Comprehensive Spending Review
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Last week’s comprehensive spending review delivered cuts beyond the dreams of even Margaret Thatcher that were welcomed with glee from the Tory Benches. Those cuts will really impact on our children and schools. I have been inundated with e-mails from teachers in Stockton North, and from teachers in neighbouring Stockton South who teach children from my constituency. They are incensed by the axing of the schools sports partnership. The head teacher of a special school in my constituency, Abbey Hill school and technology college, Clare Devine, wrote to me to say:
“I fully endorse the partnership’s work in transforming PE and school sport, and believe that the withdrawal of funding is a betrayal of the Olympic legacy to inspire young people to take part in PE and sport.”
What is that head teacher going to say to a child with the most challenging physical and other special needs who enjoys participating in sport through the partnership but can no longer do so? Perhaps the Minister will offer us some ideas.
Today, I have chosen to focus specifically on what the cuts will mean to the Cleveland fire service, which serves Teesside and Hartlepool. Last Friday, I met the chief fire officer, who outlined exactly how dangerous the cuts announced in the comprehensive spending review will be. I also met real firefighters in Billingham in my constituency, in their fire station on the edge of Europe’s biggest fire risk—a huge chemical and related industrial complex. The Cleveland fire authority has already made cumulative efficiencies of £1.8 million over the past three years. The savings have been officially recognised by the Department for Communities and Local Government. This is taking place against a background of improved outcomes, including the greatest reduction in primary fires nationally.
The comprehensive spending review reduced the revenue support grant from central Government for fire and rescue authorities by 25% over the next four years. The effect on Cleveland will be significant, given that 67% of its budget comes from the revenue support grant, with the rest coming from council tax. A 25% cut in Cleveland equates to a reduction in the overall budget of almost £6 million. Our firemen and women put their lives on the line every time the bell goes. They accept their responsibilities quietly and get on with the job, yet they will now face a greater risk to their personal safety if numbers are cut and resources stretched way beyond any reasonable limit. We have already seen deaths in other parts of the country that have been blamed on cuts. Is the Minister prepared to pay with even more deaths?
The Cleveland fire service area hosts 12% of all the COMAH—control of major accident hazards—regulated sites in England and Wales, yet it is a net loser under the current funding formula, which has seen an increase of just 2% across three years. The fire service in Nottinghamshire has received an increase of 19%. On top of this, the service is now being asked to cope with the new 25% cut. The chief fire officer is not confident that cuts on this scale can be made through efficiency savings alone, and believes that the service will be compromised if personnel and equipment are reduced. Lives should not be put at risk. I am told that a fully staffed fire engine costs in the region of £800,000 a year to staff. My fear is that, with £6 million of cuts, front-line services will be badly hit. The local firefighters whom I met last week had a clear message for the Government: we have now cut right through the fat and we are down to the bone. We cannot cut any more. We simply cannot afford to remove fire engines against this risk.
I want to remind Ministers of the Flixborough disaster of 1 June 1974. It happened in an area that is not dissimilar to my own constituency and other parts of Teesside. We saw what disaster meant that day, and we saw the tremendous work done by fire crews. We need to know that our fire services have the people and equipment that they need in order to respond to potential disaster, but the Government are turning their back on that need.
I hope that the Minister responsible for the fire service will accept my written invitation to see these challenges for himself, and will think again about the cuts to which he has agreed. I am particularly anxious for authorities such as Cleveland which have already delivered efficiency savings to be given a level of protection. There is only so much money to be saved through efficiencies, and sooner rather than later the cuts will hit front-line fire services.
It is absurd that our fire authority is being forced to consider making full-time stations part-time, and to rely on part-time firemen in an area with the highest risk in the whole of Europe. Firefighters, workers and ordinary families whose homes surround our industrial sites are being put at risk by these arbitrary cuts. I hope that the Government will think again about that risk and the way in which they are adding to it, because lives are at stake.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Despite what we have heard from those on the Government Benches tonight, it is still very clear that with today’s Bill, the coalition will deliver yet another blow to hard-working families and the most vulnerable.
The Prime Minister said he wanted this Government to be
“the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country”.
So, I want to know why the coalition is again hitting hardest families with children. That is not my analysis or the analysis of my colleagues on the shadow Front Bench, but the conclusion of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Deputy Prime Minister spent last week attacking that much respected think-tank for daring to tell the truth about the coalition’s damaging cuts, describing its methods of measuring the fairness of the controversial spending review as
“distorted and a complete nonsense”—
but that is what is nonsense. The Deputy Prime Minister argued that the rich will pay the most as a result of the spending review and that anyone who argues otherwise is “frightening people”.
Perhaps I could refer the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers not to the latest IFS report but to the Christian Bible and the story of the widow’s mite. It will be familiar to many, and tells the story of a widow quietly giving her last mite to the temple while a rich man makes a great show of handing over a considerable sum, but a sum that is insignificant as part of his overall wealth. It seems that the poor in our country need to give their all and stay quiet, too.
Although the rich of this country might pay more both in terms of actual cash and as a percentage of their overall income than those on the lowest incomes, their pain will be negligible in comparison with that of a family in my constituency who might lose £10 or £20 a week, which could be the difference between feeding themselves properly and missing meals. I doubt that they will be quiet, like that widow, when they have nothing left and still have mouths to fill.
Hard-working families in my constituency do not need Labour MPs or the Institute for Fiscal Studies to frighten them; they can see for themselves the damage that the coalition Government are doing. They remember how Teesside suffered under the last Tory Government and they are frightened that the Government are cutting harder and faster than we have ever seen.
Others have highlighted these points. We have heard about the cuts to child benefit, cuts to housing benefit, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, and the cut to the child care element of working tax credit that equates to a loss of up to £1,560 per year for families who are already struggling with the burden of extortionate child care costs.
Harriett Baldwin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the helpful suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the fact that these grants have been going to people like him? He argued for a change in favour of more fiscal rectitude, which would mean that children growing up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would not have such a burden of borrowing in the future.
Alex Cunningham
I think that the point that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made was that perhaps families such as his do not need that sort of income. If he wants to forgo it, that is all well and good, but there are hard-working families in my community that need that money.
Let us add to all that the impact of the 27% cuts on local authorities and the effect that will have on services, including initiatives such as breakfast clubs, and again we see the family under attack. In the north-east, we already know that family dependency on benefits will grow, with some 43,000 public and private sector jobs lost over the next few years. People will see few jobs for them to chase as unemployment undoubtedly soars.
Today, the Government attack again. I object to the scrapping of both the child trust fund and the saving gateway and I believe the Government are making a big mistake by getting rid of them.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman strikes me as a very enlightened individual, and I am sure that he is very aware that every Government have to make difficult choices. If he were to keep these areas of expenditure going to fund the benefit, what areas of Government expenditure would he cut?
Alex Cunningham
Personally, I would raise taxes in order to ensure that we could maintain this provision, and the bankers are a good place for us to start.
Alex Cunningham
No, I will not.
Both the child trust fund and the saving gateway were Labour initiatives, put in place by a party that understands the importance of fostering a culture of saving. Asset-based welfare can make a huge difference to the opportunities of the least well off in this country who often do not have access to the resources that many others are lucky enough to have, whether through inheritance or the generosity of family or because they recognise the importance of saving a little of their salary each and every month for a rainy day. The saving gateway aimed to encourage those from low-income households who do not save, for whatever reason, by promising the incentive of a Government contribution of 50p for every pound saved over the two-year life of the account. It had been trialled, and was due to be rolled out across the country in July.
We will not see the difference that the saving gateway would have made to thousands of low-income families at the relatively tiny cost to the Government of £100 million a year. The response to the trials was largely positive—one pilot saw the number of people saving rise from 16% to nearly 80%. In total, more than 22,000 people took part in two successful pilots, achieving more than £15 million in savings. Those people demonstrated that the scheme could generate both new savers and new saving, because individuals continued to save beyond the end of their gateway accounts.
Encouraging people to save promotes self-reliance and stability, allows long-term planning and provides security from sudden financial shocks. Saving just a few pounds a month makes a person feel in greater control of their life, and it can be transformative and provide a psychological boost. The difference that that can make to families and their quality of life should not be underestimated.
Sarah Newton
You are making a very powerful speech for us this evening, and I completely agree with you about the importance of savings and of encouraging a savings culture. However, I am rather disappointed by the glib response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who asked how Labour Members would pay for those benefits. Every time that question is raised, Labour Members say that we should tax the rich. What calculation has the hon. Gentleman made of the effect of increasing taxes to 70%, 80% or 90%? Is that where you would like to go? And what estimation—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady, first, that I am not going anywhere—the debate goes through the Chair—and, secondly, that interventions from now on must be short, because there is a lot of pressure on time and several hon. Members want to contribute.
Alex Cunningham
I have never had a problem with taxing the rich a little bit more. If that means a penny on income tax, I would be fine with it, although I do not know what encouragement I would get from my Front Benchers.
Alex Cunningham
No, I will not. We need to raise taxes and target the results at the poorest people.
I hoped that the saving gateway would squeeze some of the doorstep lenders out of low-income communities, which is an issue close to my heart. Those companies charge outrageous interest rates, and if people had some money saved for a rainy day, such monsters would see their customer base shrink.
I also want to speak out in defence of the child trust fund, which acts as an incentive to save by adding to a Government contribution of either £250 or £500 at birth depending on a family’s income. The child trust fund was well established, having been introduced for all children born since September 2002. At a cost of around £500 million a year, including additional contributions when a child reaches the age of seven, this universal yet progressive fund ensures that all children, regardless of their family income, have a pot of money that they can access at the age of 18.
According to the Save Child Savings alliance, some industry data suggest that the child trust fund has seen the number of people saving for their children’s futures almost treble. More than £2 billion is currently being held in child trust funds. That form of asset welfare opens doors to young adults, particularly those from low-income families. No young person has yet benefited from this fund—the first recipients are just eight years old today—but I would have hoped that when they can start accessing it in 10 years’ time, that money would go some way to improving social mobility, which is an issue that some hon. Members highlighted earlier.
A policy that spreads wealth to the asset poor should be backed by anyone who is dismayed by the lack of social mobility in the UK today. Yes, education plays a major role in tackling that problem, but so do assets, which is something that the Liberal Democrats have failed to address in recent years. The Deputy Prime Minister spent some of the summer discussing the Government’s programme for social mobility, but this measure goes against it. The child trust fund was one way in which the previous Labour Government hoped to tackle this issue, and scrapping it will be a step backwards.
At a time when the coalition proposes to increase university tuition fees, I would have thought it wise to defend child trust funds as one way in which young people could choose to shoulder at least a tiny bit of the burden of those costs. Even if they do not go to university, any funds available to 18-year-olds must give them a better start in life, which the better-off take entirely for granted. It may only help to fund their driving lessons, but that will give them the mobility and employability which would otherwise be denied.
Instead, having promised huge and unnecessary cuts over the next four years, the Government must cancel valuable programmes that are relatively inexpensive. Scrapping the child trust fund is a decision made with an eye on the short-term political goal of cutting the deficit, not the long-term responsible goal of encouraging families to save for their children’s future. The age group facing the most debt is 16 to 34-year-olds. Surely a responsible Government should be seriously considering measures to help the next generation of young people, particularly given that university fees are set to rise to eye-wateringly high levels.
The Government are intent on pressing ahead with these family cuts, but when will the Minister tell us how the plans to fund and retain the infrastructure of the fund, to enable contributions to be restarted when the economic position improves, will work? I am told by the Save Child Savings alliance that it would cost £2 million a year to do so—a very small fraction of the total overall cost. There is an alternative to these draconian cuts, despite what the coalition says. Labour would deal with the deficit by halving it over four years. Yes, there would still be cuts, but we could cut carefully and always with an eye on the human impact. I am not confident that I can say the same about the coalition.
Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate other hon. Members on their maiden speeches. I have learned a lot; I have enjoyed them much, but I particularly look forward to a supply of that asparagus.
After 30 years living in my constituency, I am proud to be an adopted Teessider, and even more proud to represent the people of Billingham, Norton, much of Stockton and the surrounding villages. My Stockton North constituency has a long history as an industrial hothouse, with engineering, chemical manufacture and shipbuilding. Work with metal for building ships and some of the world’s most famous bridges has always been at the centre of our community. Even just two weeks ago, we saw the world’s largest marine pipe-laying machine loaded on board a ship and exported to the far east. Built in my constituency by IHC Engineering, it will subsequently be deployed in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Brazilian coast, laying pipe lines for, among others, BP, Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
The metal work also has its links with the Houses of Parliament. Every time I hear Big Ben strike, it reminds me of home. The original bell was cast in Calf Fallow lane, just 400 yards from my back fence. The history books say that the people of London cheered the bell through the streets, but sadly it never took its place in the Clock Tower, as it cracked under testing. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the same does not happen to me.
We have seen many changes in our local economy. Substantial investment by the regional development agency One NorthEast has helped business and industry in Stockton not just to play to its strengths but to diversify into all manner of things from financial services to 21st-century digital businesses. Investment in education and training has also brought big dividends, and I only hope that the investment continues, and that the new Government’s plans to change the RDA do not render it useless.
My constituency is famous for many other things. Stockton is home to one end of the world’s first railway line. The town boasts the widest high street in England. John Walker invented the friction match in his high street shop, and the town is home to one of Europe’s premier arts festivals, the Stockton international riverside festival. We are also celebrating the 700th anniversary of our market charter this year.
Billingham developed from a small village to a large town during the ICI era on Teesside. It also boasts a festival of its own—the international folklore festival, now in its 46th year. The people of Billingham are also famous for taking on the might of the nuclear industry in the shape of Nirex, which wanted to dump hundreds of thousands of tonnes of medium-level radioactive waste under their homes in a disused anhydrite mine. Their campaign “Billingham against the nuclear dump” was successfully led by my predecessor Frank Cook, then a new MP himself. It was the biggest constituency campaign he was involved in during his 27 years as the Member of Parliament for Stockton North. Many hon. Members will remember Frank Cook as a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, and for his work with NATO. I will remember him as a dedicated champion of genuine asylum seekers, helping to protect many of them from torture or death, which they would have ultimately suffered if they had returned to their home country.
Education is my particular interest, and I am extremely proud of the success of many schools in my constituency. They have delivered outstanding success for our children and young people. Much has been achieved, but much remains to be done. As Stockton borough council lead member for children and young people, I was privileged to oversee the work to develop the Building Schools for the Future programme across the borough. Opposition Members share my anxiety that the biggest single investment in education ever is now subject to review and could be cut. I remain hopeful, however, that the new Government will soon end the speculation over BSF and help us transform teaching and learning in the kind of facilities of which we can all be proud.
A co-ordinated approach to delivering integrated services for our children and young people is essential as we go forward. The safeguarding of our children must be central to that work, yet there has been little mention of it from the new Government, except for a statement promising a review and a cut in bureaucracy. We have seen the high-profile cases of recent years, and they illustrate the need for safeguarding of our children to remain one of the highest priorities for national and local government alike. While every failure is a disaster for a child or a young person, we must not lose sight of the daily work of our local authorities and social workers, often working against the odds to deliver success in the most difficult of circumstances.
Much of our talk these days is about reducing spending, but I hope the Secretary of State for Education and the Chancellor will deliver real resources in developing education in our schools on budgeting. It is a critical area in which support is needed for young people and many families, to help them manage their income and not fall into the hands of loan sharks, both legal and illegal. There are people in my constituency who pay for their television £1 at a time through a slot meter, and end up paying for their television several times over. There are others who, believing that there is nowhere else to go, take out loans with extreme interest rates, and often struggle just to meet the interest payments. I will work here to put an end to that “legal loan shark” practice, which devastates so many lives, and help people find affordable credit through credit unions or other means.
Higher education is also important to my constituency, and Stockton boasts of being a university town. Durham university on the south bank of the River Tees falls in the Stockton South constituency. I know, however, that the university harbours an ambition to expand student numbers and move across our new Infinity bridge and on to the north shore and into Stockton North. I hope that ambition is realised.
I firmly believe that a healthy community can be a learning and economically vibrant community that can achieve great things in developing an exciting future. In recent times, we have seen improvements in the health of some of our neediest communities across the country, and in my own constituency. I hope we will see that improvement continue, with our planned new hospital given the go-ahead. I also hope that the new Government will recognise the huge benefits that continued investment in integrated education, social care and other services for children and young people can bring. Many children and adults in my constituency still face the toughest of circumstances, and could suffer most under the cuts proposed by the Government. I hope I can serve them well by highlighting the issues affecting their lives, and persuading all who will listen that people like them need us in their corner.