, and especially Shropshire. I have spent the past year producing a report on UKTI, on which we had a debate last year to which the Minister kindly responded. Hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises from around the United Kingdom were interviewed about their perception of UKTI and what assistance they were receiving from this important Government body on exporting overseas.
Once the report was finished, it was important for me to expand and extrapolate from the work to focus on Shropshire, particularly Shrewsbury, to try to find out how UKTI is performing to help Shrewsbury companies not only to export but—this is the second part of the body’s responsibilities—to secure direct foreign inward investment into our county. I therefore invited the head of UKTI in the west midlands, Mr Paul Noon, to visit Shrewsbury to meet representatives of Shropshire council and the local enterprise partnership, including the officer responsible for business development at Shropshire, Mr Mark Pembleton. I said to Mr Noon, “Can you list the top 10 inward investment opportunities in Shropshire?” Unfortunately, he had no idea, which was of great concern to me. I could not understand how, given all the resources that UKTI has, it had not carried out work in the west midlands to identify and agree on the top inward investment opportunities in Shropshire. I therefore tasked Mr Noon to work with the local council and the LEP to identify them.
I am pleased to state that, as a result of that work, the top inward investment opportunities in Shropshire have now been identified. They include an innovation park, a new shopping centre for Shrewsbury, opportunities in transport, leisure and tourism, and agriculture—of course, Shropshire is an important agricultural community. I have sent the Minister an electronic copy of “Invest in Shropshire”, and I am pleased to be able to show him a printed version today. All the opportunities in the brochure are now agreed between UKTI and the local council. I hope that he will talk about those opportunities when he responds.
This work was carried out very well towards the end of last year. I pay tribute to Mr Paul Noon and his team for working so assiduously with the council and the LEP to identify the projects, to agree on them, and then to start to move them forward. However, I worry that such work has not been carried out in the past and that it took such a concerted effort by me to get all the parties together. Interestingly, I have spoken to many fellow MPs in other shire counties—I will not name them all—who are quite surprised by the work that has been carried out in Shropshire. They do not see similar activities in their own counties, and they are starting to get interested in what we are doing. If the project is successful and the newly formed LEPs, the councils and UKTI agree to co-operate, I very much hope that the best practice of the work we have done in Shropshire can be disseminated to other shire counties.
The work was implemented very well because I invited Mr Nick Baird, the former chief executive of UKTI, to visit Shropshire on 5 November. There was a real sense of impetus among UKTI and everyone concerned that, in advance of his visit, opportunities ought to be identified and agreed by all relevant parties. I am extremely disappointed that Mr Baird has now left the organisation, although I am not sure why he has done so. We had a wonderful day with him in Shropshire and he seemed extremely enthusiastic about identifying opportunities. He promised that he would take a leading role in ensuring that they were sold overseas. I wish him every success in whatever he has chosen to do, but it is nevertheless disappointing that he has left the organisation.
On 5 November, we took Mr Baird to see various projects mentioned in the “Invest in Shropshire” manifesto, which is now in the public domain. We took him to see the flax mill, which according to a report in The Daily Telegraph this week is one of the top 10 most important buildings in the United Kingdom. The flax mill built in Shrewsbury was Britain’s first skyscraper. It is in need of a huge amount of investment, and significant work is being done to transform it into a new facility.
We also took Mr Baird to the Harper Adams agricultural college in Shropshire, which is one of England’s leading agricultural institutes, so that he could see some of its extraordinary and pioneering agricultural work and research, which is another extremely important field in which Britain can excel for exports. We all know that farming techniques in England are among the best, and the most efficient and productive, in the world. I am keen to ensure that UKTI does everything possible to sell that agricultural expertise, especially to countries in the middle east that are looking for innovative and pioneering ways of farming.
We took Mr Baird into the town centre of Shrewsbury so that he could look at the immense opportunity to construct a brand new shopping centre. We also took him to the shire hall to meet councillors, local business representatives and the LEP so that he could identify key areas with which Shropshire needs assistance to sell itself to overseas markets.
We ended the day by taking Mr Baird to one of my favourite pubs in the village of Atcham, the Mytton and Mermaid, where he met more than 50 small and medium-sized business leaders from throughout Shropshire, many of whom are already exporting. He had the opportunity to find out about some of the extraordinary success that SMEs in Shrewsbury and Shropshire have had in exporting, in certain cases with the assistance of UKTI.
I was due to meet Mr Jon Harding of UKTI to continue discussions this week, but unfortunately, owing to a family bereavement, he was not able to come to the House of Commons. I hope to see him in due course, however. We also have meetings planned with Michael Boyd, and I have met Lord Livingston, the new Minister in the other House, whom the Prime Minister has appointed to take the lead on running UKTI. For the record, I have asked the chairman of the 1922 committee to invite him to address all Conservative Members of Parliament. He felt that he was not yet ready to address us, but I very much hope that when he is more settled in the job, he will do so formally. I want Lord Livingston, the successor to Lord Green, to have far more interaction with us in the House of Commons.
I berate, decry and am genuinely concerned about the fact that this debate is only the fourth or fifth on British exports in this Parliament, four of which I initiated. I find that staggering, given that we all think that exports are so important to the balance of payments and the prosperity of this country, and for attracting inward investment to our country and getting hard currency for our communities and the country as a whole. I am amazed at the general lack of interest in UKTI and the lack of scrutiny generally in the House. I very much hope that Lord Livingston, when he has settled in properly to his role, will try to change that and that he will engage with the House of Commons so that we are more involved in scrutinising UKTI.
All the opportunities identified are now listed on www.investinshropshire.com. I very much hope to hear from the Minister what UKTI will do in the west midlands and nationally to promote and sell the opportunities overseas.
It is brilliant that the United Kingdom is the top destination for foreign inward investment in the European Union. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the United Kingdom has the No. 1 ranking in the EU for attracting such direct investment. That is an extraordinary achievement, and I certainly pay tribute to the work of UKTI, the Minister and others for ensuring that the United Kingdom is in such an extraordinary position.
There is, however, an over-dependency on London and the south-east. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the whole structure of UKTI is more focused on selling opportunities in shire counties and areas outside London? Our capital city is of course very important and will inexorably attract the lion’s share of direct foreign inward investment. Many of the foreign business men I know gravitate inextricably to London, barely venture outside it and always look at opportunities there. UKTI therefore has a responsibility to try to present equivalent like-for-like investment opportunities, or tangibly similar opportunities, outside London to calibrate foreign direct investment more across the whole of England and the United Kingdom, rather than just in London. London accounts for 13% of the United Kingdom’s population yet, according to Ernst and Young, it receives 45% of all projects involving foreign direct investment.
I am now involved in only one all-party group. I have been the chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia for the past eight years. I feel passionately about that country, and we ought to engage far more with it to secure foreign investment from it. I will play my part in trying to sell the opportunities in Shropshire, but I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister will take to support us.
According to a UKTI report, 1,559 projects across the United Kingdom were financed by foreign direct investment last year. Those projects created more than 59,000 jobs in this country, which is a staggering amount of additional employment. That FDI not only secured those jobs, but protected an existing 110,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. We cannot overestimate the importance of securing foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom.
I understand why the Government are focused on a localism agenda. Shropshire borders Wales, and it has lost business to Wales because of the incentives and grants that the Welsh Assembly can offer to certain companies. When there are different Assemblies and Parliaments, there will be differences across national boundaries as different parts of the United Kingdom try to attract investment. Being a border town, Shrewsbury is very conscious of that. There are discussions about giving Wales separate tax-raising powers and there is, of course, a big debate going on in Scotland. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s long-term plans on empowering local councils, such as Shropshire council, eventually to have the ability to differentiate themselves so that they can attract foreign direct investment, whether that is through taxation or by charging different rates.
We are still borrowing more than £100 billion a year to balance the books. There is nothing more important than securing foreign direct investment. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, but only the 12th largest exporter. I, for one, will not rest until we are the fifth largest exporter in the world and until shire counties such as Shropshire start to receive greater assistance compared with London and the south-east so that we can attract our fair share of foreign direct investment.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate and thank him for his comments on the work of UKTI in the west midlands. I know that he is a great supporter of local businesses and that he encourages them to trade internationally.
Last year saw a significant rise in the export of goods from the west midlands. The region exported goods worth more than £22.5 billion in 2012-13. In the first three quarters of this financial year, goods worth more than £19 billion have already been exported, with a total of 6,222 companies exporting goods from the region. That success is being led by companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and JCB, but I am sure that some of it can be attributed to UKTI’s team in the west midlands.
There are 39 UKTI international trade advisers in the west midlands, including four who cover my hon. Friend’s constituency. They are employed by the chambers of commerce under a contract with UKTI. More than 2,200 small and medium-sized enterprises were supported across the region in 2012-13 and nearly 2,700 have been supported so far in this financial year. That is a 20% increase. That is partly due to six additional advisers being appointed this year. UKTI has two specialist mid-sized business advisers in the west midlands, who support companies with a turnover of between £25 million and £500 million. Those businesses include Bournville college, with its links to India and Malaysia, and Morgan Advanced Materials, a defence company based in Coventry that is looking to south America and the middle east.
In the first nine months of this financial year, businesses supported by UKTI in the west midlands declared that they had secured business wins of more than £281 million. Those businesses include Serious Games International, a Coventry-based company that uses video games technology to solve business problems. With UKTI’s help, the company has secured business in Singapore worth £250,000 this year.
A range of support is provided for companies in the west midlands, including Passport to Export for novice exporters, and Gateway to Global Growth for more experienced exporters. Help and advice are also provided to carry out research, visit and exhibit overseas, and to find the right contact in more than 100 international markets. For example, as my hon. Friend may know, the Shrewsbury-based diamond chainsaw and blade supplier Toolguy Ltd has been supported by the UKTI west midlands Shropshire team through the Gateway to Global Growth programme. That company now exports to France, New Zealand, Brazil and the United States, with exports accounting for almost a third of its total sales.
UKTI also introduced the Whisky Trading Company based in Shrewsbury to one of Japan’s leading travel agencies, Japan Travel Bureau. That deal has seen the company exhibited in catalogues on planes and trains all over Japan. Working with UKTI’s international trade advisers is a UK export finance adviser based in the region, soon to be increased to two UKEF advisers. The current adviser has been invaluable in supporting companies to take up UKEF’s range of short-term export finance products. For example, working with HSBC, support was provided through the bond support scheme to Vee Bee Filtration UK based in Stourbridge. UKEF helped the company obtain two letters of credit in lieu of a performance bond and a warranty bond worth £175,000 in total. That helped the company to start work on a £1.67 million contract with a large US construction and engineering business.
Many events are arranged and held in the region by UKTI and its partners throughout the year. For example, last November, 1,250 west midlands firms attended more than 20 events as part of export week—the biggest turnout of any region in the country. Explore Export, which took place at Edgbaston that week, saw 350 firms meet commercial officers from 65 countries.
The first major event of 2014 will be on 22 January at JCB’s “Meet the Mittelstand”. That will introduce medium-sized businesses to what makes German companies of that size so successful in the global market place. Lord Livingston will be speaking at the event in his first regional visit as the new trade Minister. UKTI in the west midlands will again be organising events in the two export weeks in April and November this year. It will also take part in the international business festival in Liverpool starting in June, including arranging an event on India.
UKTI west midlands also works closely with BIS growth accelerator and the manufacturing advisory service to provide ongoing appropriate support to companies. Meetings are held on a monthly basis, sharing data and developing case studies to aid mutual referral. UKTI works closely with local enterprise partnerships. For example, UKTI in the west midlands has developed an international trade plan with The Marches LEP. That is pending formal sign off, which is expected at the next LEP board meeting this month. UKTI is represented on two of The Marches LEP’s three business boards, where input is provided into the business support agenda covering both trade and investment.
UKTI also supports joint events and activities within the LEP, running five Export for Growth events across Shropshire in 2013. The next event is this month and will involve my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. UKTI is working with the LEP on the opt-in for the new European regional development fund programme, which has the potential to bring in an additional £426,000 a year for export support.
UKTI Investment Services also works with partners across the west midlands. It is focused on delivering new investments and creating jobs within existing foreign direct investment companies. In 2012-13 it was involved in 88 projects leading to the creation of 4,600 jobs and the safeguarding of a further 4,583 jobs—a total of some 9,189 jobs across the west midlands. UKTI Investment Services has also developed closer working relationships with The Marches LEP in the past 12 months, leading to safeguarding jobs and securing new jobs within existing local investors. UKTI Investment Services, as my hon. Friend said, is supporting Shropshire council to develop a number of sectoral propositions, which include: agri-tech, food and drink, environmental technologies and creative industries. They will be incorporated into The Marches LEP offer this year.
My hon. Friend has worked with UKTI Investment Services and Shropshire council over the past four months to prioritise and develop opportunities to attract inward investors to the area. I understand, as he said, that templates have now been developed for six key opportunities aimed at securing future overseas investment into Shropshire. Indeed, I understand that representatives from the Regeneration Investment Organisation will be visiting the west midlands on 17 January, and that they have arranged to meet Shropshire council to develop an action plan to promote those opportunities.
My hon. Friend asked me one specific and fair question. How much of UKTI activity, he asked, takes place outside the capital, where there are more obvious opportunities to encourage overseas inward investment? I can tell my hon. Friend that 70% of UKTI activity takes place outside London.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate. I hope he agrees that UKTI in the west midlands is having an effective impact on trade and investment not only within his constituency but across the region as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Development of a Public Open Space near Astro Grove (Longton, Stoke-on-Trent)
Redevelopment of the Old Royal Ordnance Factory Site (Puriton, Somerset)
Heaton Chapel Train Station (Stockport)
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Planning Reform
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I am delighted to have secured the debate today. I ought to start with two disclaimers. First, although I served for 12 years on a county council, a strategic planning authority, I have never served on a district council and am ignorant of some of the niceties of local planning procedure. Secondly, despite some small differences in government with the Minister—I have rather an affection for productive agricultural land, which he affects not to share—I believe in principle in the reforms introduced by the Government. It is absolutely right that we turn around the principles of planning to make it more responsive to local people and base it on local priorities rather than on a Whitehall-knows-best approach.
The reason for calling today’s debate, however, is simply that the reality in many local authorities at the moment—certainly for those in my constituency in Somerset—is the precise reverse of that. In the absence of agreed local plans and agreed five-year supply, far from empowering local communities, we are disfranchising them from decisions that will have the most profound impact on their local areas. That is what I want to impress on the Minister today.
I could give a number of examples from my constituency, such as the villages of Evercreech, Rode or Beckington, all in Mendip, or Huish Episcopi, where a recent planning inspector’s decision has gone in completely the opposite direction to that wished by the district council, and by local people, as evidenced through the parish council. As an illustration, however, I will use the village of Norton St Philip, which I have raised with the Minister before in the Chamber. It is an example of what is actually happening on the ground.
Norton St Philip is a beautiful village: it is an historic settlement and a conservation area; it has, arguably, one of the oldest pubs in the country; and it was the scene of a battle during Monmouth’s rebellion. It has everything going for it, including one of the most spectacular views from the said pub’s car park across the village cricket pitch to the church—a view that one might wish to see anywhere in the country. The village also has the fortune, or misfortune, of being only a few miles away from Bath, with its inflated Georgian infrastructure. Those few miles are green belt, and Norton St Philip is therefore in reasonably high demand as a dormitory village for the cities of Bath and, to a lesser extent, Bristol.
The problem that Norton St Philip faces at the moment is that it is under siege from developers, with five applications already before planners and a further two in the pipeline. That could have a disastrous effect on the fabric and nature of the village.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am enjoying the reverie across the car park, the pub and the village green. Does he agree that, although we all want development on brownfield land first, the most important idea to take to the Minister is that housing projections by local authorities must be realistic and ascertainable rather than unrealistic?
Mr Heath
I will be touching on five-year supply in a moment, because it is critical to what is happening.
Let me say a little more about Norton St Philip. Under the new Mendip plan, it has been classified as a “primary village”, and along with that goes a requirement for 70 new homes. That is predicated on the newly reopened shop and post office. Without that shop and post office, Norton St Philip would revert to being a secondary village, with a requirement for 40 new houses. Setting that aside, what has happened already is 73 new houses. The applications before the planning authority provide for a further 223 houses in that small village. In other words, were those applications to be approved, the size of the village would be doubled, without any improvement to the infrastructure, and, needless to say, the character of the village would be hugely changed in the process.
I am particularly exercised by one of the applications, although I know that Members of Parliament should always be cautious about getting involved with local planning decisions. Nevertheless, to build on what is called Great Orchard, which is the site of the battle of Philip’s Norton, the skirmish during the rebellion, seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition. It is deep within the heart of the conservation area of the village and would put at risk some 200 metres of the finest dry stone wall to be seen in Britain. I apologise to hon. Members if I am exercising my Baedeker view of my constituency, but it is vital to understand that the village is an important and historic settlement. I cannot see the circumstances in which such a proposition would be approved, and of course it was not—it was not approved in the local plan and was not part of what was reserved for development.
People in the village are perfectly happy to ensure that the building that is already taking place and that which is projected in sensible places go ahead. They are not averse to development in the village. However, they do not want their village destroyed. That is a perfectly proper proposition.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this important debate. Does he agree that one of the major problems with planning—it has been for many years—is inconsistency? One council area will approve one thing; the neighbouring council area will not approve it. There needs to be flexibility, especially with town centre developments. If we are to regenerate our town centres, we need that flexibility, but inconsistency in planning has been a problem for many years.
Mr Heath
I agree that we need flexibility, and that is better determined by local people understanding local needs, rather than by an inspector in a planning department—in Bristol in our case—determining a case on the basis of rules derived from Whitehall. Local people should determine what is best for their area.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Perhaps my hon. Friend’s constituents are like mine. It is not nimbyism and they are not against development per se. Does he agree that it is all about a sense of proportion? Things seem to be out of all proportion, which is what is causing concern.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Let me come on to where I think things are going wrong. We have a free-for-all at the moment, an avalanche of applications that are opportunistic in nature, because the local plans have not been agreed.
The Minister has said on a number of occasions, “Well, it is up to local authorities to have their plans approved.” He is right—of course it is up to them, and everyone understands that, but he underestimates the difficulties and the extent of the changes in the process. The early adopters of local plans had an easy time. Some of the local plans, which the Minister can look at in his office, are paper thin and would never get through the process now, but because they were done right at the start, they went through. The smaller rural district planning authorities in particular are now struggling with an extraordinarily cumbersome and complex process.
Let me deal with some of the issues that are bedevilling that process. The key is the five-year supply, which I have mentioned. There is a lack of definitive guidance on how it is to be calculated. There was a clear promise from the Department for Communities and Local Government that definitive guidance would be produced in August last year, but it has not appeared. Two things are happening as a result. First, planning authorities are struggling to understand exactly what is required. Secondly, plans are being picked apart at planning inquiries by clever QCs, who are going back to the first principles in the planning framework and using those to override any sensible local decision making.
There are tensions within the system. Historically, census figures have been used, but it now seems as though economic aspiration is a key factor. Economic aspiration is fine, except that if it does not come to fruition, an area is left with the houses but not the jobs, which does not make sense.
There is also the fundamental problem that housing supply is effectively determined by the house builders themselves and what they say they will be bringing forward in a particular year. Let us not kid ourselves: there are a limited number of national house builders that effectively have an oligopoly of supply. They are coming forward with figures that might look all right on paper, but the house builders will build only when the margin meets their requirements, and the profit margin on those developments is relatively high. The Government might wish to see more houses built—I certainly do, as we desperately need them across the country—but developers are interested in banking development land rather than building when their marginal profit is not at its greatest.
As a result, we have perverse incentives for developers to acquire permissions but not develop the projects. We have what are called technical starts, where developers will put in a road and say, “We have started that project, but we are not actually going to build any houses yet—we will leave that for the moment. Meanwhile, let’s get on with our next application for the next bit of land that we see.” That can distort the entire local plan and what emerges from it.
The second key factor is the weight that the emerging local plan has in planning inspectorate decisions, as it is developed, consulted upon and submitted to the Department. The Minister said to me in the House a few months ago that the plan has weight, but that is not evidenced by the decisions taken by planning inspectors, who are not working on the basis of ministerial aspiration but of regulations—quite rightly, as that is the only basis they can work on—which require them to look at different criteria. We are therefore seeing inspectorate decisions that do not match the desires of local communities for local planning.
I have to say to the Minister that, when we are talking about large conurbations, sometimes it really does not matter which bit of land is developed—there is capacity for spread, so if one development comes on, it is possible to deselect another bit of land to bring everything back into kilter—but when we are talking about small market towns and rural areas, the topography does not allow for that. If the wrong bit of that sort of community is developed, it does not help to deselect what would have been the right bit for development. Deselection does not work.
There is another aspect concerning the inspectorate that I shall mention in passing: the perverse decision, which has been evidenced more than once now, that because a particular design of building is right in one place, it will necessarily be right anywhere. As a result of that, we have lost the sense of the vernacular, which is key to good planning. We should be able to ensure that the buildings in a particular area suit how buildings in that area have been built historically and fit with the urban or rural community landscape. Instead, the same model of house is relabelled in different parts of the country: in Somerset, they would probably call it a thatched cottage, despite the fact that it is an executive four-bed home, whereas in the north it would be called the Ullswater model or something like that. It is nonsense. Such decisions show whatever the visual equivalent is of having cloth ears.
I have a number of modest requests for the Minister. First, I want emerging local plans that are on the point of publication to have real weight in the planning process—to have what is called materiality. That is simply not the case at the moment. If he wants that to happen, he has to make it happen by regulation—to instruct planning inspectors that they have to give the plans real weight and back local councils in doing the right thing. That is the whole principle of localism.
Secondly, the Minister needs to provide definitive guidance on the five-year supply, to show exactly what is to be taken into account and how it is to be calculated. He must not leave it to clever QCs representing house builders to determine what is right for a particular local area. That is not localism, but an absolute divorce from it. Until we have that clear guidance, I do not believe the situation will improve.
Thirdly, we need to give real weight to the views of parish councils. That is a gap in the new legislation. At the moment, they are virtually non-people, and do not have the locus they should have in planning decisions. I recently read a speech by the Minister about the importance of neighbourhood plans. We went down that road with the previous Government and their village plans.
I have 135-odd villages in my constituency, and many of them spent months and years of really hard work on developing their village plans, thinking that what they were doing would affect future planning decisions and ensure that what was built matched needs and locality. The reality was, of course, that those plans were completely ignored. I am worried that neighbourhood planning will go down exactly the same road. Indeed, people are now so cynical that they might not engage with neighbourhood planning in the first place, because they do not believe it will have an effect. Unless we can show that it will bring a real improvement to local planning decisions, people will not engage.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned backing local councils and parish councils as well; that is an important part of this discussion. There is a problem, however, when those two organisations come into conflict. On my website there is a petition, with nearly 2,000 signatures, objecting to our current plan. How does he think district councils and parish councils could work together better to create greater consensus among local residents?
Mr Heath
That is important, and I believe there is a duty of co-operation within the local planning process that involves that sort of consideration. As I said, I have never sat on a district council in my life, but I know from my experience as leader of a county council, where we were dealing with matters such as mineral planning, that getting consensus is a long and iterative process. I do not believe that it is impossible for local people to achieve that consensus when they work together with shared objectives, but it is difficult when a plan is overridden by an inspector at appeal, or, worse still, when a district council feels so powerless to resist planning appeals that it rolls over in advance of them. We have seen that time and time again with local councils.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case outlining the mess that we are in. Just to be clear, is he content that the system should, ultimately, leave decision-making powers with the unelected planning inspector, or does he agree that those powers ought to be much closer to the property owner, the householder and the community?
Mr Heath
Ultimately, I would like the planning inspectorate to be redundant and local plans to be sufficiently robust to provide for the planning environment and, if necessary, local planning courts to determine whether there is a clear breach, but we are a little way away from that. In fact, the situation is quite the reverse: Her Majesty’s planning inspectors—I am not criticising them because they are only doing their job within the rules they have been given—are the planning authority for many of our rural areas. That cannot be right.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has talked a good deal about the impact of housing development on rural communities and so on. Does he have the same concern about the drive for green energy, wind turbines and the targets set by Europe? Does he believe that the same consideration should be given to the impact on householders, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) mentioned in his intervention, so that they may object and a balance can be struck in the countryside between the drive for green energy and the impact on people and the quality of their lives?
Mr Heath
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to divert this debate to energy, which is a completely different issue. I have always suggested that energy generation should be subject to the same sort of planning considerations as other industrial development. Although I am strongly supportive of renewable energy, I do not believe that it overrides all other considerations and I believe that such matters are best decided at local level. However, I do not want to derail this debate, which is about more routine planning policy.
Jason McCartney
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, the importance of which is evident from the turnout this morning. It is interesting to hear that he has 135 villages in his constituency. I will name just five communities in mine: Lindley, Linthwaite, Upperthong, Netherthong and Golcar. They are facing the prospect of open land being pounced on by developers because my Labour-run Kirklees council’s local development framework is up in the air and it is refusing to use the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. The nub of the matter is that when local councillors on the planning sub-committee listen to local concerns and are minded to refuse an application, its planning officers run roughshod over them, so there is no local democracy and no local accountability.
Mr Heath
The nomenclature of the villages in my hon. Friend’s constituency is as euphonious as those in mine. I could trade some wonderful village names with him. I am grateful for his intervention.
I have said that I want four things to be considered: the materiality of emerging local plans, a definition of “five-year supply”, the position of parish councils, and the vernacular, which is really important. I urge the Minister to look at that. It may seem to be a minor matter, but simply allowing uniformity of design throughout the country is contrary to the organic way in which architecture has developed in this country and is a hugely retrograde step.
I want to make one more suggestion. Central Government often put huge pressure on local councils to do things within time scales and castigate them if they do not. Could the same discipline be applied to the Government in terms of non-determination? It seems to me that local authorities are desperate to get local plans certified. Why do we not have a period following completion of the local plan process—perhaps six weeks from the plan being lodged with the Department—when it will be certified or will be deemed to have been certified irrespective of the planning Minister’s decision? It is no good the Government saying that they do not have the resources to deal with the issue—they do not accept that argument from planning authorities. The suggestion is a modest but good one, and I am sure that the Minister, being a radical Minister, will want to adopt it.
Something is seriously wrong not with the principle but with the operation of planning reform. It is causing great concern throughout the country. There is concern that communities will be distorted by opportunistic developments that our local authorities are apparently powerless to stop in the present circumstances. We must look closely at that. I do not want suburban sprawl across my rural constituency, but I see a risk of that. Of course I want houses to be built—we have a desperate need for them—but I want the right houses in the right places for the right reasons determined by local people. Those are exactly the principles that the Minister has espoused in his planning reforms. What I do not want, to almost quote the immortal words of Peter Seeger, is little boxes made of ticky tacky.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. A glance round the Chamber demonstrates that quite a lot of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. I want to make two points. First, the drill is that hon. Members write to Mr Speaker indicating their intention to speak in debates. Those who have not done so will be at the bottom of the list rather than the top. Secondly, I have the authority to impose a time limit, but I do not believe in time limits. I believe that we should have self-regulation and good manners rather than rules, so if hon. Members restrict themselves to about five minutes that would be extremely helpful.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I take on board your comments and will be as succinct as possible. I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. The Government’s planning reforms are of great importance on Teesside and in East Cleveland, and I intend to discuss their effect in those areas and raise the concerns of my constituents and local government leaders.
Planning policy makers have the difficult job of reconciling conflicting interests, but the Government’s approach to planning policy, particularly their Localism Act 2011, is distinctly centralist. The national planning policy framework ties the hands of local planning committees and removes much of their discretion in making decisions about planning applications based on local conditions. On Teesside, Stockton-on-Tees borough councillors, both Labour and Opposition, have been particularly vocal about that. Stockton council is not in my constituency, but its members have made several very valid and interesting points.
In November 2013, Stockton council passed a motion calling for an urgent review of the NPPF. It resolved that the framework effectively removed planning control from the local community and placed it in the hands of developers. It also made the interesting and valid point that that is coupled with massive reductions in available funding for the remediation of brownfield sites and that local authorities are effectively forced into permitting development on greenfield sites. A Thornaby Independent Association councillor questioned the reason for the very existence of a planning committee under the NPPF regime. Despite that, Stockton council has been under continual attack by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for its planning decisions. He branded the council’s leader “Bob the Builder”, despite the fact that since May 2010 the hon. Gentleman has not once objected to a planning application, and his Government are coercing the council into making the decisions. When Yarm councillor Mark Chatburn defected from the Tories to UKIP, he cited as one of his main reasons the hon. Gentleman’s silence prior to planning decisions and his refusal to utter a word of criticism of the NPPF.
It is not just Stockton council that finds itself under attack. Redcar and Cleveland borough council has been subjected to criticism about its draft local plan from local Liberal Democrats. I have submitted a response to the consultation on this document, as has my colleague Anna Turley, Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Redcar, who urged the inclusion of a commitment to a traditional pier and stressed her opposition to proposed developments in Marske.
Confusingly, however, despite criticism by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and Redcar and Cleveland Liberal Democrats of the council’s draft plan in the press and their focus leaflets, they have not responded to the consultation. Will the Minister explain why the Redcar Liberal Democrats have failed to respond to this consultation when Ministers repeatedly tell the House about the importance of having a strong local plan? Does he believe that their silence is indicative of a belief that local plans are unimportant, not locally controlled and subservient to diktats originating in Whitehall?
Jason McCartney
On a point of order, Mr Gray. Surely the general atmosphere of Westminster Hall debates is about raising issues on behalf of constituents. We are listening to a blatant political speech, which names particular people. What is your judgment on that?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
That is not a point of order. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches made in the Chamber this morning, and if they were out of order, I would have made the hon. Member concerned know that they were. So far, the hon. Gentleman who is speaking is making political points, and he is perfectly entitled to do so in a Chamber such as this.
Tom Blenkinsop
Thank you, Mr Gray. On a final note, the Government have abolished most of England’s regional government and governance structures, but has the Minister considered reintroducing a regional element into planning? Currently, one of the few parts of joined-up thinking in the formation of local plans is neighbouring authorities responding to each other’s consultations, with the Tory Hambleton district council, for example, responding to Redcar and Cleveland’s plan, supporting the construction of housing in my constituency so as to avoid its having to be built in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). That seems like a very unco-ordinated way to co-ordinate development. If requirements were determined on a regional basis, it would be more efficient and would allow for more strategic planning. Again, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this important matter, Mr Gray, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before we move on, I remind the hon. Gentleman that when he mentions another Member in a speech, it is a convention of the House that he lets that Member know. He may therefore find it appropriate to apologise to the Members he mentioned, if he had not given them due notice, and let them know what he said about them.
Tom Blenkinsop
Thank you for your time, Mr Gray. I informed the two hon. Members and I am fully aware of the rule.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Here we are again. I will try to be as brief as possible, and I will put the full text of what I had intended to say on my website—tonybaldry.co.uk. I am sure that constituents and right hon. and hon. colleagues will read the text in full, because I want to make three succinct—I hope—points in supporting and endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said.
The first is on the five-year housing supply, which will be a requirement—not only when there are approved local plans, but until 2031. At any point between now and 2031, developers will be able to come forward and say to a local authority, “At this moment, you haven’t got a sustainable five-year housing supply, so we are entitled to build wherever we want within your district”.
At present, there is no agreement on the methodology used by planning inspectors to determine the five-year housing supply. Two distinct methodologies seem to be used by planning inspectors. Different methodologies are used in different cases. One is now referred to in planning shorthand as the “Liverpool” method of calculation, and the other as “Sedgefield”.
In a recent decision in a planning appeal in my constituency at Deddington, the planning inspector calculated housing supply locally on what could even be described as a third method and a variation of “Sedgefield”; it might be described as “Sedgefield-lite”. It is simply not good public policy for local councillors, chief planning officers and others not to know what methodology a planning inspector will adopt in calculating whether a local planning authority has met its five-year housing supply. Ministers have to make clear and unambiguous the methodology that they expect planning Ministers and everyone else to use in calculating the five-year housing supply.
My second point is about brownfield sites. It has been an article of faith in the planning system, quite rightly, that one should bring forward brownfield sites first, but if local authorities are so keen and need to have their five-year housing supply, they will bring forward sites that are easiest to develop in the five-year supply. Invariably, those are greenfield sites, so brownfield sites will get put to the back.
I give as an example the Banbury canalside site in my constituency. The intention is to have that built in the centre of the town on an area that was in the flood plain, but now no longer is, because we built adequate flood defences. The plan is for 950 houses, but my district is so determined that it has to meet its five-year housing supply that that brownfield site is being put back rather than being brought to the front of the queue. That is daft.
I can see the situation changing only if planning inspectors, in calculating the five-year housing supply, give credit in housing numbers for brownfield sites when local authorities can demonstrate that they are undertaking sustained and credible work to make a brownfield site available in the market. Otherwise, given how the five-year housing supply is working at present, brownfield will be put to the end of the queue rather than being brought to the beginning of the queue. As I said, that is daft.
My third point relates to neighbourhood plans. All of us understood that, with the new national planning policy framework, neighbourhood plans and localism were going to be really important, but neighbourhood plans have to clear two hurdles. First, they have to be consistent with the local plan, and secondly, at present the community has to complete its neighbourhood plan until such a point as is agreed by a local referendum. Many of the communities that have started neighbourhood plans carry them out diligently and earnestly, but they are unlikely to complete them within a year or 18 months, by which time I suspect that a large number of them will be redundant.
A classic example involves the community in Deddington, a village in my constituency. People there are busily undertaking a neighbourhood plan, entirely consistent with the provisions set out by the Government. A landowner and developer come along and put in a planning application to build up to 85 houses on the edge of the community, which is refused by the local authority but allowed on appeal. Under the agreed local plan, because of what is happening with most of Cherwell’s new housing—we have planned for nearly 17,000 houses in our agreed local plan between now and 2031, so we are hardly not stepping up to the plate to meet housing requirements—Deddington is due to take something like 80 new houses to the end of the survey period in 2031. However, the location of up to 85 has already been decided—not by the local community, but on the basis of whoever happened to get their planning application in first. With respect, that is not neighbourhood planning. It is not a plan-led system; it is a system of first come, first served.
If a local planning authority has submitted an agreed local plan and if neighbourhoods are carrying out a neighbourhood plan consistent with the rules set out by the Government, in a timely and proportionate manner, I suggest that any planning application that will effectively pre-empt the neighbourhood plan should be dismissed on grounds of prematurity, in that it would effectively rob local communities of the opportunity to determine their future. Thank you, Mr Gray. If any colleagues would like the full text of what I was going to say, they should please refer to my website.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing today’s debate. I would like—in a timely fashion, obviously—to reinforce some points that he made.
We have a dilemma. We all believe in local decision making. Nobody could have been more pleased than me when the regional spatial strategy was abolished and we lost our proposed new town, which had not been supported by any democratically elected person. That was good. Like the Minister, I want a planning system that will play its role in contributing to providing our much-needed homes. At the moment, things are clearly not working together and at the right pace.
Neighbourhood plans sound so good; we hear about the examples that have gone to referendum—the great success of Thame and others. The number of neighbourhood plans sounds good, but I suspect that it represents a tiny proportion of what is needed. I believe that there needs to be more support, although I accept that the Government are supporting the process, because it is such an important way forward. I do not think that we should lose sight of that on the Government side, because it was a great innovation.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the emerging local plan has to have more material weight in the inspectors’ considerations. I do not know how that can be achieved, but in the past an emerging plan certainly had weight. Perhaps developers are finding new ways of getting around things. The Government must concede the point, given the number of places that do not have fully adopted plans as such, and support those areas that do not have fully adopted plans.
I have mentioned housing projections to the Minister. I feel that our local residents have to be able to understand where the local projections have come from and why they are there, at the scale they are at. It would then be easier to get a community buy-in.
I want to touch on the need for authorities to co-operate, because I am not convinced that they are doing so very well at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) likes to make the point that Cheltenham is very constrained, in terms of where new development would be suitable. My constituency is very constrained because of protected heathland. We have these dilemmas. There is a duty to co-operate, but I think we need to look more at how local authorities can form natural partnerships and work together to meet housing and other infrastructure needs.
I shall briefly touch on rural exception sites, which I have raised with the Minister. I was a big fan of rural exception sites until last week, I think it was. In my constituency, one has come in for 35 homes. There is a recently adopted plan in that part of the constituency. The parish is working up its neighbourhood plan, but that site has not been consulted on at all. It seems totally wrong that that could come in without a proper round of community interaction. It may well result in houses at the end of the day, but I am finding it difficult to see how it fits with our new planning framework.
I also want to touch on good design. There are instances in which we should accept that higher density can be good design and meet some of our objectives. I have to use those words carefully, because that is not always the most popular thing to say, but I just ask generally what encouragement the Minister is giving for good design.
I believe that the Minister has commented on how we could approach the problem of planning permissions being given but not implemented. I would like him to comment on what more he should be doing, because the public need confidence that what land is coming forward is not just the easiest picking when there are outstanding planning permissions that could be implemented.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
It gives me great pleasure to call someone who has so often called me to speak— Mr Nigel Evans.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if he is under any illusion or delusion that the planning system is working well, all he needs to do is listen to the hon. Members who are speaking here today. This is rather a large turnout for Westminster Hall. Hon. Members are talking about their anxieties and frustrations and the fact that their constituencies are under siege. I certainly feel that myself, because the Ribble Valley is under siege.
I was first elected in 1992. I said to my executive that I hoped that after my days in the House, when I handed the Ribble Valley over to my lucky successor, it would be in better shape, or at least in no worse shape, than when I became its Member of Parliament. I was doing rather well until 2010, when the planning system started to change. We in the Ribble Valley are under siege.
There are not as many villages in my area as in that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), but there are many wonderful, lovely villages and towns, including Clitheroe, the main market town. The whole area is under siege. We do not have our core strategy in place, and it seems as if that is a green light to every speculative developer to put in a planning application, with no protection for the local authority or for the people themselves.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a development in a small village area can turn communities into strangers? One developer can come in for a vast site in a small village area that will more than double the number of properties. That is not good for communities.
Mr Evans
I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has just said. Barrow in my constituency is a perfect example of a village where planning applications have gone in that would more than double its size. The people are up in arms against that. I hope that the public will get protection against that application, which I think is barmy.
There are a number of other areas. Clitheroe is the largest town; applications have gone in all over the place there, and many have been granted on appeal. Somebody did suggest getting rid of the inspector, or the inspectorate. That would make me smile more than anything else, frankly.
The frustration for many of my local councillors is that they go out and tell the people what they will do when they are elected; the people tell their councillors what they want when planning applications go in; and the councillor stands up for them and says, “No, we don’t want to see 1,000 houses in Clitheroe”. However, the decision is then overturned or, as in this case, the local authority gets the feeling that if it did turn the application down, it would go to appeal, cost it a lot of money to defend its position and the application would then be allowed. In many cases, local authorities are allowing certain applications when their hearts tell them that they should not.
Andrew Bingham
Does my hon. Friend agree that the scenario that he eloquently lays out and which I have seen in my High Peak constituency is damaging people’s faith in democracy across the board? They see their elected representative making one decision and an unelected representative overturning it.
Mr Evans
I totally agree. It means frustration on the part of not only the people, but the councillors. They shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what is the worth of being a local authority councillor if we are making these decisions on behalf of the public and then they are overturned?” Or, even worse, the local authority is told, “Listen, you’d better accept this planning application. Otherwise, it’s going to cost you a lot of money and you will lose.”
Steve Baker
My hon. Friend has made the point with great clarity and passion, but I cannot forbear from saying that those of us who stood for election on the Conservative manifesto stood on a platform of a radical decentralisation of power—an invitation to the people to join the Government of Britain. I think that he will agree with me that those of us who stood on that platform with enthusiasm are rather disappointed that it has come to this.
Mr Evans
More than disappointed. I used to use a counter-argument against those in my constituency who said, “This is a disaster. This is what is going to happen if the Localism Bill goes through.” I said, “No, localism will give power back to the local authorities.” Now, when we look at what has happened, it seems as if there has been some Orwellian double-speak. Localism sounds as if it is giving power back to the local people when in essence it has not done that at all—quite the contrary. If people want to build houses, localism is fine. If people want to go against the building of the houses, localism does not help them one jot.
I was elected as a Conservative. I am a Conservative; just as the name on the tin suggests, I want to conserve—I want to conserve what is best in our area. The position is as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) said. If people in the Ribble Valley want to live in Manchester, that is fine—they can go and live there. What we do not want is Manchester coming to us. We do not want to see these towns growing at such a rate that we do not even recognise them.
The Ribble Valley is one of the nicest places to live in the whole country; it is one of the jewels. I say that it is like the Lake district without the lakes—even with the rain we have been having, we still do not have the lakes, thank goodness. People want to live there for a certain reason. I know what the Minister is talking about when he says that people deserve the right to have a roof over their heads. Everyone deserves a home; I agree with him on that, but we need to look at areas that neighbour places such as the Ribble Valley—such as Burnley, Preston, Pendle and Hyndburn—and see what we can do to regenerate some of the run-down areas there. We need to ensure that homes that are run-down are made available to people in those areas and that they do not have to flee those areas and live somewhere else.
I will finish shortly because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, but I just want to say this. I believe that we ought to have a planning system that is based on consent—the consent of the local people. I finish by referring not just to housing but to wind turbines. When fairly well everybody in a local area is saying no to three wind turbines in a suburban area and the council turns the application down because it has listened to what the local people say, but it then goes to the inspectorate and the inspectorate passes it, there must be something wrong in the system because we are not listening to the people. Minister, listen to the people.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing this very important debate. Its importance is demonstrated by the number of hon. Members who have turned up. I know that there are many who could not attend who would have attended otherwise.
The primary issue being debated is housing projections in our areas. Many of the issues that have been described apply to my own area in Cornwall. The Isles of Scilly are rather different: it is a very protected environment and one where the projections and pressures are not the same.
I fear that the debate is being characterised, or rather could be characterised from the Whitehall and ministerial perspective, in a certain way. I fear that what people are hearing is the rather complacent and self-satisfied voice of the contentedly housed seeking to deny opportunities for the unhoused or the inadequately housed—in other words, the nimby argument.
The view is that the role of Government, through their policies and the inspectorate, is to ensure that there is balance in the system and that that group of people are seeking to resist simply from the perspective of wanting to protect their own property values, scenery and lifestyle—the drawbridge mentality, which often applies to people living in a rural setting. The view is that the role of this system is to stand up against those kinds of pressures. That is a rather simplistic view of how the system operates in an area such as mine. Cornwall is not a nimby place. The housing stock has more than doubled in the past 40 years, but local people’s housing problems have significantly worsened over that period.
We cannot be accused of being nimbys, but successive Governments’ policies have been counter-productive for the region. They have ensured that projections are maintained, but those projections have been utterly unsophisticated. Many of the Office for National Statistics projections over the past 10 years have been significantly undershot, and I believe that the ONS model for setting projections is rather flawed. When there is a high projected figure, what happens—not only in the five-year supply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome has said, but in the system as a whole—is that even in areas that have not been designated for housing development, the hope value on all surrounding land becomes extremely high, because of the expectation that planning permission will be relatively easily obtained. As a result, it becomes impossible to implement schemes to deliver affordable homes, which require low land values.
Such policies have a counter-productive impact. That sits against the aims of the exceptions policy and “Planning Policy Guidance 3”, which was established in the early 1990s under the then Environment Secretary, Nicholas Ridley. The principle behind that policy was absolutely correct. If a strict and controlling system that protects the local community is established and a genuine exception, which follows the policy, is granted, it is possible to achieve low land values and deliver affordable homes in rural areas. The setting of high projections will never achieve that.
The exception described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is clearly not a proper exception. An exception would have to be brought through with the support of parish council housing associations and others, and the necessity for it would have to be clearly demonstrated by a community needs assessment. My hon. Friend’s example is a rather curious one. Over the past few years in Cornwall, we have seen a lot more housing—we are the second or third-fastest growing place in the United Kingdom—but housing problems have soared. In the Penzance area, rough sleeping and homelessness is second, proportionately, to London, so the policy has clearly failed.
The Government must stop imposing projected figures on Cornwall. Cornwall council will have a debate next week in which it will say that if it does not accept the ONS projected figure, that figure will be imposed on the council. That is not a basis on which Cornwall can establish a plan to meet local housing need. Meeting the desperate need for affordable homes, not accepting projections that divert us from achieving that aim, is ultimately what matters. Otherwise, we end up with more second homes, more unoccupied property, more investment property and more retirement homes. Those sectors have certainly grown in Cornwall, while opportunities for the local population to find adequate housing have significantly decreased.
I hope that the Government will recognise that the issue is sophisticated and difficult, and that they will give local authorities the power to meet local housing need rather than forcing on them thousands of houses that will not help to meet that need.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing this timely debate. It is a great pleasure to follow a fellow Cornish MP, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has in a nutshell articulated our dilemma in Cornwall. We have welcomed a lot of people into Cornwall; there has been a lot of inward migration and a lot of house building, but we still have a chronic housing situation. People who are born and bred in Cornwall, who work in our local economy and contribute a great deal to it, cannot afford to live there. Because so many colleagues want to contribute to this debate, I shall take the lead from my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and say that my speech will be on my website in its entirety. I associate myself very much with the comments that he has made.
With brevity in mind, I seek some simple assurances from the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has said, Cornwall council will meet next week to attempt to agree its plan, and some specific assurances from the Minister today would help the councillors in that process. Our councillors are being told by the planners that unless they accept a projected housing target based on what Cornwall has delivered over the past 10 years, the planning inspector simply will not agree the plan. To help the plan-making process, I urged Cornwall council to undertake a local needs assessment, which it has done. That assessment looked at the number of homes that are needed in Cornwall for those who currently do not have the right type of genuinely affordable housing, and the number needed to support the growing businesses in Cornwall. The local needs assessment demonstrated that Cornwall has been over-delivering properties at a rate of up to 1,000 a year, and that we need a much smaller number in order to meet our obligations and our desire to provide the right sorts of homes and achieve sustainable growth.
Cornwall councillors are being told that the good evidence base that has been gathered in that local needs assessment cannot be used, or the planning inspectors will throw out the resulting plan. I seek an absolute assurance that if Cornwall councillors, when they meet next week, can provide an adequate evidence base that supports the building of a certain number of homes based on realistic population growth and observed household composition rates, the planning inspector will accept that number. Any reassuring words that the Minister can give about the methodology that councillors can use in making their decision next week would be most welcome, because we desperately need to agree the plan. There has been a huge amount of consultation and very good work is going on in neighbourhood planning, but that plan has to be agreed.
As so many other hon. Members have described today, a developers’ free-for-all is going on in Cornwall and a huge number of speculative planning applications are being made. We need to use the tools that the Government have laid out in a new plan-making process to ensure that we have development in Cornwall, but that it is sustainable and fits in with our unique environment. Our key industries are tourism, farming, fishing and food production. Only yesterday the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quite rightly pointed out how much more food we need to produce in our own country, and how food security will become an increasing issue. Those are key industries for Cornwall, and we can make a key contribution to the nation if councillors are given the tools to balance the need for housing with the need for a sustainable environment.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing the debate so early in the year. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I declare an interest as a home owner in the Malvern Hills district, which has recently been found to be the second best place to live in the midlands, but I think it was severely underrated in that survey. It is a wonderful place to live.
I have had the pleasure of attending two debates on the south Worcestershire development plan in this Chamber in the past few months—one on 24 October and one on 20 November—so I do not want to talk too much about my local area, but about national planning issues. I have some questions for the Minister. I agree with the many colleagues who said that we are in a much better place, as far as planning is concerned, than we were when we had the top-down regional spatial strategies so favoured by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop).
I completely agree with other colleagues who said how important home building is in our areas and how important it is for the economy, which is beginning to show signs of recovering from the dreadful recession we had under the Labour Government. I know how keen the Minister is to see the promising increase in the rate of home building continue, and I have some suggestions as to how we could speed up housing development by clarifying the guidance to the planning inspector. It is my view that the Planning Inspectorate is holding up growth in many areas, and we have heard many examples of that today.
In my area, we are a bit further on than the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome: our local plan was agreed by the councils over a year ago—as far in the past as December 2012. It was then submitted to the planning inspector in May 2013 and it took him until 28 October to give his interim thoughts on stage 1 of the inspection. That is a total of five months. He found that the duty to co-operate was being met and he had many good things to say about the plan, but he still wants further information and has rejected all seven methodologies presented to him for housing projections. We are playing a game of “pin the tail on the donkey” in the dark with the planning inspector and guessing what sort of housing numbers he wants to see. He has told us that the next stage of part 1 will start on 10 March 2014—a delay, with five months between that date and the continuation of stage 1. He has also written to me to say that he cannot give a time scale at this point for stage 2.
I wanted to see how long our process took compared with what hon. Members had seen around the country. There is a good spreadsheet on the Department for Communities and Local Government website of the 350-odd local plans currently in different stages of development. It categorises them by whether a council has published its local plan, submitted its plan, whether the plan has been found to be sound and whether the plan has been adopted. I thought it would be helpful to see how long the process takes. In about half the cases, the plan has been fully adopted. It is interesting to note that the time between a plan being submitted and being found to be sound has increased substantially in the past year. Since the national planning policy framework became live at the end of last March, the number of days between a plan being submitted and being found to be sound has increased from nine months on average— a normal human pregnancy—to 14 months. There is a material difference: the time period is not as long as an elephant’s pregnancy yet, but it is certainly increasing—the size of the mammal is going up.
My first question to the Minister is whether the delay—the increase in the time between the plan being submitted and having it found to be sound—is due to a national shortage of planning inspectors. My neighbour and newly knighted colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), tabled some parliamentary questions at the end of last year. He was told that 80 plans are in the process of inspection across the country, which, in the Department’s view, will take 25 full-time equivalent planning inspectors, and it is currently recruiting additional inspectors. I would like an update from the Minister on the recruitment of those additional inspectors.
Secondly, is the delay since the NPPF became active a deliberate strategy? Does the Minister believe that it is encouraging more home building? I submit that that is a mistaken view. It would be helpful if we heard whether he had noticed any difference between the number of new homes bonuses paid out in local council areas that have an adopted plan and the number paid out in those areas that do not. Is there a statistical difference in the rate of housing delivery? Housing delivery will speed up and the arguments about planning will slow down if a plan is given significant weight in the planning process.
I conclude by saying that my thesis is the same as that of many hon. Members here today. The goal of the Minister, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and indeed the country of delivering more homes and building local democracy into the heart of that process will be better achieved if the Minister told his inspectors to move immediately to give almost full weight in the planning process to plans that have been submitted and democratically agreed.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I give my hearty congratulations to our hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing a worthwhile opportunity to set out our thoughts on planning.
The essence of the debate is that increasingly relying on an inspection regime to sort out problems is not localism, but quite the reverse. That is the cornerstone of most Members’ contributions today. Stroud district council is busily preparing its local plan, but it is of course a Labour-led administration, which is bound to hamper progress, and it has a committee system, which is not ideal.
Delays have left many communities spinning in the wind, as gusts of developers come along and make proposals here, there and everywhere. I have been the recipient of many messages from communities saying, “What are you going to do to protect the integrity of our area while we don’t have a local plan?” I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend and others: while emerging local plans are still being formulated, we must give them more prominence in inspection considerations. That matters because if we are talking about localism and giving local people a voice, we must be bold enough to do it. We must give emerging local plans some consideration.
The same logic, incidentally, applies to neighbourhood planning. When we go around our patches, as I do, encouraging neighbourhood plans, the response heard is, “Well, that won’t be sufficient to stop what’s being proposed.” That is absolutely true unless or until such plans are given recognition in the planning process, too. If a community is concerned about what will happen to it, a neighbourhood plan is a good way to do something, but we must give that plan some traction. We should not only think about the local plan as a whole, but consider emerging neighbourhood plans. They are a clear illustration of what communities are thinking, if they are bold enough and sensible enough to have one.
Many hon. Members have talked about housing numbers. It is important to bring together two issues. The first is co-operation among councils. They must talk to each other and understand the scope and content of their plans and their relationship to each other’s plans. That is essential. Secondly, this is not just about housing numbers, but about the economic conditions that prevail in an area. We need planning authorities to take much more account of the economic factors, which should have a bearing on housing numbers. The Minister needs to express that clearly, so that councils have to consider the economic issues, as well as the obvious question of housing numbers.
Time is obviously short, so I shall finish by saying that we want to see local communities planning and we want to see more houses. We need to understand the value that more houses can bring to local communities which need to feel involved and have ownership of the developments. That is another essential point that needs to be transmitted to local authorities. In short, we do not want an inspection-led regime, because that is not localism; it is effectively the nationalisation of planning. We want the reverse, and we want to be able to say to local authorities, “Those of you that are doing something, do it well and be respected.”
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing this debate. He has very eloquently raised important constituency issues this morning, and I shall return to the specifics of his speech in a minute or two.
I hope that Government Members and others will forgive me for not mentioning them individually; there are rather a lot of them. Everyone spoke earnestly and lucidly on behalf of their constituencies. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) for helping me to feel a little less lonely on the Opposition side and for raising important issues that affect his area. He highlighted inconsistencies in the Government’s approach to planning at the moment.
This debate follows one on a broadly similar topic. Lots of Government Members attended that debate a few months ago in October. It was about what happens with local planning decisions when there is not a local plan in place. There was some dispute among Members about whether there was a need for additional housing in rural areas, and that has been reflected to a degree in some of the contributions today.
I want to put on the record that I agree with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, particularly those about technical starts; land banking; land supply; the need to get better quality into our house building system; the need to strengthen brownfield policy further; and how we take more notice of neighbourhood planning. I concur with all those points and will talk about them in more detail in a minute or two.
We know that we need more housing, including in rural areas. I shall not rehearse again all the figures that I gave last time. Suffice it to say that, to secure a typical mortgage, a rural resident needs to earn £66,000. With the average rural income standing at just over £20,000, there clearly is a problem with affordability, partly as a result of insufficient supply.
The situation in rural areas is part of a wider problem. For decades, under successive Governments, house building has stayed low relative to demand. Private house building completions in England have been relatively static for more than 30 years, averaging about 130,000 per annum. That is below the peak average of 180,000 per annum in the 1960s. There is an ever-growing gap between supply and demand, which means that millions of hard-working people are increasingly priced out of buying their own home.
Recent data from Glenigan show that although approvals for new housing are improving, they are not yet at the levels recorded for 2007, and are not high enough to deliver the output of about 200,000 houses per year that most sensible commentators suggest we need to meet demand, so we must address the housing shortage.
The Government are right—I want to emphasise this—to allow housing need to be objectively measured locally as outlined in the NPPF, but as the National Housing Federation has stated in its briefing for today’s debate, more could be done to clarify the methodology used. Indeed, it appeared to back Labour’s call that we need a common methodology to be applied across all local authorities to ensure a consistency of approach. That might help to address some of the concerns raised by Members this morning.
I also agree with other Members who have contributed today that development sites need to be identified by local communities, with a stronger emphasis on neighbourhood planning and with consent at the heart of the planning system. I think that that can be helped in a number of ways. I have paid tribute to the Minister before for his support for neighbourhood planning; he has the Opposition’s support. We want him to think about how neighbourhood planning can be strengthened and how we can better integrate neighbourhood planning into the local plan-making system.
I also applaud the precedence that the Government have given to local plans in the determination of planning applications, but, as many hon. Members have said this morning, the process of getting them adopted is still too slow, with only 55% of authorities having an adopted local plan. I know that 76% of councils have published a plan, but there are still not enough of them in place. In the meantime, we have a situation in which, as many hon. Members have mentioned today, the Planning Inspectorate, and in some instances local authorities, are approving inappropriate schemes in the absence of a local plan, or they are not taking enough note of a local plan.
A few months ago when we debated the issue, the Minister had nothing much to say about how he would remedy the situation. I hope he has stronger words of comfort for us today. It is clearly an issue that relates to many areas and it is causing anxiety locally. Worryingly, the Local Government Association has said that local decisions taken in line with emerging local plans are being overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. I agree with it and others who have said that this will undermine trust in the planning system and result in development that does not reflect the needs of local communities. That is the opposite of what we all want.
The LGA also points out, helpfully, that it is not planning that is the barrier to growth. Councils are approving 89% of all planning applications, and planning permissions are up 31% on 2012. Indeed, planning approvals are at a 10-year high, so it should be possible to have the housing we need and to reject inappropriate development as defined locally at the same time. Otherwise, the current system risks breeding further resentment towards development. Instead, we should be supporting a planning system that more readily favours development based on consent.
The issue is important for the Minister, because the NPPF states clearly that weight should be given to emerging local plans, but, in practice, this appears to be being ignored by PINS. Members have this morning called for greater guidance to be given to the Planning Inspectorate.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Forgive me, but I am terribly short of time.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made an excellent point: the issue is not simply about housing numbers. It is about employment, proper infrastructure and leisure. We need to talk not only about housing numbers, but about building communities. This is an issue that is often not considered strongly enough by the Planning Inspectorate. Again, I want to emphasise the need to do something about quality and about protecting our ancient woodlands. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. It is an added concern for us all after the past week. What is the Minister going to do to speed up the system for getting local plans approved? That is clearly the key to getting the development that we want.
Before I sit down, I should say that while we have been having this debate we have all learned about the very sad death of our colleague, Paul Goggins. I am sure that all Members will join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family and friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
First, I absolutely echo the condolences that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has just extended to the family of Paul Goggins. I had not understood that he had died, and it is a very sad day. He was a gentleman who commanded respect and affection across the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing this debate, which has become something of a “Groundhog Day” experience for me. I am absolutely sure that this is not the last time that I will have this experience, although whether I will end up with Andie MacDowell at the end of the movie is open to question.
I welcomed many of the questions that my hon. Friend asked, but I must object very strongly to how he opened his speech. He seemed to imply that I was not a supporter of maintaining agricultural land for farming. I heard some bellows from up above, where my recently departed father, a sheep farmer in Devon, and my rather-longer-ago departed grandfathers, farmers in the Mendips and in Devon respectively, were outraged at the implication that I am anything other than a passionate supporter of farming.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is such an experienced Member that I am surprised he believes what he reads in the newspapers.
In the very short time available to me, I will try to cover some of the main issues raised this morning, chiefly by my hon. Friend but also by other hon. Members. I will not be able to answer every question. In particular, I would like to write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about the questions that she put about the Planning Inspectorate. I will copy in everybody in Westminster Hall today with the answers, because they were very good questions but technical ones, and I would like to come back to her specifically on them.
The first issue is housing projections. What is the role of figures from the Office for National Statistics in supporting housing projections? The fundamental situation is that, just as we expect local authorities to make plans to meet their needs for schools and for social care, we expect in the national planning policy framework that local authorities will make plans to meet their housing needs. Those plans have to be evidence-based. Of course, we cannot entirely reject ONS population projections, because the ONS is our national statistics body and those projections are the best that we have, although I entirely understand why they are often wrong and flawed, as all projections necessarily are.
What I have said, however, does not mean that those ONS projections are the last word. It is absolutely open to any authority—Cornwall council will certainly have this opportunity—to look at the actual figures achieved in the past, relate them back to the projections that were in place then and then say why it thinks that projections are not the last word and that different numbers have an evidence base. It is absolutely open to authorities to do that, but their numbers must be based on evidence; they cannot be based on assertion alone. Authorities must use evidence and that evidence will be challenged in an examination by developers and others, so it needs to be pretty robust.
I will now address the subject of the five-year land supply and particularly the question put by my hon. Friend about this rather vexed question—I cannot believe that we are all getting into this business whereby we are all experts on Sedgefield and Liverpool, not as places, football teams or constituencies, but as methods of calculating land supply.
What “Sedgefield” and “Liverpool” simply refer to is a particular question. If an area has had an under-delivery of housing in the past, how quickly—in the area’s new plan—should it catch up on that under-delivery? Rather than getting into the whole question of, “Is it Liverpool and is it Sedgefield?”, which will mean precisely nothing to our constituents, I will just read out what the draft guidance, which we hope to finalise in a very few weeks, says about this issue:
“Local planning authorities should aim to deal with the under-supply within the first five years of the plan period where possible.”
Now, some things are not possible; some things will conflict with other sustainability policies that are very important in the NPPF. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that, where past performance has undershot need, if it is possible, we should try to catch it up at the beginning of the plan and not during the full 15-year life of the plan.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way on that specific point. Of course, by catching up quickly in the plan, my local authority—Test Valley borough council—faces a situation where in years six to 15 it is unable to include sites such as windfall sites, which we know will inevitably come forward. Does the Minister have any plans to allow my local authority to include windfall sites again, or are such sites off the agenda for ever?
Nick Boles
I cannot comment on any particular plan, but windfall sites absolutely can form part of a plan. Where an authority can evidence that it has had a consistent delivery of housing through windfall sites in the past, and it is reasonable to expect that there will continue to be such a delivery of housing through windfall sites, it is absolutely reasonable to say that part of its planned projections assumes a level of windfall site delivery. There is nothing in the policy to prevent that.
I will move, very briefly, to the question of the weight of emerging plans. The hon. Member for City of Durham was absolutely right to say that it was a vexed issue in the last debate that we had on this subject. We are trying to make this issue clearer in the draft guidance and although the consultation has closed on that draft guidance, as far as I am concerned consultation never closes.
If hon. Members would like to look at that draft guidance, they should refer to the Department’s website. I would be very happy to take any comments or concerns from them. We have also invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who both had very serious concerns about this process, to meet the chief planner to discuss in detail how it will work.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I did not get the opportunity to speak; I will put my speech on the website. The Minister can go further than issuing draft guidance and actually amend the NPPF, because all is not lost. He does not have to come back to Westminster Hall and have “Groundhog Day”. He can also take into account the cumulative effects of development within the NPPF, at paragraphs 186 and 187, to close a loophole that he has been hearing about today; he has also heard about the pain that that loophole has caused. I also have other suggestions that I will write to him about.
Nick Boles
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are not looking to change the NPPF, because after such a dramatic change in the planning system, stability has an enormous value.
However, what we are looking to do in the draft guidance, which we hope to confirm shortly, is to make it clear that it is sometimes reasonable—in exceptional circumstances, but exceptions happen all the time—to refuse a planning application. That is the case if, one, the application is so substantial that it runs the risk of undermining the plan to which it is being referred, and, two, where a local plan has been submitted for examination—it has not yet passed examination, but has been submitted. A refusal can also happen in the case of a neighbourhood plan, when it has entered into what is called the local authority publicity period; it has completed consultation but it has not yet gone to referendum or, indeed, to examination. Before the plans have been examined, they will have material weight and they can, in exceptional circumstances, be used just on the basis of prematurity to refuse an application, if the application is so substantial that it could completely knock the legs out from that emerging plan.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. We have listened very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed. As I say, we have met other Members who have had concerns about this issue and we have done our utmost to listen to them, and to try to reflect those concerns.
I simply point out that that is not entirely within our gift, because, much as I understand how my colleagues from all parts of the House would dearly love to abolish the Planning Inspectorate, I can tell them where these things would end up if we abolished it—they would end up in court. It would cost their local authorities a lot more money to fight these things in court than it does to fight them either through an examination or in an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate. Planning inspectors are a better solution for local councils and local communities than the available alternative in a system where the rule of law enables people to challenge Government decisions whenever they like.
In the minute or so I have left to me, I will address the very important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made about design. To reassure him, hopefully, I will read the draft guidance about the very point that he made:
“Development should seek to promote character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development and culture, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation.”
Local vernacular is critical to making people feel that development is a friend, and is actually helping and supporting communities, rather than undermining, challenging or alienating them. It is something that matters a great deal to me. I believe that if we built more beautiful houses in more beautiful places, we would build more houses, and ultimately that is what we all want to achieve.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
I thank the 11 hon. Members who spoke and the eight who intervened. Will they please now leave the Chamber swiftly and quietly? I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who nobly acted as Parliamentary Private Secretary in the previous debate and will now introduce his own debate.
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
(10 years, 4 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
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here today under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate on the work of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. I requested this debate following the JCVI’s decision on the 2 October 2013 to undertake further work on key issues surrounding the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccination programme. I understand that some colleagues may wish to comment on other aspects of the JCVI’s work. I want to focus particularly on the Committee’s decision to consider—I use its word—“urgently” vaccinating men who have sex with men, on attendance at sexual health services, and adolescent males. I intend to focus my remarks on that work now being undertaken with regard to the HPV vaccination programme, specifically in terms of exposure to HPV-related cancers, which are increasing in boys who have sex with females and the MSM community.
The decision of the JCVI to prioritise consideration of vaccinating MSM is noteworthy, not least because the minutes of its October meeting accept that a full economic model might not be necessary where sexual health clinicians can develop independent guidelines. Historically, the JCVI has often rejected vaccination of adolescent boys and MSM on economic grounds, so it is a major step forward for it to say that heath clinicians with expertise—particularly at sexual health clinics—can take such a decision on clinical grounds. That is welcome.
It is important—I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will need to ensure it—that any decision on extending vaccinations is clinically and financially sound. I do not seek to undermine that decision. I wish to stress the economic benefits of extending the vaccination swiftly, rather than stress other issues of equality, which I raised in an Adjournment debate last year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important health matter to Westminster Hall for consideration. There have been significant positive results from vaccinating women and girls for HPV, so clearly there is an advantage shown in doing that. That consolidates the hon. Gentleman’s request for the same vaccination to take place in men and boys as well. Does he agree that the same should happen with regard to men as has happened for women and girls?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that repeats some of the discussion we had in last year’s Adjournment debate. The success of the vaccination programme among girls has had a dramatic impact on HPV-related cancers among women. However, the flaw was that it assumed herd immunity for boys who were having sex either with girls or within the herd. But of course, not all boys have sex with girls: some—shock, horror!—have sex with other boys, and not all boys have sex within the herd. Increasingly, in a global economy, and particularly in Europe where the vaccination programme is not the same, adolescent boys in this country are exposed to women who have not been vaccinated. It is important to close the loophole for adolescent boys having sex with unvaccinated girls and those having sex with unvaccinated boys, who, obviously, grow to be unvaccinated men.
If the JCVI has agreed to urgently review the economic case for extending the vaccination programme, why is this debate needed? Before I discuss that, it is worth reminding ourselves what health problems we are trying to prevent. I recall, during the Adjournment debate, seeing the duty Whip sink ever further on the Bench as we discussed certain topics and cancers. This is not a pleasant subject, but I would rather discuss an unpleasant subject than have to deal with it in our hospitals.
Nine out of 10 cases of genital warts are HPV-related; oral-related HPV infections—men are six times more likely than women to have oral infections—increase the risk of cancers of the mouth, throat, neck and head cancers; and there are HPV-related penile and anal cancers: HPV is associated with 80% to 85% of anal cancer in men. In 2009, just after the HPV vaccination programme started, there were more than 6,500 cases of these cancers, with 47% of penile cancer and 16% of head and neck cancers thought to be HPV-related. The latest incidence data show that in 2010 there were 437 incidences of anal cancer and 5,637 of oropharyngeal cancer, 515 instances of penile cancer and 180,000 instances of genital warts. Rates of HPV-related cancers are on the rise in the UK. Throat cancer has overtaken cervical cancer as the leading HPV-related cancer. I am pleased that the JCVI has accepted that there is an urgent need to review the clinical and economic case for extending the programme to adolescent boys and MSM.
I should like to put on record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry),for her support in this matter and for facilitating a teleconference, which she and I and representatives of the Terrence Higgins Trust had with the Chairman of the JCVI, which I believe gave some impetus to this change of heart and the speeding up of the work by the JCVI. That was a significant breakthrough.
The key point in this debate is that although the JCVI’s urgent report is due at some unspecified point later this year, the procurement of the next round of HPV vaccinations will commence in October or November this year. I am concerned that if the JCVI does not report in time and this procurement round is missed, we may have to wait four more years—I believe it is a four-year procurement round—before the HPV vaccination programme is extended to adolescent boys and MSM, if that is the recommendation.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this subject to the House. I share his concerns. Is he also concerned that although the JCVI undoubtedly does some excellent work, it does not share the flexibilities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, in terms of its medical and health assessment processes? Would he welcome some movement there, which might in turn help bring this vaccine forward more quickly?
Mike Freer
The hon. Lady makes a good point and speaks, probably, with more knowledge than I have. If NICE is able to react more swiftly than the JCVI, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that point away and consider whether the two organisations could share best practice. Clearly, as new drugs come on the market and new issues arise, we must ensure that the health advisers are able to respond quickly to changes.
The key point I was making is that if we miss the procurement window, and if we have to wait four more years, boys and the MSM community would be unnecessarily exposed to HPV-related cancers. There is not just a personal cost to those who become exposed to HPV-related cancers: the NHS would be exposed to treatment costs that might be mitigated or avoided if we get the JCVI to report in time for the procurement round later this year.
If we look at the costs, we can start to see the scale of the savings. To put that into perspective, the three-dose HPV vaccination programme currently costs some £260. I understand that the JCVI is also considering whether that may be reduced to a two-dose vaccination, which would reduce the outlay. Let us compare that with the £13,000 cost per patient of treating anal cancer, the £11,500 cost per patient of treating penile cancer, the £15,000 cost per patient of treating oropharyngeal cancer, or the £13,600 cost per patient of treating vulvar and vaginal cancer transmitted by an infected male. In 2010, the total cost to the NHS of treating genital warts was £52.4 million. If we multiply those figures by four, we can see the clear economic benefits of bringing forward the decision to coincide with the next procurement round.
The clinical reasons and the economic benefits are evident, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm today that, at best, the JCVI will be able to report in time for the procurement round later this year or, at worst, that any contract procured later this year will have flexibility built in to allow the Minister and the Department of Health to extend the vaccination programme to adolescent boys and MSM at some point after the report.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing this important debate.
I wish to change the subject and address meningitis B. A vaccine is available, and the Minister and the Department have decided that it is not cost-effective. I wonder what costs they have taken into account. Was it the lifelong costs of looking after a child such as my constituent Isabelle, who contracted meningitis B when she was seven years old? Isabelle was given a 0.7% chance of survival. She survived, but she had to have both her arms and both her legs amputated. She is the most amazing little girl. She is so bubbly, so bright and so cheerful given what she has to deal with, but there is the cost to the NHS, the cost of education and the cost of continuing care for the rest of her life—she is now 10 years old. She has to have four sets of legs and two sets of arms, which change regularly and cost thousands of pounds each. She has to have two wheelchairs, one portable and one mechanical, because she cannot walk far.
Isabelle has to have continuing care in school. Someone has to sit with her in classes because, clearly, there are things that she cannot do. She cannot easily carry her books from class to class, for instance, and she will need such care not just for the rest of her school and university life but for the rest of her working life, because she will be limited in what she is able to do.
Isabelle is the most amazing child that I have ever come across. She has come through such terrible circumstances. Her family had to make the awful decision that both her legs and both her arms had to be amputated. No parent should have to make that decision, and no child should have to live with that consequence for the rest of their life. She is not the only such child in this country; there are a lot of children in that situation with varying degrees of disability.
When the Minister reconsiders universal vaccination, will she bear it in mind that, although it is expensive, the emotional costs of what Isabelle’s family went through outweigh that expense? The Minister should consider the matter in the round, not just the cost to the NHS of vaccinating every child. We should consider what vaccination is doing for the whole country in saving money and preventing parents from having to make such a terrible decision. It must have been agony for the parents, the child and the family to survive in that situation. Will the Minister reconsider what can be done to ensure universal vaccination against meningitis B?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing this debate and on again bringing this important subject before the House. He has been a great champion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on raising another vital aspect of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s work, to which I will also respond, albeit briefly.
It may help the House if I provide some background. The JCVI is an independent departmental expert committee, and it is a statutory body constituted to advise the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of vaccination and immunisation services. The committee and its invited experts represent some of the finest clinicians and academics in the UK and Europe, and all members are selected for their expert knowledge of matters concerning vaccination, immunisation and associated disciplines, including immunology, virology, bacteriology, paediatrics, general practice, public health and health economics.
We all recognise that the NHS budget is a finite resource. New vaccination programmes and extensions to existing programmes represent a significant cost to the health service in terms of both vaccine procurement and administration. Obviously, it is essential that any recommendations from the JCVI on changes to the national vaccination programme are supported by evidence of cost-effectiveness.
The JCVI has adopted a methodology for assessing cost-effectiveness that is in line with that used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Using those processes, the committee basically ensures that increased spending on immunisation does not result in an overall decrease in the health of the population because resources are diverted from more cost-effective health care interventions. We all recognise that those decisions are not easy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire makes a powerful case for the meningitis B vaccine, which the JCVI is currently reconsidering. The updated statement published on 25 October 2013 reflects the JCVI’s recognition of the burden and severity of meningococcal meningitis and septicaemia in the UK and the need to explore the potential for their prevention through immunisation. The situation is difficult when we have a new vaccine, in this case against meningitis B, but lack important evidence on its effectiveness. We need to know how well the vaccine will protect, how long it will protect for and whether it will stop the bacteria spreading from person to person. At the committee’s next meeting in February, if it feels it is in a position to make such a decision because it is in possession of all the relevant facts, the JCVI will make a final recommendation on whether meningitis B immunisation should be introduced. Obviously at that point we will carefully consider and respond to the recommendation. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that the recommendation will get proper and careful attention.
On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, the primary aim of the UK’s national HPV vaccination programme, which began in 2008, is to prevent cervical cancer related to HPV infection. The HPV vaccine protects against two strains of HPV—16 and 18—that currently cause some 70% of cervical cancer.
As HPV is responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer, preventing the disease is the major aim, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, HPV infection has been associated with other cancers, including cancer of the penis and anus, and some cancers of the head and neck. The precise proportion of those diseases that can be attributed to HPV infection is less well defined, but evidence is emerging all the time, so HPV infection should be taken seriously.
Evidence from clinical trials demonstrates that the HPV vaccine has a very high efficacy against the precursors of cervical cancer. Evidence of efficacy against cancers at other sites is emerging, and it is recognised that the current programme may therefore provide protection against a wider range of HPV-related cancers in females and, indirectly, in males than originally envisaged.
It is also worth saying that the UK’s HPV vaccination programme has been a considerable success, with this country having some of the highest coverage in the world—something we can be very proud of. A recently published study by Public Health England provided new evidence that the programme is successfully preventing HPV infections in young women in England, and that adds to our confidence that the programme can achieve its aim of reducing cervical cancer.
With a high uptake of HPV vaccination among girls, transmission of HPV between girls and boys should, as my hon. Friend said, be substantially lowered. Many boys will be protected against HPV infection and will, therefore, be at reduced risk of developing the related cancers we have spoken about, such as anal, head and neck cancers. However, I appreciate that he is particularly concerned that the current programme does not extend to men who have sex with men. He argued strongly that that is an apparent health inequality, and he raised the issue with my predecessor in last July’s debate, for which I was present.
As my hon. Friend will know, the JCVI has recognised that, under the current programme, the protection that accrues from reduced HPV transmission from vaccinated girls may not extend to men who have sex with men. He made the additional point about men who might have sex with girls and women from elsewhere who have not been subject to the broad coverage provided by our programme.
That is why, in October 2013, the JCVI agreed to set up a sub-committee on HPV vaccination to assess, among other issues, the question of extending the programme to MSM, adolescent boys or both. The JCVI therefore recognises the issue as a priority, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing it, because the attention it received in Parliament was obviously part of the reason that it was given a fresh look and is regarded as a priority. I know the JCVI took events in Parliament into account, and, indeed, my hon. Friend made his case directly.
The sub-committee will aim to identify and evaluate the full range of options for extending protection from HPV infection to men who have sex with men, and that will cover a range of settings, including genito-urinary medicine clinics. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, GUM clinics may not be the best setting for offering vaccination, as those presenting may already have been exposed to infection, so their ability to benefit from vaccination will inevitably be limited.
The sub-committee is scheduled to meet for the first time on 20 January, when it will assess currently available scientific evidence and consider what further evidence is required to advise the JCVI on the suitability of possible changes to the HPV programme. For the reasons I outlined earlier, any proposals for the vaccination of additional groups will require supporting evidence to show that it would be a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
Public Health England has begun preliminary modelling to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating MSM, in anticipation of further guidance on the issue when the HPV sub-committee meets. Further work to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adolescent boys against HPV infection is also planned, but it will take some time to do that important modelling, and I am conscious that that is one of the predominant concerns on my hon. Friend’s mind. These are complex issues, and the development of the evidence base and the mathematical models by PHE, as well as the deliberations of the JCVI itself, take time. However, that process and the time that it takes ensure that we get important decisions right and that decisions are taken on the basis of the best evidence. We cannot, therefore, undertake to take decisions hurriedly, because they are big decisions with, potentially, big implications.
Should the JCVI recommend the targeted vaccination of MSM, flexibility around contracted volumes in the current vaccine contract may allow a programme to be undertaken without the need for a new round of vaccine procurement—the numbers involved are relatively small in the context of the existing programme—if additional vaccine was available from the manufacturer in the required quantities. We are therefore cautiously optimistic that we can accommodate targeted vaccination of MSM in the existing programme, were it to be recommended by the JCVI. I hope that is a little encouraging for my hon. Friend.
Vaccine supply contracts are let for as long a period as is considered appropriate, taking into account the timing of potential changes to JCVI advice, policy and market forces, as well as Government procurement guidance. Obviously, longer contracts can secure firm prices for a longer period and allow for more accurate budget planning. However, we are exploring the flexibility that we have in existing contracts to align the window for the new contractual discussions with any potential recommendations by the JCVI, especially on the wider vaccination programme, were that what it recommended. We have not completed that work yet, but what I have seen so far leads me to conclude that we might be able to do something around the existing contract. We are looking at that to ensure that we do not miss the window of opportunity, which my hon. Friend identified as a chief cause of concern.
In conclusion, this important work has yet to be completed. We have to get some clarity on the time lines. We cannot achieve one of the things my hon. Friend mentioned—bringing the work on the assessment forward—because we have to review the available evidence and fill in any gaps if further evidence is needed. A decision on the vaccination of adolescent boys will probably require the development of quite a complex model to determine whether vaccination would be cost-effective, because the numbers involved are large. Such a model may identify a need to generate additional evidence, so a decision on that wider programme is not likely before 2015. However, as I said, the evidence to support a decision on a selective programme to target men who have sex with men may become available during 2014.
I can certainly give my hon. Friend the commitment that I will keep under careful review the timetable for key decisions when the committee makes its assessment and look at how they align with what we know about the flexibility that we have under the procurement contract. We will keep that under careful consideration. I conclude by congratulating him again on bringing this important issue before us and on continuing to keep it on the Government’s agenda.
Health Care (London)
(10 years, 4 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
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of the NHS in London and delighted that so many colleagues from the four corners of London want to say something about the health service in their areas. I want to sketch out, with some specific reference to local issues, the momentous changes that are happening within London’s health care and the extent to which the Government have made necessary changes far more difficult to achieve than should have been the case. I fear the results.
When I applied for this debate before Christmas, I did not know that I would spend a large part of the next two weeks experiencing the health care system with a close relative, who was admitted to hospital on Christmas day. We went through the whole process of ringing 111, of paramedics, of the ambulance, of A and E and of spending two weeks in St Mary’s hospital. I can confidently say two things on the basis of that experience.
First, I have seen, and my relative has experienced, nothing but kind and efficient health care at St Mary’s and within the health care system in general. It is true that, over the years, there have been instances of the health care system falling far short of the standards that we expect, but it is also true that most health care professionals and auxiliaries are doing a stunningly good job for the people of London and the rest of England.
There is kindness and the effective delivery of health care everywhere we look in our health service. We must be careful not to succumb to the tendency—I see this too often from Government Members—to talk down the health service’s achievements. It is completely right that Sir Mike Richards of the Care Quality Commission said in his comments on the first wave of inspections that
“there are some very good hospitals in this country, and it is possible, within the NHS, to receive good, excellent, even outstanding care.”
Secondly, from my observations this past fortnight, I can say that the health service is under extraordinary pressure. One would expect not to have the level of staffing for the two-week period of Christmas and new year that one might have outside the holiday period, but it has been alarming to note instances of health care auxiliaries being two thirds below planned staffing levels and nursing being down by one third. Incidentally, I was also shocked to discover when talking to health care assistants that they sometimes work an 11-hour day for a £90 day rate, which is not the London living wage—it is the minimum wage. How can we expect people to provide the intensity and quality of care that we want when we do not pay them even the living wage? That causes me great concern.
Pulling back to the wider picture, as our experiences have demonstrated, the health service is under extraordinary pressure, particularly in the emergency service. Some of that is unsurprising in London, because the capital has the fastest-growing population and has had the fastest rise in the over-65 population of any region in the country. It also has the highest demands on mental health care services and an overwhelming concentration of rarer and more difficult conditions, including tuberculosis, which places particular pressures on London.
Unsurprisingly, those facts are showing themselves in A and E attendance and waiting times. Just before Christmas, the London assembly found that more than half of London’s A and E departments failed to meet their waiting time targets for more than half of last year. Across the capital, Londoners had to wait for more than four hours on 202,000 separate occasions. A and E attendance has soared in London since 2010 and is up by 47% at St George’s hospital in Tooting, 46% at St Bartholomew’s hospital, 33% at West Middlesex university hospital and 35% at Hillingdon hospital. For my own Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, even a relatively modest increase of 19% equates to an extra 44,812 people seen last year compared with 2010. Cancelled operations were running at a 12-year high even before the winter, owing to pressure on hospital beds. One London hospital, Barts, topped the national list with 649 elective operations cancelled in the first half of last year.
Vacancy rates are a particular concern in London. Regionally, 11% of nursing posts are vacant, compared with a national average of 6%. At some London trusts, the rate is more than 20%. The regional total represents more than 6,000 vacant nursing posts in London. The Royal College of Nursing, which kindly briefed me for this debate, says:
“Our worry is that the hard work of some trusts in protecting posts is being undermined by a lack of available, suitably qualified nurses to take vacant positions, raising obvious questions about whether training is being commissioned at the level needed.”
Given that pressure, it is beyond dispute that there is a need to carry on changing how health care is delivered, which we all accept and have accepted for many years. The broad principles mapped out by Lord Darzi in 2007, which were not new, proposed a greater concentration of high-level surgical services to save lives and better community and primary services to reduce unnecessary admissions and enable speedy hospital discharge. Both the demand side of the equation, which is driven by an ageing population and the challenge of chronic conditions, and the delivery side, which utilises the opportunities of new drugs and surgical techniques, push us to the same conclusion. There is clear agreement in principle that we need to carry on with the changes.
The central thrust of my argument, which will be echoed by colleagues, is that managing change of that scale requires that essential preconditions are met. Those preconditions are, however, not being met at the moment, and in some cases the means of delivering them are going into reverse. First—all are important, but this is the first—there must be public confidence in the process, and that confidence is so catastrophically lacking.
Labour colleagues who are facing the closure or downgrading of their A and Es will know what their own communities are telling them, which is that closing A and E units in the midst of an A and E crisis is utterly perverse and should not happen until and unless trusted alternatives are in place. In that context, clause 118 of the Care Bill confirms everyone’s worst fears, because, having failed to win public confidence in London and other parts of the country, Ministers want to give powers to special administrators to override local opposition.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate her on her brilliant speech, which hon. Members understand from our experiences.
If clause 118 of the Care Bill goes through, every hospital and potential patient in the country will be faced with a situation in which no regard is given to clinical standards or clinical needs. The service will be based entirely upon accountancy. That is what the challenge was in Lewisham hospital. That was what was overturned. The people who knew about it—the consultants, the patients and the commissioning groups—all utterly opposed the trust special administrator proposals. We were right and we won the case. With the new powers, however, all that would be set aside and no one would be heard.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Ms Buck, I ask that interventions be brief. There will be time to make contributions later. This is a well attended debate and many Members have asked to speak.
Ms Buck
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is completely correct. Lewisham hospital brilliantly exemplifies the argument.
Secondly, there must be effective partnership working between hospitals, primary care providers and local authorities in the delivery of services. It was the failure even to inform partners that elective surgery had already moved from St Mary’s hospital to Charing Cross hospital that prompted my debate some weeks ago, to which the Minister replied, and which subsequently prompted an apology for the breakdown in communication. That was not only a matter of leaving someone off an e-mail circulation list, but a complete unwillingness to collaborate even within the national health service, let alone with outside bodies such as the local council, which is responsible for social care delivery.
Furthermore, those three boroughs—Kensington, Westminster and Hammersmith—are part of a pilot scheme to demonstrate integration, yet what happened in the relationship between the Imperial College trust and those local authorities could not have been further from integration—it was like something written for a comedy sketch.
Even worse, fundamental confusion remains about how north-west London hospitals are to be configured with Hammersmith—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is in his place and I am sure will comment—which has a different spin on its hospital provision from Westminster, even though they are joined in a tri-borough arrangement. Even after the Secretary of State has blessed the restructuring of west London hospitals, just weeks before Imperial concludes its outline business case, we cannot even have a clear agreement on the status of Charing Cross hospital or, by extension, of St Mary’s. That goes to the very heart of whether we can have confidence in the new structure of the national health service.
Thirdly, everyone needs to keep focused on the key issues, and that takes me to the devastating impact of the Government’s ill-considered reforms on the strategic management of London’s health service. The service should be focused like a laser on delivering the vision set out by Lord Darzi, but instead it has been fragmented, diverted and injected with rules on competition when integration should be the key objective.
The King’s Fund report of only some months ago, “Leading health care in London”, stated that the recent NHS reorganisation and the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts have resulted in an “absence” of health care system leadership in London. The report states:
“The NHS reforms have created a much larger number of organisations in London and their purposes are not always well aligned; the risks of incoherence and inconsistency are high…Reorganising the NHS in London in such a fundamental way has made a challenging situation much more difficult”.
That is so significant that the country’s top emergency doctor has said that the current A and E crisis could have been averted two years ago had the Government heeded warnings of a looming collapse in casualty ward staffing.
The president of the College of Emergency Medicine has said that Ministers and health chiefs were “tied in knots” by the challenges of implementing the coalition’s health reforms from 2011 onwards, leading them to ignore the first warnings from the college of imminent crisis—that the NHS was failing to recruit enough A and E doctors. Therefore, London, which possibly has the most complex challenges and the greatest need for integrated strategic leadership, actually has the least such leadership. Had leading health care managers and professionals been able to concentrate on dealing with such tasks, we might have had some opportunity to build public confidence, carry people with us and make the changes. In fact, the exact reverse has happened.
Finally, we need community and social care and other support services that minimise unnecessary admissions, especially for chronic conditions, and facilitate early discharge. Again, we can all agree on the principle. There are some excellent specific examples of integrated practice and of people working hard to deliver it, but there are also some harsh truths of individual experiences and the funding of social care.
The reality is illustrated in letters from my constituents in response to the moving of elective surgery from St Mary’s. One letter states:
“When I had my mastectomy I was sent to Charing Cross Hosp. After the operation I went home by bus and underground holding my drainage…bottle…from my operated breast. In the same way I travelled after my cardiac arrest on my second lumpectomy due to anaphylactic shock!”
That is only one hazard of putting patients with no family far from where they live. A second letter states:
“They took my City of Westminster Taxi card from me and so I have to pay for taxis to take me to St Marys Hospital and…Charing Cross. I pay £6.50 there and the same coming home (£26 one way to Charing Cross). I cannot walk far”—
—she is unable to use public transport—
“as I get out of breath. I am 84 this year”,
diabetic and
“have had one breast removed with cancer.”
Another constituent told me:
“I have lost my…home help”—
due to the cuts in social care—
“If I’m ill, I wait for it to go away.”
London as a whole faces a £1.14 billion shortfall in social care funding as a consequence of the pressures on adult social care and of the extra costs likely to arise because of the cap—in principle, that is a good thing, but obviously revenue is necessary to fund social care costs. That situation is London-wide and has been set out clearly in a London Councils report. My local authority also set the situation out clearly in a report to the health and wellbeing board, which states:
“As a result of reductions in local government funding Adult Social Care…has to deliver substantial savings in 2013/14”—
£4.4 million in Hammersmith and Fulham, £2.1 million in Kensington and Chelsea, and £2.9 million in Westminster. The report continues:
“These are very large savings; the cumulative effects are much bigger than any other savings programme delivered in the local authorities in the past.”
That is on top of £8 million in cuts to the adult social care budget already coming into effect since 2011. The report states:
“Amongst big reductions to back office and support functions, the savings programmes also include reductions in the use of packages and placements, the greatest area of spend for ASC.”
Rather sweetly, it adds:
“Some of the savings projects may be difficult to deliver or may take longer than anticipated.”
It continues:
“Funding growth for packages and placements arises mainly in the Learning Disabilities, Mental Health and the Young Disabled care groups where client numbers are growing, but also in Older People, as people live longer and are supported in the community.”
There is an important point. There is an integration care fund, which is shifting money from the NHS into social care, but, as Westminster council’s report on the pressures on social care funding states, that funding will mainly be used for purposes that include:
“To sustain services, otherwise at risk from savings plans”.
We are in an extraordinary position. There is a transformation fund designed to put in place the services that would allow us to make changes in hospital care, with which in principle we agree—we would argue in some specific cases—but that funding is simply going to fill the gaps caused by the cuts in social care, which are the result of cuts to local authority budgets. In London, as we know, there has been a 25% cut in local authority funding, with a further 10% cut as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn statement. Much of that new money is simply sustaining services that would otherwise be at risk from savings.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the estimate made by London Councils for the future? Between 2016 and 2020, we might see adult social care departments facing budget pressures of £1.1 billion, owing to rising demand and some of the changes proposed by the Government. Does she agree that the future looks extremely bleak?
Ms Buck
I agree totally. A thoughtful and planned process throughout London that would allow us to build up community and primary services, reduce unnecessary A and E admissions, speed up unnecessary discharges and concentrate some of our specialist services in fewer sites is sensible, but the means to realise it have been pulled out because of the pressures on social care funding. Furthermore, the strategic leadership that would allow us to make changes has been undermined by a completely unnecessary, £3-billion, top-down reorganisation that we were promised would not happen.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I entirely associate myself with the earlier comments about the quality of my hon. Friend’s address so far. She talks about trying to have a logical and sensible planning process. Is she aware that London boroughs such as Ealing, ably led by Councillor Julian Bell, have had to divert intense amounts of resources to oppose something that is the antithesis of good planning? That is an additional double whammy against responsible local authorities, which have to divert scarce resources and face up to a desperately uncertain future.
Ms Buck
I totally agree. Local authorities are on the front line of delivering the social care made necessary by some of the planned hospital changes and they are under pressure. The councils have expertise and knowledge and they are, as my hon. Friend says, sensibly involved in planning services, so they are making thoughtful objections when they see that services cannot be delivered as we want. Indeed, they have to divert resources to make the case on behalf of their populations.
In conclusion, London’s NHS continues to save lives and to provide the same quality of care it currently provides. That is a tribute to tens of thousands of men and women on the front line, whether in the NHS or employed directly by local authorities, but it owes absolutely nothing to a Government who have let us down with a change process that we should have been able to work through. They have done that by the way they have treated local authorities and by the way that, through this unnecessary reorganisation, they have diverted attention and resources from the leadership that could ensure that London’s health care is delivered in line with the wishes of Londoners. The Government have let down London’s patients and the men and women who deliver health care to them.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this valuable debate. Although her conclusion was perhaps a little more hyperbolic than mine would have been in the circumstances, we work closely together, along with her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), to do our best for all our constituents. Over the past year or so, as we have tried to put our constituents first, we have had concerns about elements of the negotiations on this matter.
For all the lively debate about health care provision here in the capital, there is one thing on which we can all agree, as the hon. Lady made clear in her contribution: the pressures on the national health service here in London are huge and getting bigger. They are set to increase substantially, not only because the population is ageing but because of the hypermobility and hyperdiversity of that population. In the past, that was perhaps typical of inner London alone, but it now applies to the entirety of the capital.
At times, the national health service can seem a little like a national religion, whose traditions must not be questioned under any circumstance. In my view, if one good thing has come from the terrible events in Mid Staffordshire, it is that we can perhaps start to have a more honest and less ideological debate about where the NHS is performing well, where it is letting people down and how it can better tackle the future challenges to which the hon. Member for Westminster North referred.
I have enormous respect for the Secretary of State for unashamedly refocusing the NHS around patients rather than protecting the sanctity of the system. Thankfully, the patient experience at some of our central London hospitals is, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, a world away from what happened in Mid Staffordshire. The diversity of population and the presence of top-flight medical schools and universities, particularly in central London, inevitably draw global talent to our local hospitals.
I am often staggered by the quality of facilities here, whether the state-of-the-art birthing unit in St Mary’s or the Royal London, the beautiful Maggie’s cancer centre at Charing Cross or the brand new oncology unit at Barts in my constituency. Only yesterday, a constituent wrote to me about his young nephew’s recent stint in hospital. He said:
“Given it seems it is ‘in vogue’ to be ‘anti-NHS’ I wanted to let you know that my recent experiences with the high dependency unit at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital”—
that hospital is outside my constituency, but obviously caters for a lot of my constituents in the south of Westminster—
“were nothing short of exemplary. I am sure that my nephew’s speedy recovery was probably all down to the standard of care he received.”
More often in my constituency, non-emergency services fail to be so patient-focused. Londoners are spoilt for choice in so many aspects of their lives, and as a result they have the idea that they should expect to get a full choice in everything. Why should they not expect a similar consumer-driven, flexible and responsive system when it comes to primary care—one that allows them swift access to a GP or provides small surgical procedures outside hospital?
We have read a lot in recent days about the number of non-emergency cases being presented at A and E departments. I think that that is in part due to the hassle factor associated with the existing GP system. With the hypermobility of population in London, many people never bother to register with a GP, and those who do all too often find that they cannot get an appointment for days or at a time that is convenient for someone with a busy working life. It is therefore often a perfectly logical decision for those people to spend a few hours in A and E, where they are at least guaranteed to be seen.
Thankfully the story is rapidly improving for my constituents. The Central London clinical commissioning group has just extended its seven-day GP opening service from three practices to five. People are able to walk in and book a same-day appointment at those practices. They do not have to be a member of the practice to use the service, and registration with their own GP will not be affected. I also know that plans are afoot to locate more GPs within hospitals in London. That type of modern and practical response really needs to be rolled out more widely.
There are problems with the health service in central London, which my colleague the hon. Member for Westminster North has so carefully outlined. My own constituency will hopefully be affected for the better by the huge changes to be brought in by the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. That programme began some five years ago to respond to the challenges of a rapidly increasing population and the variation we were seeing in the quality of acute care. It has caused most controversy in its proposals to close a number of A and E departments.
My constituents are grateful, as are the hon. Lady’s, that St Mary’s hospital in Paddington has been confirmed as one of five north-west London hospitals to provide advanced comprehensive acute care. I am assured that there is a strong business case for even greater investment on that site and exciting plans are afoot in that regard.
The Minister needs to be aware, however, that there have been issues of communication over the relocation of elective surgery, as was raised earlier. I accept much of the wisdom in the reconfiguration of services in north-west London to allow for specialist centres, rather than having hospitals that are jacks of all trades.
I accept that that is easy for me to say, given that two local hospitals in my constituency, Chelsea and Westminster and St Mary’s Paddington, are not affected, and I know that the issue is a great concern for many Members, who are hearing such concerns from many constituents. But I suspect that the perceived success or failure of any reorganisation of this sort will come down to smaller things: how well plans are communicated; how quickly alternative, out-of-hospital services are in place; and how transportation is organised for patients, many of whom are impoverished or will have to travel further and rely on public transport.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
On the acceptability of reconfiguration, we should never forget that many communities in London have a strong emotional attachment to a hospital that could have been in existence in some shape or form since the middle ages. That is why reconfiguration must go forward carefully and on a purely medical basis if it is to succeed in London.
Mark Field
That is right to an extent. I know that the hon. Lady spoke in a debate that I led in the House almost a decade ago on Barts, which is located in my constituency and has a special place in the hearts of many millions of Londoners—and, indeed, of people throughout the United Kingdom. The truth is that at that juncture, the private finance initiative was the only funding game in town and we all went along with it, but that £1 billion PFI has now caused major financial issues that, I am afraid, affect not just Barts but hospitals throughout the north-east of London, as the hon. Lady is well aware. We all feel a bit depressed about that knock-on effect.
We have to accept that in London, broadly speaking, we do pretty well as far as hospital care is concerned. Being absolutely candid with everyone, because I know what it is like, in central London we have a very good service, and it is partly outer London that suffers as a result. That is because of the strength of the links to which the hon. Lady rightly referred—the passion that we have for our historic hospitals—and the amount of resource that is pushed into central London because the hospitals there are teaching hospitals with consultants, former consultants and alumni who are willing to make a strong case for the existence of those hospitals. Dare I say it, that makes it easier to make the case for Barts than for a hospital out in Romford or Whipps Cross, or one in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
We all have to face those issues. They have not arisen as a result of the reorganisation of the past three and a half years; this has been the situation in the capital for probably 40 or 50 years. I am aware that even in the latest reconfiguration there has been a sense that central London has got off slightly better than the middle portion of outer western London.
I turn to finance. There was a good outcome before Christmas for north-west London on commissioning allocations, as all of our CCGs received an uplift to offset inflation. However, I want to raise concerns about the funding formula used to determine allocation. The formula fails to take into account the needs of the large homeless population in Westminster, which places massive pressure on acute services. Rough sleepers are far more likely to attend accident and emergency; they attend six times more often than any normal member of the population. They are admitted to hospital four times more often and stay in hospital three times as long.
The formula also ignores the fact that CCGs are responsible for all attendances at urgent care centres or walk-in centres and for the costs of patients covered by reciprocal funding arrangements with other countries. Westminster welcomes more than 1 million commuters and visitors each and every day, many of whom will need health advice and care while they are here. It is important that a future funding formula recognises the impact of that on local health care services.
The proposed formula will exclude spending on community care. That cannot be correct considering the important move to provide more high-quality care at home and in the community rather than simply in hospitals. I welcome the Government’s assurances that the Advisory Council of Resource Allocation formula will not be accepted in its current state and that changes to the funding of CCGs will be fully consulted on in future.
I turn to public health spending. A draft formula for local authorities was set out in the “Healthy Lives, Healthy People” consultation, which was published on 14 June 2012 and recognised that further work was needed on adjustments for age, fixed costs and non-resident populations. However, initial modelling by London councils suggests that Westminster would have a drop of 57% in public health funding. Central London and Westminster have unique population characteristics that make it more difficult to make public health improvements. They include the age structure, with a greater focus on working age and children, and levels of mental health problems and homelessness. Those are not properly reflected in the current formula.
The formula also fails to take account of substance misuse services, many of which fall outside the pooled treatment budget, which focuses on opiates and crack treatment. It also ignores the wider health and local authority investment needed to manage the individual family and community impact of drugs and alcohol on health and well-being.
Westminster experiences a high level of population churn—I accept that many other London boroughs are in that boat—and that leads to additional demands for services, including NHS checks and other screening programmes.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mark Field
Other hon. Members want to speak so, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will finish with a request to the Minister. I would welcome an indication from the Government of when we can expect more clarity on how future public health allocations will be determined. I would also appreciate confirmation that the formula consulted on in June 2012 will not be used to determine public health funding allocation in future.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I will call the Minister and shadow Opposition spokesman at 20 minutes to the hour. About five hon. Members want to speak. That means, bearing in mind time for interventions, about seven minutes for speeches. That is just a suggestion.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I will take the suggestion with the severity with which it was meant, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this debate.
I want to reflect on some of what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of her speech and on the sentiments of a letter to The Guardian before Christmas from GPs, emergency doctors and nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, psychotherapists and NHS trusts. Their plea was for a page to be turned in the way we talk about the NHS. We need to talk about the failures in patient care, but we must also recognise that we have some extraordinary abilities in the NHS to reach and look after our communities as well as they do. Sadly, I have been close to the NHS in the past three years, and I have seen excellence and the pits. However, in general, the people who work in our hospitals do a fantastic job.
I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments of that letter because I fear that the driver for the relentless daily trashing that the NHS receives comes from base political motivation—the softening up of public opinion so that marketisation and privatisation become acceptable. It will not be acceptable. It is not acceptable now and I do not believe it will ever be acceptable, so let us just stop it.
I am not the only one to mistrust the motivation and outcome of the coalition’s top-down, unwanted and wasteful reorganisation of the NHS. I did a survey of my constituents—I like to find out whether my impressions are the same as theirs—and 97% of those who responded said that the NHS would undoubtedly get worse under the new system. When they were asked about their main concern, 60% thought that the money intended for NHS staff and services would end up as profit for private companies. My constituents are very astute.
I want to turn to local circumstances before I am coughed at. In 2006-08, life expectancy for men in Newham was 75.8 years, lower than the London average of 78.2 years. In the same period, life expectancy for women was 2.3 years below the London average at 80.4 years. Even within my borough, there are variations that make the local situation much more complex and challenging. Life expectancy in some wards is 8.1 years shorter than in others. That is massive.
In primary care, the recommended ratio of GP provision is 1.8 GPs per 1,000 of population. In Newham, the ratio is appalling and equates to not much more than half that, at 0.56 of a GP per 1,000 of population. It is small wonder that in my survey, 35% of respondents reported that it is never easy to get a GP appointment, and just 10% said that it is always easy. Many practices—too many—are operated by single GPs, so it is no surprise that the patient experience in Newham is the worst in north-east London.
The primary care trust, before its abolition, had a clear plan for tackling that challenging situation and I enthusiastically endorsed and participated in it. Now, there are no mechanisms in place to root out poor practice and promote the best. I would like to hear from the Minister how she will ensure that Newham has the number of GPs to which we are entitled and that we have performance and outcomes that are the same as other areas of London.
Incidentally, I would be interested to hear whether other hon. Members here are experiencing the new phenomenon that we have in Newham: dial a diagnosis. When people contact their GP to arrange an appointment, they are initially offered a telephone conversation with the GP. Is that because GPs must bolster the failing 111 non-clinical service, which is now contributing to the difficulties of our A and E departments? Is it to save money, to sift out or deter patients or to ration GP time? Has there been a risk assessment of what that might entail, and does it contribute to the problems that my community is facing? Again, I would like to hear from the Minister about that.
Another statistic from Newham that should be good news is that the incidence rate for breast cancer is 104.6 per 100,000 of population, significantly lower than the UK average of 123.6. However, disturbingly and distressingly, the percentage of women alive five years after diagnosis—the five-year survival estimate—is, at 75%, also significantly lower than the UK average of 83.4%. The reason in part is the take-up rate of breast screening services, but there is anecdotal evidence of women who were part of Barts hospital’s preventative health services being encouraged to go away and become part of the general population, and to present sometime in the future. That encouragement not to continue to attend for breast screening gave a rosy picture of health needs.
The London Health Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Darzi, has a remit that includes healthy lives and reducing health inequalities. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says in anticipation of the commission’s report, and what assurance she can give that the Government will act on health inequalities.
Let me refer to the Barts health care trust, which is the largest in the country and incorporates Barts, the Royal London, Whipps Cross and Newham general hospitals. Our patch is the growing part of London, with growth in population, complexity, the number of homes and, of course, opportunity. I was therefore grateful to hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who made a well balanced speech, talk about resources being sucked into the large university hospitals in the centre. Even though those of us on the far-flung borders of the east belong to the same trust as one of those hospitals, we experience the difficulties he talked about in relation to Romford.
Rumours abound at the moment that Newham general, as part of the Barts trust, is under threat of reconfiguration—a fascinating new word—to secure the viability of the trust as a whole. When I talked to the trust’s chief executive, he told me that the PFI represented only 10% of the trust’s entire budget and that, given that the budget was large, he did not see the PFI as having major consequences for the delivery of services.
However, there is an accusation that the trust is being a little disingenuous in its public statements that the A and E at Newham general will not be closed. Assurances have been sought that there will be no downgrading without full consultation, but those look weak in the face of a shortage of anaesthetists, for example, who are essential to support a viable emergency service.
Almost half of London trusts are struggling to achieve the 95% standard for patients waiting in A and E. Barts trust is just about achieving that target, but that is because Newham general performs well and helps the trust’s overall performance—a good example of how a local acute hospital catering for a place such as Newham can perform well, while larger hospitals struggle. Given that the future of Newham general’s A and E is under threat, the irony of the situation is not lost on me, and nor will it be lost on my constituents.
In that scenario, it is essential that we maintain Newham general as a fully functioning major acute hospital with a full range of services, including A and E and maternity. Given that we are seeing growth out to the east, it would be irresponsible and downright dangerous for us not to do that. It would also be a complete distraction from the absolute priority of putting in place improved, integrated care services in the community and in primary care.
Finally, I seek assurances from the Minister about the funding formula for CCGs being rolled out across England. In the London context, it is shifting resources from inner-London boroughs, with their younger populations, to boroughs further out, which have older populations.
Newham just happens to have the youngest population in the whole of Europe, apart from some tiny canton somewhere that is almost irrelevant. We will therefore lose substantial amounts, while London as a whole is losing 2.3% of its funding to other areas. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the funding formula will fully take account of deprivation, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, as well as of our population’s high mobility, with the health problems that brings with it, and diversity, with the specific demands that that puts on health care.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. I will keep my comments brief because I want to be fair to other Members who want to speak, not because I do not care deeply about this subject. Previous speakers have talked ably about a lot of the statistics, so I do not need to go over them.
I was actually born in a London hospital, across the river in St Thomas’. I was pleased to go there again recently to visit my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—I hasten to add that I was visiting the maternity ward because his wife had given birth to their new son, Oscar. It was lovely to be back at St Thomas’, albeit after so many decades.
Some important issues have been raised in the debate. Health care is critical to all of us—it touches each and every one of us, our loved ones and our constituents. It is crucially important and we must get it right. In London, there are specific problems, as has been said.
I was pleased that in 2010 the Government made £2.7 billion extra available in real terms in the NHS budget across the UK. That has allowed us to have 440,000 more clinical staff, and we also have 23,000 fewer administrative staff, including 7,700 fewer managers. That was absolutely the right approach and what the NHS needed.
The average stay in hospital is shorter than in 2010, although that puts pressure on community care, so we must make sure that that is dealt with. The cancer drugs fund is also critical to the debate, and we have helped more than 38,000 patients through it.
The debate is about London and the issues specific to this great city. In my constituency, in west London, the key health care issues tend to be focused on tuberculosis, obesity—including in children—diabetes and alcohol-related harm. As Members might expect, we have above average problems with healthy eating, given the issues with obesity. Other issues include smoking during pregnancy, smoking deaths and skin cancer. There are therefore specific issues in west London, and I will focus on them.
In my constituency, we have one main hospital—the West Middlesex university hospital, where two thirds of my constituents go when they need to. My Chiswick residents—about a third of my constituents—tend to go to Charing Cross hospital. I want to reiterate what previous speakers have said: we have some excellent patient care and services across our London hospitals, but there are, absolutely, also areas we should focus on.
The West Middlesex has outstanding maternity and midwifery services. One of the best parts of our job as Members of Parliament is rewarding people who have done incredible work in the health service, whether they are clinicians or support staff, and I recently handed out awards at the West Middlesex, which is ably led by Dame Jacqueline Docherty.
I also want to pay tribute to London’s air ambulance service. During the Christmas period, there was a fire and a massive explosion in Chiswick, and the air ambulance was called. The service deserves as much support as possible, because it serves 10 million residents in London, and it has only one helicopter. It is world class, providing high-trauma, acute care. Everywhere else around the country has one helicopter for 1.5 million people, but the figure in London is 10 million, so there is an absolute need for another helicopter. I would push everyone to support the London air ambulance service, which has its 25th anniversary tomorrow.
Stephen Pound
I entirely agree, and I think most of us would associate ourselves with the hon. Lady’s comments on the London air ambulance, but does she not agree that it might be better if it were run by the state, instead of relying so much on charity?
Mary Macleod
The London air ambulance service is an amazing organisation, so I would not change its structure. It rightly gets some funding from the NHS, but it also derives funding from many other sources, and it is important that we support that. The service does an incredible job, so if the hon. Gentleman knows anyone who can give it a spare helicopter, it would really appreciate that.
My local CCG is chaired by Dr Nicola Burbidge. It started early, it has been absolutely focused on patients and it has been very responsive to any issues I have raised with it.
On reconfiguration, I was recently thankful when, after a lot of campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and others, the Secretary of State announced that the A and E at Charing Cross hospital would not be closed, thus helping residents in my part of London. Saving lives and improving patient care is paramount.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I apologise for not being here for the opening speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one challenge now facing London is the increasing complexity of diseases and the treatments that are required, which means that additional money and expertise are needed? Such diseases often cannot be dealt with at a local level; they must be dealt with nationally. Although we have supported those suffering from cancer and other diseases, much more complex diseases remain to be resolved.
Mary Macleod
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope the Minister will respond to the issue of how we take up such challenges in London and get the necessary funding.
I shall list some issues on which I would like more improvement. We heard how difficult it is to get appointments at general practices—we call up and know that the answer is going to be no before we say anything. There are also issues with getting to see a specialist as quickly as possible. We want an effective complaints process in hospitals, changing the culture to allow people, whether staff or patients, to complain. There is an issue with how patients are moved around London, and the hon. Member for Westminster North made an important point about having to use public transport to get home. Mental health and community public health are other important issues.
My final comment is about dementia, which is a growing concern in London, as it is across the country. About 30% of patients who go into the West Middlesex hospital have dementia. They do not go there because of dementia, but they have it. There is a lot to be done, and the West Middlesex hospital has just opened a new dementia ward. There needs to be a greater focus on dementia, given our ageing population nationally, and the size of the population in London. We must ensure that we work together to support those who really need and deserve care and support in London. That will improve the NHS for us all.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Four speakers have risen to speak, all from the Opposition, so hopefully they will be mindful of their colleagues.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Given the time constraints, I shall limit myself to one issue, which is the current threat to the emergency hospitals in my constituency, but I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this timely debate. She made her arguments very well.
This morning, I received an e-mail from the Secretary of State that is pertinent to the debate. There was an agreement for him to meet the three Ealing MPs, two of whom—my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—are here, and me next Monday evening. The Secretary of State has withdrawn from that meeting, pleading other engagements, and asked us to meet officials instead. I hope that he will reconsider. The meeting is specifically about the threat to two of London’s major hospitals, Charing Cross and Ealing, and I hope that the comments I am about to make will lead the Minister to intervene and ask that the meeting go ahead. We understand that the Secretary of State has pressures on his time, but it is entirely unacceptable for him not to meet Members on an issue of such crucial and central importance.
It is sad news, but we know—
Mr Slaughter
I would rather not because of the time. I am sorry.
We know what is happening with Hammersmith hospital because it has been announced that the A and E department there is going to close after the winter crisis—as if the crisis is not a continuing one. I have been told informally that it will close two weeks after the local elections to avoid any embarrassment to the Government. We were also told that there might not even be an urgent care centre there; it may be moving. That would mean no emergency access to Hammersmith hospital, unless it is still to receive emergency blue-light coronary cases. At least Hammersmith hospital will continue as a major specialist hospital, and a very fine hospital it is indeed.
The situation regarding Charing Cross hospital is far less clear. I will précis where we are and explain the matters that we wish the Secretary of State to deal with. In February last year, the decision, which is still extant, was made to close completely and sell off the Charing Cross hospital site, leaving an urgent care centre on 3% of the site. At the same time, there was to be an outline business case, to report in October last year, that might preserve 13% of the facilities and 40% of the site. That business case is now due in March, but we understand—through the Imperial College Healthcare foundation trust process, not any other process—that there will also be elective surgery on the site. That might mean there will be elective surgery as well as primary care and treatment facilities, and some form of emergency centre on the site, with perhaps 50% of the land preserved. That gain, in so far as it is a gain, is St Mary’s loss, because we understand that 50% of its site will be sold in any event. Of course, any amelioration in the position is to be welcomed.
I praise the cross-party Save Our Hospitals group for campaigning tirelessly in both my borough and Ealing on the issues I have mentioned. However, the point it would want me to make very clearly is that what I have described is not what we want. Of course we want good elective care, primary care and treatment services, but the issue of capacity must be addressed.
It is not feasible to close two of the largest emergency hospitals. I use the word “close” advisedly. As emergency hospitals, they are closing: there will be no emergency surgery, no blue-light A and E, no stroke unit and no intensive treatment on those sites. I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s intervention so far has been genuinely unhelpful and done for political reasons. We have invented a second-tier A and E, as it is called. A second-tier A and E is an urgent care centre. The only differences that clinicians could identify for me were that at a second-tier A and E there would be GP cover and X-ray services, and for elderly and vulnerable people there might be some beds for recuperation after minor treatment. Otherwise, it is an urgent care centre or a minor injuries unit.
Let us not play political games. I am not saying that we can keep politics out of the NHS—of course we cannot—but this is dangerous because it will mislead people. If people think that there is an A and E at Charing Cross or at Ealing when there is not, they will go there when they should have gone elsewhere. We will continue to campaign to save emergency services. It is not feasible for the Imperial family to go from three major emergency departments to one. All three are currently under pressure and overcrowded. The decision has to be taken by Ministers, so I implore the Minister to go back to the Secretary of State and ask that he meet us.
The level of politics is not acceptable. Politics comes into these matters all the time. Before the last election, when there was no threat to the hospitals, the Conservatives kept saying that there was—I have their election literature here. We now have taxpayers’ money being spent on campaigns saying that hospitals are staying open when, in fact, departments in them are not. Let us at least tell our constituents the truth. There may be unpalatable decisions to be taken, but as far as Charing Cross is concerned, the health service is clear that it will be a local hospital. It will not be an emergency hospital. That is not acceptable in any way to my constituents. It is not feasible to run a health service in west London on that basis.
I have made my points to the Minister clearly, and I look forward to her response. I also look forward to the meeting with the Secretary of State where I can put my points in more detail and more forcefully.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We have already heard that the NHS in London is most definitely straining under the weight of demand for services. The problem is related to the constrained financial environment, but fundamentally it is about the increasing needs of our population. The population of London has grown by 12% in the past decade and is likely to grow by another million in the coming decade. That is why the plans to downgrade and close desperately needed and often very successful emergency and maternity departments in London are met with such incredulity and anger.
I would like to make a few points to the Minister today. First, I ask her to consider the overall shape of maternity services in London. Much of the debate focuses on big arguments about the reconfiguration of emergency departments, but maternity services are often a victim of those reorganisations, because as soon as an intensive care unit is taken away from a hospital, it is unable to provide full maternity services. Does the Minister really want to ask women in the capital to travel even greater distances to give birth to their children, when they want to be close to home and family? Will she look at some of the sacred cows that have built up in the wisdom on maternity services?
I know there is an aspiration to provide 168 hours of consultant cover every week in maternity departments, but I understand that that currently happens at only one trust in the whole country. I ask the Minister whether it is achievable, affordable, or necessarily in the best interests of women to continue to aspire to reach that standard in all our hospitals in London.
Another point I want to make to the Minister—it has already been made—is on the crucial importance of the public being involved and having a genuine say when hospital services are being reconfigured. In Lewisham, we saw the exact opposite of that, with the unsustainable providers regime. The Government are trying to augment that process and apply it more widely, which has very serious implications for trust in politics and in our health service.
I am very conscious of time and that two other Members wish to speak. I ask the Minister to look very hard at the existing evidence on centralising all hospital services in London. I know there is a lot of evidence for creating centres of excellence for stroke, trauma, and vascular disease in big hospitals. However, I wonder whether the same evidence exists for other acute medical emergencies and whether there is evidence, for example, for centralising mental health services or maternity services.
I have one final point—I will sit down very shortly. There are currently plans at many hospitals in London to flog off hospital sites. That land should not be used to create playgrounds for the rich and the international jet set. Public land is a very precious asset in London, and if we are going to use it for anything, could we please explore the possibility of using it for housing for elderly people, providing communities of care? Provision of suitable accommodation is one of the crucial things we need to get right if we are to tackle some of the underlying problems in the NHS.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I shall call Mr Gwynne at 20 minutes to four. I now call Mr Sharma.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this very important debate. I share the concerns expressed by my colleagues earlier, including those about the Secretary of State cancelling the meeting that I and the leader of Ealing council requested. We were looking forward to expressing the views of the residents of our constituencies.
Multiple A and E departments in the capital have been under threat of closure or set for closure, from Lewisham, where a hard-fought campaign has saved the hospital from closure, to south-west London, Ilford, and the four A and Es in west London, two of which have been marked for closure and two of which are still effectively closed—they are being called A and Es when they are not. One of them is in my constituency in Ealing hospital. In a city of more than 8 million inhabitants, where the population growth is twice the national average, those closures and downgrades will have a huge impact on the lives and safety of local residents, leaving many residents miles from their local A and E.
Accident and emergency services are already under tremendous pressure and will be subject to increased strain with local closures. We know that the number of blue-light ambulance diverts increased drastically in London, by almost a quarter, proving that A and Es in London are over capacity. One of the hospitals that has regularly turned away ambulances is Northwick Park. With the closure of A and Es at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith hospitals, and with Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals seemingly unable to receive blue-light ambulances in north-west London, Northwick Park will be under even more strain as patients are sent there for emergency treatment.
Northwick Park is already overburdened and is one of the worst-performing A and Es in the country. It will simply not be able to cope with the four other local A and Es closing and will be unable to accept blue-light ambulances. Journey times for patients will be longer and they face the risk of travelling elsewhere if the ambulance is turned away. That will be the difference between life and death for emergency patients—an unacceptable situation.
Back at the end of October, the Secretary of State confirmed the closure of A and Es at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith hospitals, and announced that A and Es would remain at Charing Cross hospital and Ealing hospital, in my constituency, the shape and size of which would be subject to a review. His statement, which was supposed to remove uncertainty about the future of our local hospitals, only further increased confusion.
It has, however, been made clear, through the Keogh review and Dr Mark Spencer’s subsequent comments, that the review would in fact reduce the size of Ealing’s A and E, and that Ealing would be unable to receive blue-light ambulances. The Secretary of State, who pledged to keep the A and E services, has in fact downgraded Ealing hospital, while keeping the A and E in name only. The Secretary of State promised an A and E for Ealing, but delivered only more disappointment to local residents. There are many other concerns, not least of which is the fact that many of my constituents in Southall are the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, with specific health needs that are met by nearby Ealing hospital. They will have to travel considerable distances, putting their lives at risk.
With the population of west London growing, those decisions seem, at best, unsafe and, at worst, dangerous. The concerns that we have in my constituency and in west London will obviously be replicated across London with the threat of more closures in the midst of an A and E crisis. There needs to be more of a concerted effort from the Secretary of State and the Department of Health to help Londoners receive the best health care, rather than making this existing crisis worse.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I call Ms Glenda Jackson—you have one and a half minutes.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mrs Main. I had intended to talk for slightly longer than two minutes, but the central thing I wish to say is about mental health. Other contributors to this very important debate have touched on that, but it seems to me that for us, as a nation, it is essentially a Cinderella service, and certainly has been all the time that I have been in the House.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the pressures on central London. That is not only to do with the churn of people moving into London and moving out, but, as he rightly said, it is most markedly about people who are dependent, or over-dependent, on drugs and alcohol, and people with mental health issues. A peripatetic patient cohort—I hate that word, but I cannot think of anything else at the moment—is virtually not being regarded, let alone something on which the multifarious bodies and boards that are now responsible for delivering health care in London are working together.
I hope the Minister will take that away and put it at the top of her list, because the enormous damage that is done to individuals when they are allowed to go over the cliff of their crisis is reflected in the damage inflicted on their families and their wider community. I am firmly of the opinion that the right provision, as we have had in my own constituency, is a house that is open 24/7, 365 days a year. People who felt that they were going to go over the edge of their mental health crisis could walk in through the door. There were people there all the time to care for them. Yes, such facilities are expensive to set up, but I am firmly of the opinion that the money we save by having them could be put towards the sharp end of delivering a high-quality health service to people who are not suffering from mental health problems.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this very important debate about health care in London. I hope that hon. Members will forgive this Mancunian for gatecrashing the debate to respond for the Opposition.
The future of health services and especially accident and emergency services across London is an important issue of genuine concern to a great many of the constituents of hon. Members present. It is definitely an issue of real significance right across our capital city. I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who today have made contributions, long and brief, on a wide variety of matters.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff working in the national health service for their commitment in providing a first-class service to patients in what has been a very trying period for the NHS. As we know, there have been important changes in the provision of hospital care in London. We have had “Health for North East London”, “Shaping a healthier future”, the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey clinical strategy, the trust special administrator’s review of South London Healthcare NHS Trust and the NHS in south-east London and “Better Services, Better Value” in south London, to name a few of the reconfigurations that have taken place in the capital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North is right to point to extreme financial pressures on hospital services. North-west London hospital services must accommodate a £125 million reduction in service between 2011 and 2015. The people who use hospitals in London are rightly concerned about the changes to the services on which they rely. We have heard about the proposals that will lead to the loss of accident and emergency departments at Charing Cross, Ealing, Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals.
However, it is not only my hon. Friends who are concerned about the future of A and E departments in London; local authorities are, too. Local authorities such as Ealing have voiced their concerns about the downgrading of their A and E services. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), A and E facilities that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had promised to save across north-west London and elsewhere in the capital will be closing. I hope very much that the meeting between the Secretary of State and the hon. Members who represent Ealing and Hammersmith can be reconvened as requested.
Of course, all this is in direct contradiction to what the Prime Minister said during the general election, when he promised to halt the closures of hospitals, accident and emergency departments and maternity units. Why does the Minister think that there is such widespread concern about the lack of leadership in the health service in London at a time when the NHS is dealing with unnecessary upheaval?
Frankly, it was a disastrous decision on the part of the Government to spend billions of pounds on an unnecessary top-down reorganisation, which has led to a loss of financial grip in the NHS. Now, more than 6,000 nursing posts have been lost, waiting lists are getting longer and we are seeing the return of patients on trolleys in corridors. Indeed, we are now seeing A and Es not just in London but across the country facing a winter crisis after an unprecedented summer A and E crisis. At the same time, local authorities are having a huge cut to their social care budgets. More and more elderly people are therefore ending up in A and E, because there is no one at home to care for them, adding even more pressure to a pressured system.
Labour Members warned Ministers repeatedly during the passage of the Bill that became the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that the legislation would lead to the break-up of the NHS. The public rightly expect to have easy access to health services, and Ministers have a heavy responsibility to show leadership and to act to prevent people’s lives being put at risk. Ministers must also tell the House today what action they propose to take to ensure that London’s growing population will continue to have good access to hospital and other health service provision in their local areas. Those points were made eloquently by a number of hon. Members, but I have to mention my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) in relation to Newham.
Of course, Labour Members do not oppose all the changes to local health services. Surely, it is right that hospitals and services evolve and change. However, it must be change based on good clinical reasons and not just financial necessity.
Ms Abbott
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue in London is not just provision for its size of population, but the extreme diversity and complexity of the population? It is a very mobile population. There are large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, and London has the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in the country. That is what people have to pay attention to if they are reconfiguring services.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right. London is a global city. It has people coming in from all over the world, not just from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is a diverse city. It is an exciting, vibrant city—I am probably over-egging it for a Mancunian, but it is a great place. Those complexities are what makes London fantastic, but they are also what makes delivering health services a real challenge.
To make the change work, there must be clarity and partnership. Everyone must understand what is being proposed and how the decisions are to be taken. That brings me on to the issue of Lewisham and clause 118 of the Care Bill. We saw in Lewisham the power of an effective campaign in the face of unpopular change to health services and what that can achieve.
I pay tribute to the Lewisham MPs and to the campaigners, who fought tirelessly for their local hospital. The proposal to close their A and E department was rightly met by a strong local campaign, which included protest marches and a successful legal challenge to the closure. Indeed, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Health Secretary did not have the power to implement the cuts at Lewisham hospital. If only he had listened to my hon. Friends in Lewisham—they had been arguing that beforehand.
Clause 118 should give very real concern to all hon. Members in the debate, because in future it will give carte blanche to the Secretary of State and the Department of Health to reconfigure services right across the country as they sought to in Lewisham, disfranchising the communities that have spoken out very loudly across London against some of the changes. Labour Members are rightly concerned about that measure and we will be opposing it during the next stages of proceedings on the Care Bill.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North and to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate. Hospital services are very important to the capital. We must make sure that there is proper strategic planning across London, not the piecemeal approach to reconfigurations of services that we have seen, so that the complexities in health needs—including mental health, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) mentioned—are taken on board fully for the betterment of people living in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
What an amazing debate! I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing it; a lot of issues have been covered. Many London colleagues have contributed, made interventions or simply been present to listen to it. As a London MP, I am particularly conscious of the unique challenges facing health care in London, and many of the issues raised apply as much to my constituents as they do to those of colleagues across the House. As hon. Members have said, London is an amazing city with world-leading expertise and services, but it has unique challenges. Whichever party was in government, it would have to respond to those challenges.
I will do my best to respond to some of the points that have been made, but there were such a range of points, and some of them were so specific, that I may need to write to colleagues after the debate. I hope that hon. Members understand that. I will ensure that I follow up those points personally or ask NHS London to do so. Forgive me for having to make that health warning.
I start by echoing the praise from the hon. Member for Westminster North for our NHS staff in London. They work under many interesting and unique pressures, and they respond, for the most part, magnificently. We all realise that no service is above criticism, but our starting point is that we have some amazing people working very hard under difficult circumstances. I am particularly glad that the hon. Lady and her family experienced good care at a crucial time.
The hon. Lady is right to caution that debates about health need to acknowledge, but not to exaggerate, risk. We always teeter on the brink of exaggerating points for political effect, and it is really important that we keep some sense of perspective. Several hon. Members have referred repeatedly to an A and E crisis. I want to put on the record that for the week ending 29 December 2013 last year, the figures for A and E waiting times in London demonstrate that 96% of patients were seen in under four hours in all A and E types, against a standard of 95%. For the third quarter of last year, 95.3% of patients were seen in under four hours in all A and E types.
I am not saying that we do not have problems and challenges, but let us be clear that in many places, the NHS is responding well to those challenges and meeting targets. Work force statistics show that the number of community health service doctors increased by 8.5% from 2010 to 2013. Let us make sure that we keep a sense of perspective on where we are.
Some of the comments during the debate referred to reconfigurations across London. We are quite clear that reconfiguration of front-line health services is a matter for the local NHS, precisely for the reasons that some hon. Members have given. We are trying to make sure that they are led by clinical decisions. That was acknowledged in the opening speech, as was the need for change. The hon. Member for Westminster North made that point.
Jane Ellison
Forgive me, but I really will not have a chance to respond to any of the points made if I give way. I will catch up with the hon. Lady afterwards if there are points that she specifically wants to discuss.
All the reconfigurations must focus on delivering modern health care, better patient outcomes and services as close to home as possible, but, most importantly, they must focus on saving lives and improving quality of life. Those service changes are best led by clinicians, with all of us getting involved and engaging with the process, as we must do. That is what we all want for our constituents, and there are different ways to achieve that.
Change is inevitable, as most, but not all, hon. Members have acknowledged. We have debated questions such as the changes to stroke services in London, which many campaigners predicted would have dire and dreadful outcomes. In fact, the opposite has been true, and London clinicians believe that hundreds of our constituents’ lives have been saved by the concentration of excellence in certain centres. We must be realistic about the fact that reconfiguration can bring great health benefits, as long as it meets the important tests set out by the Secretary of State, and is clinically led.
The health service has to respond to growing demand. Much of the debate has focused on the long-term challenges to the health service in London and across the country. The Government are trying to respond to those huge long-term pressures. We are looking at GP opening hours and at access. That could not be a bigger issue in London, which has a highly diverse and highly mobile population in a 24-hour city. People need to be able to access health care at a time that suits their work patterns and lifestyle, and we are pushing for changes to contracts in that area. There will be named GPs for over-75s. We are looking at the integration of social care and public health. We know that there are big challenges around that, but a big project is under way to try to tackle it.
Ring-fenced public health budgets will empower local authorities to do the very thing that many hon. Members have drawn our attention to, which is to look at the needs of local communities and respond to them at the most local level. We do not want to take a “Whitehall knows best” approach; we want to tell local authorities, “We have ring-fenced your local public health budget so that you can look at the needs of your local population and work with health and wellbeing boards and clinical commissioning groups to devise services that help people to live longer and healthier lives without the need to resort to acute services.”
There has not been much recognition of the need for the changes made to public health budgets, but of all the measures raised in the debate, those changes have some of the most exciting potential to tackle the challenges that we face.
I have touched on health and wellbeing boards. The challenge around Newham GPs would be ideal for discussion at a health and wellbeing board, where all the key people are present. It is a big challenge, and one of the first questions I asked as a Health Minister is why we struggled so badly to get GPs in our most deprived areas. There are varying answers to that, but it is a problem across the country.
The health and wellbeing board is exactly the right forum for discussion because the right people are around the table. Tackling health inequality is now built into statute through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which must be given due attention in all parts of the health service. The Darzi-led London Health Commission will be interesting. I spoke to Lord Darzi about it just before Christmas to improve my understanding of its objectives. As a Minister with responsibility for public health and as a London MP, I will be looking closely at the commission’s outcomes and I will be keen to work with people on that. It is a big opportunity.
To touch on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the formula does not currently reflect non-resident population or the homeless, but that is something that the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and NHS England continue to consider. I will ensure that I draw my hon. Friend’s concerns to their attention and that those are fed into the ongoing process of looking at formulas.
For the first time, the formulas for CCG patients and public health allocations take into account health inequalities, and they look at GP populations rather than census-based populations. The formulas are also designed to be more locally sensitive. As the hon. Member for Westminster North and I know particularly well, in a city such as London areas that appear to be quite affluent can contain pockets of tremendous deprivation. The new formula allows for that by enabling consideration of sub-areas and the real health inequalities that they suffer. I hope that hon. Members feel some reassurance about that. We keep the matter under close watch.
Several detailed concerns were raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) about Lewisham, the south London reconfiguration, maternity services and accommodation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to clause 118. I will ensure that I draw his concerns to the attention of the Minister who is leading on that Bill. No doubt that point will be responded to when the Bill is brought before the House. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision to make service change in Lewisham, and we respect that. The Secretary of State has put that on the record.
Several points were raised about the north-west London reconfiguration. That was debated in this Chamber on 15 October, after which a letter was sent by the local NHS to the hon. Member for Westminster North. If other hon. Members have not seen that letter and would find it helpful to, I am happy to put it in the Library. I note the ongoing concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) about the reconfiguration, and I will relay to the Secretary of State the detailed points that he has made and his desire for a meeting.
Other hon. Members have made comments about the same reconfiguration. For all the criticism of the plans and the analysis, I note that the shadow Minister did not commit his party to changing any of the reconfigurations or to changing NHS funding levels. If I may say so, his speech was long on analysis and short on commitment.
I conclude by saying that the issues raised today are important to all of us as London MPs. There are some big long-term challenges and the Government are trying to respond to them in the best interests of all our constituents.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Before we commence the debate on Scotch whisky excise duty, I should say that we are expecting a vote—hence my glances at the Annunciator screen. Should that happen, I will call for the sitting to be suspended until the vote has taken place.
Scotch Whisky Excise Duty
(10 years, 4 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
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mrs Main. I am aware that we are to vote at 4 o’clock, so we will find ourselves in a short adjournment. As I speak, I am waiting for the vote to come. [Interruption.] There we go.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Mr Donohoe
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. It is just a pity that you do not have a glass of whisky in your hand, with which, at this time of the year, we would share a toast. Water will have to do, I am afraid.
It is quite incredible that we should have to have this debate, particularly in this very important year for the Scots, who are voting on whether to remain in the United Kingdom or to have a separate Government in Scotland. I shall pose a question: can anybody tell me how much taxation there is on a bottle of whisky that costs about £12.70?
Mr Donohoe
On a bottle of whisky that costs £12.70, more than £10 is tax, including VAT. That is the level of taxation placed on our best industry in Scotland.
Mr Donohoe
I will take interventions towards the end of my speech, if I may. I will give everybody who has made a representation to me an opportunity to speak. I also have an eye for the chair of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and spirits.
As I said, this is the year of separation, so it is important to have this debate as we move towards the Budget on 19 March. I fully support the “UK okay” campaign. One of the areas of vulnerability is the current disproportionate tax on Scottish whisky compared with English beer or cider. Whisky is taxed at 48% more than the same amount of alcohol served as beer. That is the difference in terms of the taxation on whisky and spirits. The beer duty escalator was abolished last year, but the spirits escalator continues at 2% above inflation. That should be addressed and I will come to the reasons why.
Excise duty on Scottish whisky is now 44% higher than in 2008. The escalator in 2014 will mean an increase in duty of 4.8%, or, in terms that I understand, 38p per bottle. That is what the escalator will bring. As I said, taxation as it stands now is more than £10 a bottle. Scotch whisky exports are growing, but the home market remains important, and the UK is the third largest market for Scotch whisky by volume.
However, volumes in the UK have declined by some 12% in the UK since the escalator was introduced—as a result of it, I would argue, and I am sure some of my colleagues would, too. The UK tax on spirits, which of course includes Scotch whisky, is the fourth highest in Europe. When we compare that with Sweden, Finland and Ireland, which have particular reasons for having high taxation, we can see the unfairness of the tax for the spirits industry.
The Scotch Whisky Association, which helped the all-party group, has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in the 2014 Budget and to scrap the escalator. It should be scrapped because UK consumption has declined since it was introduced, and we want to see the UK market expand. Ernst and Young research shows that scrapping the escalator in 2014 would boost the drinks industry contribution to public finance by some £230 million in 2014 alone.
Consumers should be treated fairly across the range of alcohol products, but Scotch whisky drinkers are being heavily penalised. The sales of Scotch whisky form a significant part of the pub trade. Scrapping the escalator would boost UK sales, and therefore UK jobs in the industry. The industry is good not only for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom, because it accounts for more than 25% of all UK food exports. That is a significant figure that should not and must not be lost on the Treasury. It is good to see the Minister in her position this afternoon.
In 2012, the industry generated £4.27 billion for the UK balance of trade and 35,000 jobs. I can see there are Members present from the remote areas of Scotland; the industry has been the main employer in many small towns and villages in their constituencies. It has always been a major contributor to the support of the infrastructure within such communities, and I do not think that that has been taken into account by the Government.
Some 10,000 of those jobs are directly within the industry. Most of them, if not all of them, are in areas of most need, and they have supported the towns and communities for many years. The jobs are in rural and urban areas, and the industry is the sole employer in some of the smaller areas in Scotland.
The Scotch Whisky Association has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in 2014—I am sure the Minister has seen that request—and also to scrap the escalator. The Chancellor took the decision last year on the basis that he would cancel the escalator for beer and cider, but not for spirits. I think that that is unfair and it does not really stack up when one considers that the reasoning was to safeguard the jobs in the pub industry. In fact, 40% of the pub industry is down to the sale of spirits, so the matter of unfairness between the pint and the wee dram needs to be looked at.
Taking action on Scotch whisky would show that the Government support that major industry both at home and abroad—that they support the jobs it creates and do not disproportionately penalise Scotland’s national drink.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the benefits of the Scotch whisky industry to the Treasury and to Scotland in terms of jobs. Does he recognise the broader benefits that accrue from jobs in transportation and shipping? South of the border, in my region in the north-east, jobs are derived from transporting Scotch whisky to Teesport and there are jobs in shipping as the product is exported all over the world.
Mr Donohoe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. The issue affects not only Scotland; it equally affects his English constituency.
Ian Paisley
I am not the representative of Irish whiskey, but I do have the Bushmills distillery in my constituency. It employs 102 people, but it also supports a vital tourist industry; there are more than 140,000 visitors each year to the distillery. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tax impacts on jobs not only in Scotland, but in my part of the United Kingdom? Indeed, 90% of what is manufactured in my constituency’s distillery is exported globally, but if the Government continue with the escalator, we are going to have high taxation on products that are exported. That is a bad signal to send to an industry.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Please make interventions brief. There are a lot of Members in this room. If everyone has interventions of that length, Mr Donohoe will run out of time.
Mr Donohoe
I am grateful, Mrs Main. I hope that Members will note what you have said. What the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said is important. He is from another part of the United Kingdom and correcting this wrong tax at the Budget is as important to him and his constituents.
Mr Donohoe
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is the treasurer of the all-party group.
Gemma Doyle
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will be aware that the whisky industry is very important for jobs in West Dunbartonshire, too. Does he share my concern that the concessions previously given to beer and cider are mainly based on the fact that those industries ran a good campaign? I would not take that away from them, but we need a more coherent look at excise duty across alcohol products.
Mr Donohoe
Again, I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that we have learned a lesson in that respect and that we will make damn sure that our campaign this time is as good as, if not better than, the beer campaign.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for what he said earlier about the importance of the whisky industry for jobs in remote communities, such as the Isle of Jura and other places in my constituency. It is very unfair that whisky is taxed far more highly than beers and wines. We must be about the only country in the world that taxes our own product more highly than imported products such as wines.
Mr Donohoe
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he makes a really good point. It is really ridiculous that people can go into a supermarket in Spain, Italy, Germany or France and buy a bottle of whisky far more cheaply than people in this country can.
Mr Donohoe
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is the chairman of the all-party group.
Jim Sheridan
I want to take my hon. Friend back to the important issue of jobs. One of the significant factors of the Scotch whisky industry is that the jobs that it creates are excellent, well-paid, quality jobs. It is possible to tell that by the turnover of staff, which is very low.
Mr Donohoe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes, and it is clear that the issue of jobs is part of the equation.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
One of the crucial points that the hon. Gentleman highlighted about the export industry is that the way we treat our own whisky at home sends a signal to foreign importing markets. It is important to send the right signal to those markets, so the Treasury needs to consider the impact that the issue has on the importing countries.
Mr Donohoe
That is a very important point. If we go to the European Commission and argue with it, there is that divide between the north and south of Europe; until a few years ago, the Commissioner was very pro-wine and anti-spirits. It is an indicator of the seriousness of the situation that we are discriminated against—the Commission throws at us the level of taxation in our own country. That is an element that must be addressed by the Chancellor at the Budget.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Government are arguing that the duty on whisky has gone up by 37% compared with a rise of 42% on beer. The trouble with that argument, of course, is that, because the Government have eliminated the beer escalator, that division will be eliminated very quickly. The point that we have to maintain in export terms is that this is a home-based industry. If something is good enough for beer, it is good enough for whisky; the escalator should go and we should ensure that our most successful industry is supported competitively at home and abroad.
Mr Donohoe
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman.
I have taken all the interventions that I will take. I will finish by putting four questions to the Minister. First, can the Treasury explain why it was that, when it stopped the escalator on beer last year to save struggling pubs, it failed to look at the situation as far as spirits and wines were concerned? As I said, they account for some 40% of the sales in those very pubs and the rest of the hospitality sector. Given that the Chancellor wanted to help that sector, it seems strange that the rise in duty on whisky was set against that.
Secondly, what assessment—if any—has the Treasury made of the impact on pubs of last year’s announcement on beer? I hope I can get a response to that question. Thirdly, can the Treasury provide reassurances to the Scotch whisky industry that the annual attack on Scotch whisky will come to an end in the Budget in 2014? Finally, does the Treasury acknowledge that the home market for Scotch whisky, which remains the industry’s third largest market, is diminishing due to excessive tax rises each year?
Sales of Scotch whisky in the UK have dropped by 12% since the duty escalator came into being. Is it possible to hear today what is likely to be in the mind of the Chancellor? I am sure that the Minister is aware that we, as an all-party group, have made a representation to him for a meeting. I hope that what she says today will include an agreement to that meeting.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate and I note the wide interest in it, as shown by the number of Members here in Westminster Hall.
In the time available to me, I will be hard pressed to answer all the questions, however nicely Members indicate to me from a sedentary position that they would like to intervene. However, I shall do my best and if I do not address all the points that have been made today, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to do so, and he can perhaps share that information with other members of the all-party group and others who are interested.
I start by highlighting the Government’s continued commitment to the Scotch whisky industry. First, Scotch whisky is a protected spirit drink, which helps to maintain its high reputation both at home and abroad. Secondly, and related to that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will shortly be launching its spirit drinks verification scheme. Within the first two years of that scheme, every single business involved in the production of Scotch whisky will be verified to ensure that they are creating a genuine product. This will help to protect the industry’s deservedly high reputation. In fact, the Scotch Whisky Association has praised HMRC’s commitment to deliver a scheme that fits its needs.
Thirdly, I am proud to report that Scotch whisky of course featured as one of the first products in the food and drink element of the GREAT campaign. This helps to give Scotch whisky high visibility internationally in key export markets, the importance of which we have already heard about. The Scotch whisky industry is to be congratulated on its export success. The Scotch Whisky Association reports that the value of exports increased by 11% to almost £2 billion in the first six months of 2013. That is something that I think everybody in Westminster Hall today will support. I think that people will agree that those measures leave no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the Scotch whisky industry, and I want that message to be heard and understood by Members from all parts of the House.
I turn now to duty, because that is the issue that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, in their interventions, focused on.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Minister may or may not be aware that I have the onerous responsibility and the pleasure of representing the heartland area of single malt production, with more than half of all Scotland’s distilleries based in Speyside. I just wanted to ask her about a basic democratic point. We have heard interventions from Labour Members, the Liberal Democrats and now from the Scottish National party, and Members from those parties make up 58 of the 59 MPs from Scotland who are at Westminster, with all of us saying that we want tax fairness and duty fairness. Is the Minister prepared to confirm that the Government will actually listen to the views of the overwhelming majority of democratically elected representatives in Westminster Hall today and deliver on tax fairness, or not?
Nicky Morgan
I hope that the message is going out that this Minister is always willing to listen and that she is willing to engage. I am also very willing to have the meeting that was suggested by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. However, I would be a foolish new Minister if I were to commit to announcing Budget moves now. Nevertheless, I shall certainly listen; I have listened; and I shall continue to listen to the debate that we are having and to the wider representations that have been made to me. I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for his intervention. As he said, he has a very onerous task in representing his constituency; I am sure that his constituency Fridays are filled with much fun and spirits.
I return to the duty escalator, including that on Scotch whisky. I am aware of the industry’s views on the pre-announced alcohol duty rises for 2014. It may be helpful if I explain the background to these increases before addressing the specific issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. Of course, the previous Government were responsible for introducing the spirits duty escalator and are therefore responsible for this year’s increase in spirit duty. The inflation plus 2% rises were first announced at Budget 2008 and they were extended for a further two years, until 2014-15, at the March 2010 Budget. These rises were for all alcohol duties and, as I say, were legislated for by the previous Government.
This Government made changes to beer duty at Budget 2013 to support pubs, which, as we all know from our constituencies, play an important role in local communities. The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact of last year’s Budget on pubs and I shall address that issue in a moment. However, he also talked about 68% of the alcohol that is sold in pubs being beer, so the changes to beer duty were, overall, a measure to help pubs. I can also tell him that although spirits and wine account for 41% of sales by value in the off-licence trade, they account for only 23% of sales in pubs by alcohol volume.
Mr Donohoe
I do not know where the Minister got that last figure from. I ran licensed premises, and although it is perhaps different down here in the south-east, I can tell her that in Scotland whisky accounts for at least 40% of sales in the pub, and in the pub that I ran the figure was 60%. [Laughter.]
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman’s pub sounds as though it was a very interesting place, and I am very happy to listen to representations on the figures.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact of Budget 2013 on pubs. The British Beer and Pub Association survey showed that, following a reduction in beer duty, 76% of the pubs would increase investment and 61% would employ more staff. That is why this reduction was targeted particularly at pubs. That is not to say that I have not listened to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments.
Given the Government’s commitment to ensuring sustainable public finances, it was not possible to end the escalator on all alcoholic products, so they made a targeted reduction in beer duty. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had failed to consider other alcohol duties. I was not in the Treasury at that point, but I do not think that that was so. However, the decision to reduce the duty on beer was taken in 2013.
I have heard the views of hon. Members and I assure them that I will consider these as part of the Budget process.
Graeme Morrice
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate. The Minister may not be aware that there is a considerable number of whisky producers in my constituency, including the North British Distillery in West Calder, Glenmorangie and Glen Turner in Livingston, and Ian MacLeod Distillers in Broxburn. This last wrote to me recently to express concern about the fact that, in the past five years, while we have seen a 44% increase in taxation on whisky, there has been a 12% reduction in UK sales.
Graeme Morrice
Given the current 80% taxation on whisky, will the Minister seriously consider approaching the Chancellor before the March Budget—
Graeme Morrice
To look at freezing alcohol duty and at the abolition of the duty escalator?
Nicky Morgan
Mrs Main, I take the hint that you want me back on my feet and moving towards the conclusion of my speech.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give this matter serious consideration in the run-up to the Budget. I shall certainly discuss it with my colleagues in the Treasury, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Nicky Morgan
I want to make progress and I am keen to get some further points in before the end of the debate, but I will try to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if I can.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned that spirit duty had risen by 44% between 2003 and 2013. I should point out that beer duty in that period rose by 56%, while still wine duty rose by 68%. We can trade as many numbers as we want, but I take the overall thrust of the arguments made today.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) asked about the spirits duty rate having risen by 37%. Duty on Scotch whisky has risen at a slower rate than beer duty over the medium term. The spirits duty rate was frozen between 1998 and 2008, and during that time duty rates on other alcoholic beverages increased. However, between the introduction of the escalator and 2013, the spirits duty rate rose by 37%, while other alcohol duty rates rose by 42%. I just wanted to put that on the record for the benefit of the House.
Mr Reid
I want to put it on the record that Islay, not Moray, is the heartland of the Scotch whisky industry.
We can all trade figures, but the point is that under the current duty escalator policy, the duty on spirits will rise in the next few years at a much greater rate than that on beers and will make the already unfair situation even more unfair.
Jim Sheridan
One of the best adverts for Scotch whisky was the long tradition whereby the Chancellor used to take a glass of whisky on Budget day. Is there any reason why that no longer happens?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down the path of speculating on the Chancellor’s alcohol intake, which I really do not want to go down. Of course, I notice that my glass is not in front of me this afternoon.
I thank hon. Members for this debate and thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for securing it. I will be happy to study the written report of it. I hope that this debate shows the Government’s continuing commitment to the Scotch whisky industry and that we will help it where we can.
Rural Broadband (North Yorkshire)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I am informed by the Clerk that because the last debate ended early, an extra nine minutes of this sitting is allowed, should people wish to have it.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a proud pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I am delighted to have been given this opportunity to debate rural broadband in north Yorkshire.
Before speaking specifically about York and north Yorkshire—the most beautiful area within God’s own county—may I touch briefly on the wider broadband roll-out? I am pleased that, as part of their long-term economic plan, the Government have recognised that the future of our economy rests on the ability of our infrastructure not only to cope with the demands placed on it, but to exceed those demands and facilitate new opportunities for growth. This is no less true of superfast broadband than it is of our rail, road and air infrastructure.
The Government’s investment in superfast broadband is, to my mind, one of their greatest and most important achievements in this Parliament, yet sometimes it does not get the plaudits that it deserves. It has by no means been an easy task. It has required huge investment from the Government, totalling roughly £1.6 billion, and some hard work from all those involved in organising the roll-out, including the people physically on the ground, upgrading the telephone cabinets with the fibre.
However, all the hard work and commitment has been worth it. The recent findings from the UK broadband impact study reveal that for every £1 the Government invest in broadband, the UK economy will benefit by £20. That represents fantastic value for money in the short term. In the short term, the network construction will add around £1.5 billion to the economy, creating 11,000 jobs this year alone. In the longer term, it will increase annual gross value added by £6.3 billion. Its benefits will be spread across the country, with approximately 89% of that in areas outside London and the south-east, such as York and north Yorkshire. That vindicates the Government’s commitment to investing so much in this programme and shows that all the hard work that is being put in on a local level is delivering real results.
The roll-out has not been without its problems and it has faced some public criticism for the degree to which one company has achieved a monopoly over the roll-out contracts. There is also some concern about the apparent shortcomings in the contracts, with BT being obliged only to upgrade telephone cabinets with their fibre-to-the-cabinet approach. Some of my constituents have expressed concern that, because they receive their telephone lines from an upgraded cabinet, they are being counted by BT as though they were part of the 90%, despite being too far away from the cabinet to receive the upgraded superfast internet speeds.
However, I have received assurances from the chief executive of BT Openreach that that is not the case, and that only those who receive superfast speeds are counted. Superfast North Yorkshire has subsequently clarified that, although there may be issues about how coverage is measured in other parts of the country, the north Yorkshire contract only counts those who are capable of receiving superfast speeds.
Locally, the roll-out so far has been a roaring success. The project, which has been overseen by Superfast North Yorkshire, has been run well. When it first set out on its mission, it had a total of 670 cabinets to be upgraded—I think the technical term is “deployed”—but, to date, 350 cabinets have been upgraded, which marks 52% of the total. However, it is expected that this figure will rise to 370 next week, ensuring that the project is well over halfway to completion.
In north Yorkshire, roughly one cabinet is updated per working day. As a result, phase 1 of the roll-out is expected to be completed by October 2014, well ahead of the national target, which originally intended to provide only 90% of all households with speeds of up to 25 megabits per second by the end of 2015. That target now appears to have been pushed back, and phase 1 might not be achieved nationally until the end of 2016. Will the Minister clarify that? What might that do to the expected release of phase 2 funding?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He paints a positive picture, with which I agree, of how north Yorkshire is delivering superfast broadband because of the Conservative-led Government’s money. Does he agree that the National Audit Office report, which was very critical of the Government and BT, surprisingly did not even consult on the north Yorkshire example and that in future the NAO should look more closely at what we are doing in north Yorkshire?
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. North Yorkshire’s achievements are a glowing example of what can be done at local level. I am surprised that north Yorkshire was not part of the investigation.
Take-up of superfast broadband in north Yorkshire is outpacing the national average by a considerable margin. After 12 months, take-up in the north Yorkshire intervention area is 13.4%, which proves that Superfast North Yorkshire’s demand-stimulation activity is working extremely well. It also demonstrates that there is latent demand for superfast broadband in the rural areas around north Yorkshire and York. I am sure that north Yorkshire colleagues here today can testify to that and have many examples from their constituencies.
The achievements of Superfast North Yorkshire are remarkable given that it is dealing with one of the country’s most rural counties. The county’s rurality, however, also has its drawbacks. Although I have no doubt that Superfast North Yorkshire will meet its 90% coverage target well before the rest of the country, I remain concerned that there is a deepening digital divide between the 90% and the 10%, who appear to be being left behind by phase 1 of the roll-out.
I see the divide first hand in my constituency. Communities such as Haxby, Wigginton, Dunnington and Elvington are already enjoying the benefits of superfast speeds, which are coming soon to areas such as Wheldrake. Even small, quiet villages in my constituency, such as Rufforth and Stockton-on-the-Forest, have recently had their cabinets upgraded, yet there remain a number of small communities in my constituency that are sadly too far from the local cabinet to benefit. Those communities include Askham Bryan, Askham Richard, Hessay, Acaster Malbis, parts of Naburn and Holtby to name a few.
A constituent of mine from Askham Bryan informs me that the maximum download speed he can obtain is 1.2 megabits per second, which is typical of the rest of the village. He says:
“1.2 mbps permits basic web usage such as email and relatively slow browsing. However, any attempt to stream data-hungry applications such as live TV are not possible. Multiple users online at the same time in the same household also seriously compromises the performance of even basic applications.”
My constituent relocated to Askham Bryan from London without moving jobs, under the presumption that the investment in broadband in the region would enable him to access facilities such as web-based video conferencing, which have become the norm for many and would suit the flexible working arrangements that he has put in place for himself.
True to form, Superfast North Yorkshire has been excellent at engaging with our local rural communities, and the chief executive officer has met Askham Bryan parish council to discuss the problems it faces and the potential solutions. In the specific case of Askham Bryan, it is increasingly likely that other technologies, such as fixed wireless, 4G or satellite broadband, will need to be deployed to provide the village with the speeds it needs and deserves. The parish council has contacted independent wireless broadband providers, which have explained that the technology is available to the village and is relatively simple to implement. The lack of certainty on the future direction of the roll-out, however, has prevented the parish council from going any further.
That point is important because the wireless broadband providers appear to be willing to invest their time and money if there is a chance that BT will subsequently upgrade the village’s cabinet. As such, much greater clarity is needed on the future of the roll-out, so that communities on the wrong side of the digital divide are able to plan their next steps based on certainties rather than possibilities.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I strongly support his argument on the success of the roll-out of superfast broadband across our county. He makes a powerful point on extending the roll-out beyond the 90% target. Does he agree that we now face the question of how we achieve that next stage? Superfast broadband makes an enormous difference, and he has articulated the challenges that face the broadband have-nots, including some of the villages in his constituency. The same applies to villages such as Lower Dunsforth and others in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency, and it is important that such communities are able to access broadband as quickly as possible.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. All Members representing north Yorkshire and York will have examples in their constituency of communities that are suffering from the digital divide and that are among the 10% rather than the 90%. It is important that we have clarity on where we are going, and I am sure the Minister will set that out, as he has in the past. We need that clarity for the future so that we may build on the success of what has already been achieved in north Yorkshire.
We must not forget the role of local authorities. In my constituency, I have been encouraged by the levels of communication between Superfast North Yorkshire and City of York council. Superfast North Yorkshire is encouraging the council to contribute to an intermediary project that will enable Superfast North Yorkshire to continue extending coverage to some of the most rural areas.
Superfast North Yorkshire has successfully pulled together a further £8 million for the project to extend phase 1 of the roll-out, which will potentially increase coverage to between 92% and 93% of the county. That sum is made up of £3 million contributed by North Yorkshire county council, £3 million from the European regional development fund and £2 million from Broadband Delivery UK’s contingency fund, for which my north Yorkshire colleagues and I, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), assisted in lobbying.
Given the pace of the roll-out in north Yorkshire and the European regulations that are in place, the additional pot of money will not get Superfast North Yorkshire past the summer of 2015 before its hugely successful programme comes to a grinding halt. All that will be left is a wait for the next tranche of Government funding for phase 2. Given the complexities of procurement, planning and the roll-out, it would be a tremendous shame for Superfast North Yorkshire to have to kick-start the roll-out again in 2016. During a 12-month shutdown Superfast North Yorkshire would, due to its own success, lose many of the skills it has built up.
Whether City of York council’s executive chooses to contribute to the £8 million project is entirely at its own discretion. I am led to believe, however, that of the £530 million granted to local authorities from central Government, City of York council was allocated some £1.4 million. I therefore call on the council’s executive to honour its responsibility to the communities in my constituency that I have mentioned and to ensure that that important Government funding is well spent.
I finally come to the central purpose of the debate. From the Minister’s recent response to my question, I am aware that the finer details of the phase 2 roll-out are still being worked out. Given the fantastic work of Superfast North Yorkshire and its partners, however, I ask the Government to look seriously at granting the region an early release of the next phase of funding.
I have already touched on the several strong reasons for doing so. Take-up in north Yorkshire is well ahead of the national average, which proves that there is latent demand for rural broadband in the region. Superfast North Yorkshire has achieved great things across the region and the hard work that has been put in deserves to be rewarded. It has not let the absence of further funding hold it back, but even after taking the initiative and securing extra money for the interim period, it is unlikely to get beyond the summer of 2015. Finally, considering the fantastic pace that the roll-out has gathered in north Yorkshire, it would be an awful shame for those who have worked so hard to have to kick-start the roll-out again in 2016 after an indefinite pause.
To those points, I would like to add a further call on the Government to provide greater clarity over the future of the roll-out—I hope the Minister can do that in his remarks—so that those communities left behind by the digital divide can plan ahead for how they will try to bridge it. While I welcome the additional £10 million for broadband as part of the national infrastructure plan announced in the recent autumn statement, I appeal to the Government to continue to support that hugely important programme with the necessary resources and to ensure that we make the most of the new technologies available to us.
I am again thankful for the opportunity to speak. The Government pride themselves on rewarding those who work hard and want to get on. Superfast North Yorkshire has worked tremendously hard, and I hope that the Government will give it what it needs to finish the job.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The debate will finish at 5.9 pm. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the Minister and of the Member who secured the debate to make a brief speech?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
indicated assent.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy)—my constituency neighbour —on securing the debate. I also refer the Chair and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I start by congratulating Superfast North Yorkshire, BT and the Government—for the cash—as we have made good progress in a relatively short space of time. With the project now halfway through and the target of 90% of homes having access to superfast broadband well down the track, the problem is that some villages will achieve only 2 megabits. They can see that that is the case and feel that they are being left in the slow lane. A constituency such as Selby and Ainsty faces real challenges. There are well over 100 villages. Many of them are on the border with other local authorities, where the exchange is across that border. Residents in villages such as Ryther, which currently has a 365 kilobit download speed, Newton Kyme, Catterton, Bickerton, Kirkby Overblow, Ulleskelf, Fairburn and many more have all expressed frustration at the pace of roll-out.
The problem appears to be the lack of a transparent plan to deliver the committed 2 megabits to the remaining 10%. The fact that the people who currently get the worst speeds have no visibility on when or whether they will be upgraded gives rise to considerable concern. I understand that Superfast North Yorkshire is about to leaflet every home in north Yorkshire to ensure that people are aware of the need to order the upgrade, because if they do not order it, they will not get it. Doing so might make the last 5% highly visible. It is now clear which areas are at risk of not being upgraded. They are the areas with the strongest support for the roll-out programme, because speeds are currently the lowest. They are also the areas that would have been the most supportive of the spending of the additional funds to upgrade the service. They might now be realising that they could see no improvement from that investment.
Julian Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to clarity on the 2 megabit issue that he so eloquently articulates, BT’s feet must be held to the fire with regard to the cabinets across north Yorkshire that it originally said were commercially viable? It now says that they are not, leaving communities such as Cononley in my constituency stuck between what they thought was going to be commercially viable and being outside the intervention area.
Nigel Adams
As usual, my hon. Friend is spot on. His remark leads quite nicely on to my next point. One of the features of the contract is that if take-up is high, money can be clawed back and then used to extend the project to further cabinets. For that reason, encouraging people to sign up for faster speeds is extremely important.
I take issue with something that my hon. Friend mentioned. Take-up has actually been relatively modest. Good areas typically have 25% to 30%. I am quite happy to be put right on that, but I am sure that take-up has been significantly less in other areas. That may be partly due to the lack of clarity about needing to place an order, which will hopefully be put right, or it might be that people who already have 10 megabits or more simply think that there is no need to upgrade to get 40 megabits.
Finally, the vision for this excellent project was to provide superfast broadband for 90% and at least 2 megabits to 10% and to revitalise rural economies. That vision generated support and enthusiasm for the project. Just because it is hard does not mean that we should be walking away from delivering something that was initially so enthusiastically received. In the next of my regular communications with Superfast North Yorkshire and BT, I hope to be given some comfort as to how the remaining 10% will be addressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate, and I am pleased to see him joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams). As one can see as the camera pans around, God’s own county is represented by four of the finest elected representatives to be found in any legislature in the world. It is a testament to their power and influence that not a single member of the Opposition has dared to turn up to challenge anything that my hon. Friends have to say.
Now that I have taken my tongue out of my cheek, I must say in all seriousness, for the edification of their constituents and any local journalists watching the debate, that my hon. Friends have been assiduous in lobbying for their constituencies and to secure the best settlement to deliver the best broadband deal for their constituents, because they understand its importance. They have been aided and abetted by John Moore, the chief executive of NYnet, which is the company set up to deliver broadband to North Yorkshire, as well as the excellently led, Conservative North Yorkshire council. It is important to explain to those who might be new to the broadband debate that North Yorkshire was one of the first councils to participate in the Government’s rural broadband programme, because it was oven-ready, as it were, when the programme was announced. That is why, while I will go on to talk about the general success of the rural broadband programme, North Yorkshire stands out as one of the most successful areas.
Julian Smith
Just to extend the mutual congratulations slightly, I want to put on the record our thanks to the Minister for being so responsive over the past few years to relentless e-mails and letters from all of us. His responsiveness has made a massive difference.
Mr Vaizey
I am grateful, but perhaps we had better stop there, Mrs Main, and get to the substance of the debate, or people will start to turn against us.
North Yorkshire is one of the largest rural broadband projects in the country. It was the first to get under way under our rural broadband programme. We have put almost £18 million into the project, together with more than £8 million of European funding—if I am allowed to say that in public—and £9 million from BT, making a total investment of more than £35 million. The project is now on track to be completed by October this year, which is ahead of schedule. We also recognise the need to do more, and partly in response to the relentless e-mails, letters and conversations, we allocated a further £3 million to North Yorkshire, because that leveraged an additional £5 million of funding from the local council and in European money, allowing coverage to be extended further.
As for what we have achieved so far, the current contract will get 670 cabinets enabled for superfast broadband, which will deliver 168,000 premises as passed. Mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about distinguishing between access to fibre and getting superfast speeds, I can say that that means 150,000 premises achieving speeds greater than 25 megabits. It is important to stress that we distinguish between those who have access to cabinets that have been enabled for superfast broadband and those who actually receive the speeds, because we recognise that some premises are too far from the cabinets to get the designated speeds.
More than half the cabinets have been deployed so far, which is 350, or 52% of the total; 95,000 premises have been passed, or 57% of the total; and 86,000 of those premises receive speeds of 25 megabits or more. By the end of next week, we expect 370 cabinets to have been enabled, so the project is going well. It is important to stress that this has been helped not only by the assiduous nature of the MPs’ holding the Government to account, but by NYnet on the ground and a proactive council, which have been vital. Some people have criticised the way in which we have gone about working with local councils, rather than having a national tender, for example, but having councils that are partners with BT has made a huge difference, because it joins up with things such as planning to ensure that broadband is rolled out all the more speedily.
Despite criticism of the programme, the results are now beginning to speak for themselves. For example, in Rutland more than 9,000 premises have been passed, and we expect that project to conclude by the summer; 95 more communities in Norfolk are now accessing fibre broadband, thanks to the programme; and in Suffolk, 90 miles of fibre cable have been laid, and 10,000 homes and businesses are getting broadband three months ahead of schedule, with a further 2,500 premises in 16 communities getting it in the autumn.
Many authorities are going further than our original target of 90%: Cambridgeshire is going for 98%; Lancashire 97%; Rutland 94%; and Wales, which has passed 100,000 premises and is now six months ahead of schedule, 96%. By the end of 2013, with 43 out of 44 projects signed, half of them already had live coverage. Superfast Cornwall has seen more than 194,000 premises passed by fibre and is aiming for 95% of fibre coverage. Northern Ireland has more than 90% of fibre coverage.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to BT and its engineers. Over the Christmas period, all of us have seen, or experienced, the horrendous weather that led to trouble with power lines and so on. The flooding still afflicts a great many areas of the country. Throughout that entire period, however, BT engineers were working to meet their milestones. I have been told stories of engineers working with water up to their shoulders as they were preparing to lay fibre, or working in holes where the pumps had to be kept on permanently to keep the water from flooding them, so that the milestones could be met. BT gets a lot of criticism for the programme, but most of it is unwarranted. It is worth our pausing to pay tribute to the work of the BT engineers, in particular over this Christmas period.
On the core points made by my hon. Friends, I would characterise the tone of their remarks as, “It’s going well, but could do better.” We could do better in two or three areas, the first of which might be the allocation of the next £250 million. It is worth making the point that, having allocated a little more than £500 million to reach 90% superfast broadband, the Chancellor has allocated a further £250 million to reach 95%. We want to get that money allocated as soon as possible.
I was not in a hole up to my shoulders in water, but I can assure my hon. Friends that my officials and I and BT were all looking at the issue over the Christmas and new year period. We hope to make an announcement shortly, but I know that they appreciate that we have to get it right and ensure that the money is allocated properly and fairly. I can be certain, however, that good partners like North Yorkshire will, I hope, receive appropriate funding to carry on their good work.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge, as I have already done, that there is a difference between a fibre-enabled cabinet and people getting superfast access. I reassure my hon. Friends that we make the distinction. They also mentioned the concern about BT first saying that a cabinet is commercially viable, but then saying that it is not and that it should be part of the rural roll-out. Detailed planning is undertaken, but circumstances on the ground can change, so there needs to be a degree of flexibility and give and take. I can, however, again assure my hon. Friends that when BT finds that a cabinet is not commercially viable and seeks to put it into the rural programme, we do have detailed discussions. Likewise, sometimes there are parts of the rural programme that become commercially viable.
As for clawing money back from BT when take-up is higher, I assure my hon. Friends that where the take-up of broadband exceeds the target set under the contract, we do claw money back. That money is put back into the programme to extend coverage further.
Finally, I assure my hon. Friends that we are also looking at the £10 million that the Chancellor has allocated to us to take superfast broadband from 95% to 100%. That is money for test-bed experiments. It is important to stress that, in particular in rural areas, prices rise exponentially for that very last 5%.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I call Julian Sturdy. I am sorry, I mean Nigel Adams.
Nigel Adams
I aspire to be like my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).
Nigel Adams
Does the Minister have any experience of hard-to-reach areas in other parts of the country implementing wi-fi solutions? Does he have any knowledge of the take-up, or experience of how well such solutions work? In one of my villages, Ulleskelf, I helped to launch a wi-fi service more than a year ago. My understanding is that the take-up has been low—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister needs the remaining 40 seconds to respond.
Mr Vaizey
There are individual solutions and it is important that we remain open to them. I receive e-mails from individual providers which claim that they can provide commercial solutions for the last 5%. It is important that we hear from all potential providers, which is why we have set aside that money to stress-test solutions before making that final allocation to get us to 100% superfast broadband.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statement
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Air Navigation Guidance
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Today I am pleased to announce the publication of a revised version of the air navigation guidance. I am grateful for the technical assistance of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the input of those who responded to the consultation—carried out in summer 2013. A summary of the responses to the consultation and the Government’s reply to these responses is being published alongside the new guidance.
Under the Transport Act 2000, the CAA is required to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State when exercising its air navigation functions. The new guidance has two key objectives. The first is to provide the CAA with additional clarity on the Government’s environmental objectives relating to air navigation in the UK, including the need to improve the efficiency of our UK airspace network. The second is a reaffirmation of the need to consult local communities near airports when airspace changes are being considered in the vicinity of these airports. The guidance now reflects significant developments such as the creation of the future airspace strategy and single European sky, and the aviation policy framework.
Although this guidance has been prepared, consulted on and revised by the Government separately from the Airports Commission’s work, it is notable that the clarity it brings around the introduction of performance-based navigation routes at our major airports and the need for greater delegation of decision-making powers over airspace changes to the CAA are in line with the findings of the commission’s recently published interim report. The Government’s full response to the report will follow in the spring. In the meantime, this publication demonstrates the Government’s desire to act quickly to make the best use of existing capacity.
A copy of the guidance can be found on my Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air- navigation-guidance and I will place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.