Party Funding

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is completely right. There was a concern that if the Conservative party was to get over its deep-seated opposition to increasing the amount of state funding for political parties, the other side of the coin had to be that the Labour party would give up its addiction to trade union funding. Sadly, the latter part did not come through.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Any claim that the Minister made earlier to openness and transparency is ruined by the Prime Minister's not coming to the House today. That is a key point. He made a partial statement outside the House about some of his dinners with significant donors, but that will not do. We need an independent inquiry and the fullest list imaginable not just of dinners but of breakfasts, lunches, teas, drinks and any other occasions involving Ministers as well as the Prime Minister.

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Lady fulminates about the absence of the Prime Minister being the key point, but she knows that that is not the case. She knows that that is not what this is about. She should address the substantial issues, and I look forward to hearing her say that she will support genuine reform of party funding, which will have to address the issue of donations from the trade union movement to the Labour party. Will she do that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

First, if the hon. Gentleman recalls his time as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the previous Prime Minister, he will be aware that he was serving a past master at giving foretastes of Budgets. Secondly, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels he knows what is or is not a leak, as he has not seen the Budget yet, and nor has the House.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with permanent secretaries on Government outsourcing of policy advice.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The head of the civil service has set up a number of themed groups to explore various aspects of civil service reform. One is exploring whether outsourcing policy making could deliver more creative and innovative results, while ensuring accountability and value for money, and I met permanent secretaries recently to discuss that and other issues.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Cabinet Office spent almost £120,000 in one day in August last year on consultancy, and McKinsey & Company is reported to have earned almost £14 million from Government health policy since the election. Outsourcing policy advice is costly and can lead to conflicts of interest, so will Conservative Ministers stick to their pledge in their manifesto to reduce the amount of consultancy?

[Mr Maude]

Not only will we, but we have. We have more than halved—I stress, more than halved—the cost of consultancy to the taxpayer. Under the previous Government, such money was spent incontinently, and the result was bad value for money and the serious undermining of the self-esteem of professional civil servants, who like being asked to do difficult things and are very good at doing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

Those plans were approved in 2008, when the current Leader of the Opposition was Minister for the Cabinet Office. It is therefore surprising that the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office chose recently to mount an unprovoked attack on the decision made by his party leader.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T3. Part of my constituency had a bad experience with the Big Lottery Fund, which awarded it £1 million, but then sat on the money for the best part of two years. Will the Minister give better policy direction to that body so that it does not award funding and then sit on it for two years?

[Mr Maude]

I hear what the hon. Lady says and I will look into it. I am surprised to hear that that was the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. The whole point of the reforms is to put the power in the hands of local doctors, so that they make decisions on behalf of patients and based on what is good for health care in their local area. We may well find that the community hospitals that were repeatedly undermined by Labour will actually get a great boost, because local people and local doctors want to see them succeed. That is what our reforms are all about.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The PIP implant saga has left 40,000 women sick with anxiety because of faulty medical products, and now they are being failed by private clinics and by an NHS that is dithering about what to do with them. In this saga we can see the future of a privatised NHS, so will the Prime Minister pledge to support those women in the NHS now and claim against the clinics later, and will he drop the Health and Social Care Bill so that we do not have this happening again across the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me take the hon. Lady’s question in two halves. She is entirely right about the scandal of the PIP implants. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will offer every one of those women a free consultation and ensure that we do everything we can on the NHS to help them. It is an absolute scandal, and the private clinics that carried out those operations should feel the maximum pressure to undo the harm that they have done.

On the issue of greater competition and choice within the NHS, I think the hon. Lady should listen to past Labour politicians who have themselves said that actually, greater choice, greater competition and the involvement of the private sector can help to raise standards in our NHS system. That is why we should support it.

Public Disorder

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course conversations have to take place between the Home Office and the police about the use of different technologies or tactics. The point that the Home Secretary and I have been making over recent days is that they should feel free to examine whether they need these capabilities in the knowledge that they will have political support for doing what is necessary to keep our streets safe.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister keeps referring to 16,000 police officers in London. We had them only because they came down in bus loads from places such as Salford, leaving the Greater Manchester police overstretched and unable to face down a violent crowd of 1,000 individuals. We have already lost more than 300 police officers. There is no case for any more cuts.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that the hon. Lady is being fair on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police National Information Co-ordination Centre system, which makes sure that police officers are sent to the areas where they are needed. Greater Manchester itself was getting mutual aid from other parts of the country.

Public Sector Funding

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured a debate on the important topic of the effects on the voluntary sector of reductions in public sector funding. I am also pleased to serve under you as Chair, Mr Amess.

In the current economic context, a thriving community and voluntary sector is vital. Locally, people with debt problems need their citizens advice bureau, carers need their carers centre and people need support from organisations that work with children with special needs or with people who have long-term conditions. The previous Labour Government have a proud record of support for a stronger voluntary sector. We doubled the funding to the sector from £5.5 billion to £12 billion in 2009, and created the first ever Minister for the third sector, with an office putting the third sector at the heart of Government. In addition, we gave the third sector a strong voice in Government through the Third Sector Partnership Board.

We also supported social enterprise. At the end of 2010, there were approximately 62,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing at least £24 billion to the economy and employing 800,000 people. Labour did much to boost and encourage volunteering in our communities when we were in government. Some 850,000 charity trustees serve on the governing body of a charity, and 780,000 paid staff work in the sector to provide services and to support and encourage volunteering. There are also 2.7 million volunteers, on whom many small charities rely. For example, my local citizens advice bureau in Walkden has 20 volunteers a day working with staff who are trained debt advisers or are trained to offer legal advice.

Some 40% of adults report that they have volunteered formally at least once in the past 12 months, with 25% volunteering formally at least once a month. However, despite the coalition Government’s rhetoric about the big society, cuts in funding from central and local government are damaging the sector. It has been estimated that the voluntary sector is facing cuts of £1.1 billion just this year, rising to more than £3 billion next year. There are also real fears for the capacity of the voluntary sector. At a time when the Government are talking about localism and creating opportunities for charities and community organisations, the sector will almost certainly do less this year than in previous years.

The collaborative website, www.voluntarysectorcuts. org.uk, is mapping those cuts. One of them is a grant cut of £500,000 from the Office for Civil Society to the volunteering support organisation, TimeBank. I want to discuss that as an example of what initiatives are affected when such a cut is made. TimeBank was set up in February 2000 and was funded by the Home Office and the BBC as a support agency to inspire a new generation of volunteers. Its vision is to make volunteering part of the fabric of everyday life. In the past 10 years, TimeBank has helped and encouraged 30,000 people into volunteering. For example—this is a good example to consider at the moment—in 2004, TimeBank asked people to back London’s bid for the Olympics and 14,000 potential volunteers responded. That has now risen to 100,000 people who want to volunteer for the Olympics. In the same year, it recruited 1,900 people aged 20 to 35 for volunteering opportunities with hospices. In 2008, 1,400 parent volunteers were recruited to mentor other parents for Home-Start. TimeBank offers tailored support to anyone interested in volunteering or running a dedicated help desk and website. The organisation has established good practice and provides space for local, regional and national sharing of experience. It runs a dedicated help desk and website to signpost people towards volunteering opportunities and to increase accessibility and engagement.

TimeBank recently launched something called the volurater, which is a forum like TripAdvisor that allows people to review their volunteering experience. TimeBank says that the cancellation of its funding from the Office for Civil Society means that its support functions will be severely undermined. The staff and resources for that work have been paid for from the core funding that it receives from Government. All its other funding streams are ring-fenced for programme or project delivery, so the loss of £500,000 of grant funding puts a significant proportion of TimeBank’s work under threat. As I said, the volurater is a review tool for volunteers to rate their volunteering experiences. It aims to help to drive up standards in volunteering across the board and to give volunteers a voice. No other organisation has such a tool for volunteers, and it is now under threat.

Junction49 is also under threat. It is a web platform aimed at young people that acts as a type of Facebook for volunteers. It was set up in 2007, and it allows young people to share and develop ideas, and to make a difference in their communities by setting up volunteering projects. Junction49 has supported 1,145 young people, and helped them to volunteer through advice, support and connecting them with other like-minded people. TimeBank’s website and newsletter are also at risk. The website receives 16,000 new visitors a month, and is designed specifically to help people to volunteer. The website includes ideas and inspiration, such as a blog, a postcode search for local opportunities and a “how to get started” section. There is also a help desk that is contactable by phone or e-mail, with a dedicated staffing resource to answer questions about volunteering and help people along the way. TimeBank has a monthly electronic newsletter that is sent out to 300,000 volunteers whom it calls time givers, and it includes ideas and tips about volunteering. Regular social media activity—the type of things I have been describing—drives people to the website and raises awareness of volunteering issues and best practice. It also helps with recruiting volunteers and signposting volunteering opportunities.

TimeBank also runs programmes to match people with volunteer mentors. I shall mention two of those that are under threat as a result of the funding cuts. TimeBank has worked in partnership with Carers UK to develop a mentoring programme for new carers, who often feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Those two organisations are providing new carers with access to information and advice from a mentor who has been a carer themselves. A groundbreaking TimeBank project called Shoulder to Shoulder supports ex-servicemen and women returning to civilian life who have mental health problems. More than 20,000 people leave the service to return to civilian life each year, and around a quarter of those have a mental health problem. One in five of those have a mental health problem resulting from traumas and injuries that they experienced during their service.

Another valuable area of work for TimeBank is support for businesses involved in employee volunteering. Participating organisations include Sky, Virgin, Vodafone, Sony, T-Mobile and even the Cabinet Office. Years ago, I worked on such a project with the organisation, Business in the Community. I arranged community development assignments for staff from organisations and corporate companies, such as IBM and Marks & Spencer. Support for that type of volunteering from business is needed if such things are to happen. I know how valuable that is, both for the employee who volunteers and for the community organisation for which they volunteer. For instance, in 2008, TimeBank organised T-Mobile employees to help young people who are not in education, employment or training set up their own projects and design a mobile application to tackle a social issue. That work could also be under threat.

In December 2010, the Minister posted a message on Twitter congratulating TimeBank on its 10th anniversary. Cutting one sixth of its funding three months later is hardly the right way to support an organisation with a 10-year track record of innovative support for volunteering. TimeBank’s chief executive has said:

“This decision will hugely undermine the Government’s vision for a Big Society…For the past decade we have made an important contribution to mobilising an army of 300,000 volunteers and to improving the quality of volunteering across the board. Without this vital core funding we will not be able to continue to deliver the level of service that we have based our reputation on and will have to considerably reduce our activities and staff as a result.”

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I have an example in my own constituency. Kids in Communication is a youth media group that operates KicFM, and it has recruited 5,000 volunteers in the past decade. I urge the Minister to look at that group with some urgency. It will run out of funding at the end of next week. He has previously mentioned that 50% match funding might be available. If we are going to create a big society and sustain it, we need such organisations to recruit volunteers. By rolling back the funding, the Government are decreasing the number of volunteers in society, which goes against the whole spirit of the big society.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I personally believe that some of the decisions to cut grant funding to organisations that support volunteering, such as TimeBank and the one that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are difficult to understand, because Ministers have talked about encouraging social action and the need to support the community and voluntary sector. In fact, we recently had a debate on the big society in the House. The Minister said:

“I really believe that we have barely scratched the surface of what can be achieved in this country if we strike a more effective and balanced partnership between Government, business and civil society”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 131.]

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is the real problem that the Government do not appear to understand the role of the voluntary sector? It is often professional, well run, well organised and extremely hard-working. It brings in lots of money from charities and other places, but it absolutely relies on basic core funding in order to succeed. The Government seem to confuse it with charitable good works in small towns, and that model simply does not apply to complex, urban areas such as the one that I represent.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. That is right, if there is an urge, as the Minister has said, to discuss partnerships between Government, business and civil society. I talked earlier about employee volunteering from business in the voluntary sector. That has to be arranged, however, because there is a big, wide cultural gap between the private sector and the voluntary sector. We cannot just leave a new business volunteer to flounder in an organisation. I used to arrange business volunteering as part of a job that I did in the past. I know that someone needs to be the link in-between, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

The Minister described one strand of action for the Government as

“encouraging more social action in our communities”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 132.]

How on earth is that going to happen if we cut away the infrastructure of organisations such as TimeBank?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She has very clearly outlined the case for volunteers in our society. Every one of us in the Chamber this morning will be aware of the work of volunteers. It seems as if Ministers are diverting money to sports, heritage and arts, and away from voluntary and charity groups and those who do good work in the community. Does she share my concern that there are more worthy cases in relation to the voluntary and charity work that is done in the community?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I said in my opening paragraph that in the current economic context issues such as debt advice and other ways in which people volunteer in communities and societies are crucial. Volunteering in sports organisations is important, and sport and culture are important too, but in the current context the social function of volunteering roles are vital, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I shall return to the question of how the Government will encourage more social action if they close off financial support to those small—and they are small—but vital charities that support and encourage people to volunteer. I just want to touch briefly on support for carers, which is one strand of the work that TimeBank is seeking to do, and which is under threat. Support for carers is vital and will become even more so, given the cuts and uncertainty that are now affecting us as a result of proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill. Schemes such as the one developed by TimeBank are essential, and working with Carers UK to put new carers in contact with experienced carers could be a lifeline. Such a scheme helps the new carer to care more effectively, which is important in our communities.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

With regard to TimeBank, is the hon. Lady aware that it is seeking to set up an initiative whereby MPs can bank their volunteering? Would she support that initiative, as I do?

[Barbara Keeley]

I would certainly support that, but I cannot imagine how the hon. Gentleman thinks that TimeBank will set up new projects if his Government are cutting away its infrastructure funding. It is astonishing that he should raise that today.

[Chris White]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

No, let us leave it at that. The Minister and hon. Members have to understand that we cannot remove £500,000 of an organisation’s funding and then expect it to carry on with new initiatives. Clearly, it would not be able to do so.

I was discussing the vital scheme that TimeBank is setting up with carers. The groups with which TimeBank works are crucial in our society, but carers are in a special category. Carers who care for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to suffer from ill health, while those who care for a person suffering from dementia or stroke disease are even more at risk of ill health. If we do not support carers, therefore, we are causing additional health problems in our communities. In my local area, there are some 22,000 carers, one in four of whom care for more than 50 hours per week.

How are we to take initiatives if we cut the infrastructure funding for organisations? Last week, the Carers Identification and Support Bill, which I introduced, was not debated because we spent much of the time discussing a string of Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am sure that hon. Members who are here on Fridays understand that that is a common occurrence these days. There are no new measures to support carers in the Health and Social Care Bill, so how will they be supported? Will the Minister tell us why his Government’s cuts to TimeBank have been made, as they will cause the potential loss of a new way to support carers—people who give their up so much of their lives caring for family and friends?

The debate on funding must focus on the important issue of support for the infrastructure of the voluntary sector. Organisations such as TimeBank are on the front line of finding and supporting volunteers for charities, such as hospices and the Olympics, and they help to support and mentor carers. Labour’s support helped maintain high levels of participation in volunteering. Cuts to the funding of volunteering charities will result in the organisational cutbacks that I have discussed, and which will lead to a decrease in volunteering, not an increase. I hope that the Minister will tell us today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) encouraged him to do, that he will think again, and that some way can be found to reverse cuts which could be damaging to the cause of volunteering.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I think, Mr Amess, that coming in, making an intervention and disappearing is known as doing a Spink, is it not?

It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She and I are involved as officers of the all-party group on carers. I think there is no one in this Chamber who does not support the work of volunteers and we would all like to see the maximum amount of volunteering. We all have to accept, however, that we start from a position of having to manage an enormous budget deficit. Each and every day, the Government have to spend £120 million, just on interest, to service the deficit. I did a calculation the other day. I added up all the money that the Government give to my constituency through the local district council, the money it gives in grants to Cherwell district council, Oxfordshire county council, the Oxfordshire primary care trust and Thames Valley police for the whole of Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. The total equates to just 11 days’ interest on the budget deficit. We all have to put this in some sort of context.

I want to make some general comments about local government. I have come to the conclusion that the way it operates will have to change radically and fundamentally, and I shall give the House examples of that. We have had a system under which we all pay our taxes, the taxes go to the Treasury, the Treasury allocates money to local government, and local governments, from their largesse, allocate money to voluntary groups in their area, as they see fit. Voluntary groups have very much been rentiers, dependent on the largesse of local government and what it has chosen to give them. That needs to change considerably.

First, there needs to be a commitment by local government to allow much greater community scrutiny. May I give the House an example of why that is the case? On Saturday, I met with campaigners in Deddington in my constituency who want to retain their library. As we discussed the situation, it became apparent that we have in Oxfordshire a public library service, but also a schools library service, which is operated completely separately. That prompts the question, why do we need two services? What happens with back office costs? As we discussed the matter further and began talking about the mobile library, we realised that it was going to villages to which, at the same time, the GP surgery—in the village that has the library—sends transport to collect people to come into the surgery.

As the discussion continued, it struck me that, under that system, the risk is that the greatest cuts will be made at the front end—that is, at the service end—yet no one has had an opportunity to understand the full central costs of running the services. The local authority has not been subjected to complete scrutiny so that people may make proper value judgments about whether it is ensuring that any spending reductions it has to make are fairly distributed between it and the services that it might hitherto have supported.

There is a danger that local authorities will simply retrench to their statutory obligations and duties, and say, “If we don’t have a statutory duty to do this, we won’t do it.” However, as we all know, the reality is that, for a long time, part of the fabric of society has been local authorities funding all sorts of organisations and operations that are not necessarily part of their statutory obligations.

There needs to be a new obligation on local authorities to subject themselves to much greater community scrutiny, and that would happen in part if they had to put all their expenditure online and be much more transparent about how they spend their money. Transparency is one thing, but we also need to ensure that they subject themselves to much greater scrutiny so that people can ask questions about how money is spent.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about local authorities retrenching and cutting back on support for the voluntary sector, but I have just outlined an example of the Government doing that. Does the same duty fall on the Government when they start retrenching and substantially cutting grants to charities?

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is already able to scrutinise Government decisions—that is exactly what she is doing today in this Chamber. She will have the benefit of a response from my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am sure will answer her questions about TimeBank, which is an excellent charity and an excellent initiative, in his winding-up speech. Local government needs to take a new approach to scrutiny.

My second point is about engagement. My constituency happens to have been confronted with a threat to the local general hospital. Over time, that has constructively resulted in much greater engagement between local authorities, the primary care trust and various campaigning groups, which has been incredibly successful. As a consequence, we have managed to keep the local hospital as a general hospital.

It strikes me that that is a new, organic pattern of engagement between the local authority and, importantly, its officers, and members of the voluntary and community sectors. There are no rigid demarcations as to who is accountable or who is elected. It involves people coming together constructively to try to work out what is in the best interests of the community as a whole. We need the local government, its officers and elected members to be involved in much more of that sort of broader community engagement so that there can be an ongoing discussion with the community.

My last point is that there needs to be much greater commitment on the part of local government and central Government to put opportunities to tender out to social enterprises and voluntary organisations, and they need to be much clearer about how that should happen. The last example from my constituency is a new social enterprise in Banbury that was set up by people who had been working for many years with offenders at Bullingdon prison who were addicted to or had a dependency on drug or substance abuse. They have been doing excellent work involving ex-offenders in therapy. They have a good, reputable board of trustees, including some eminent doctors and others, and are doing a great deal of work with people who voluntarily self-refer. However, they could do a great deal more in the rehabilitation revolution by offering their services to people who may recently have come out of custody or may be in danger of going into custody—for example, there could be referrals from the courts.

The difficulty is that there is a disconnect in the rehabilitation revolution between how such groups get referrals, who buys the services and how they buy services. If government collectively wants social enterprises to develop, there needs to be a much clearer indication of where, within the machinery of central Government and local government, organisations can buy services. Otherwise, it will be extremely difficult for social enterprises to grow because they will have no idea how they might be able to maintain a sustainable income.

We are in incredibly challenging times because of the need to tackle the budget deficit, but we also have an opportunity to rethink much of what we do and how we approach central Government and local government. In the past, there has been a completely top-down, paternalistic, dirigiste system in which a citizens advice bureau at the bottom of the pile is lucky if it gets a grant each year from the district council. We should turn that on its head. There should be a bottom-up, community-driven process of priorities so that people in Deddington or Adderbury who are concerned about their library can drive the agenda, rather than it being imposed on them from the top. We should see this as an opportunity for real change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly the point that needs to be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said at the beginning of the debate, there is genuine concern that we need to understand how the voluntary sector works, how it is funded and how it is supported. There is huge concern about the Government’s pursuit of an economic policy that is reducing the deficit at a rate that is too fast, that is reckless and that will cause long-term damage to our civil society.

I want to put those issues on the record. The voluntary sector in Newcastle continues to thrive, but it sits in sheer trepidation, because most organisations have no security of funding beyond the end of this month.

[Barbara Keeley]

Before my hon. Friend finishes, does she agree that we could characterise this debate as one in which Government Members have hectored and lectured local authorities about not cutting grants to voluntary organisations in their areas, even though Ministers are cutting the number of their strategic partners from 42 to 14, and cutting their funding, too? Is it not inappropriate for coalition Government Members to lecture local authorities about what they must and must not do, when they themselves are scything away the infrastructure of the voluntary sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate and on the way that she spoke. However, special congratulations are in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on thinking so quickly on her feet, and on representing so sincerely sentiments that I heard directly only a few weeks ago in Newcastle from people concerned about what is going on.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South spoke passionately about TimeBank, and tried to make some wider points. I know that she has a particular interest in carers, and has done some distinguished work in this place since being elected on that important agenda. The leadership of TimeBank is here, and those people are probably shooting daggers at me; we shall meet soon to discuss the decision, but of course they will not agree with it.

I shall start with the specifics before going on to wider matters. I make no apology for rationalising the Office for Civil Society strategic partner programme. We inherited a situation with more than 40 strategic partners and almost as many civil servants, at a cost of some £12 million a year. I could not see what value the taxpayer was getting from that programme, and I received a lot of support from within the sector to rationalise it.

The intention to rationalise was communicated to all strategic partners in July 2010. As a result, all partners were effectively at risk of seeing some reduction in their funding. We announced yesterday that we would be reducing it to nine organisations or partnerships, and I am satisfied with the mix. The simple fact is that no organisation has the right to be a strategic partner of the Government. The right has to be earned, and the process must be run robustly and professionally by civil servants, I received a recommendation about those nine organisations, but unfortunately TimeBank was not included. I do not expect it to like that decision, but it was a robust process which I think was run properly.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hurd]

May I finish my point about figures, because it is perhaps the most important? Does it mean that TimeBank and other organisations that are working hard to manage and structure volunteering opportunities and inspiring people to volunteer will have no further opportunity to access taxpayers’ money? Of course not. I refer the hon. Lady and all with an interest in the subject to the recently published Giving Green Paper, which will lead to a White Paper. In it, we made it clear that we will be investing in a volunteering infrastructure programme with voluntary match funding, which will be worth about £40 million over this Parliament. There will be opportunities for TimeBank and other organisations to add value to those programmes.

[Barbara Keeley]

As the Minister is touching on his reasons for cutting away at the infrastructure of an organisation that supports volunteering for hospices, for the Olympics and for carers, I invite him to explain exactly why—beyond a departmental goal to rationalise the number of strategic partners—the Government are cutting away at a vital organisation? The same question could be asked about others. TimeBank is crucial to supporting volunteering, and has an excellent 10-year track record. Indeed, he sent it a message when it achieved its 10-year anniversary. Why is he doing this?

[Mr Hurd]

I tried to explain why earlier. We ran a process to identify a shorter list of strategic partners, with criteria; TimeBank and other organisations on a longer list did not make it through that process. As I said, no organisation has the right to be a strategic partner of the Government, but I do not expect them to be comfortable with that.

I have to tell the hon. Lady that her approach is symptomatic of the previous Government’s approach to public money. There was absolutely no rigour in the strategic partner programme that we inherited; we are trying to introduce it for the first time. The hon. Lady speaks about our cutting funding, but she completely ignores the fact that there will be further opportunities, in what are frankly more appropriate programmes, for organisations such as TimeBank to access taxpayers’ money and continue their work.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hurd]

I wish to make progress.

The wider context is extremely important. It is not just about TimeBank, or the other organisations mentioned by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). There is considerable concern in communities across the country about the impact of the cuts.

It would have been nice to have heard more recognition from the Opposition about the economic context, but that fell to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). The fact is that we are spending £120 million a day in interest, and that is entirely unsustainable. A sector that receives £13 billion of taxpayers’ money cannot be immune from the process.

The public hate to see politicians playing the blame game, and I understand that, but nor should we take them for fools. I believe that they understand the basics—that the Labour Government left this country massively over-borrowed and that the coalition Government were elected to sort it out. That means that tough choices have to be made by councils. As my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) said, some have decided to give priority to cutting internal costs and making efficiencies before making cuts in the voluntary and community sectors. Others have taken a different course for very different reasons.

No one pretends that it is an easy business—it is not—but the Government want to put in place active programmes to help the voluntary and community sector manage the transition. We understand the need for such a transition—from a situation in which too many organisations depend on state income to one in which the sector will have to diversify its sources of income in new ways.

We want to help manage the transition because we see big opportunities for the voluntary and community sector to do more to deliver more public services, and to have a bigger voice at the local level, exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. In future, there will be many more arguments about local priorities, and the voluntary and community sector can give a voice to people who often struggle to have their voices heard. The localism agenda will give them a big opportunity. We are obviously very ambitious in our wish to encourage people to give more time and money to help others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

1. What recent representations he has received on the effect of introducing anonymity for defendants in rape cases on rates of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in such cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

The direct answer is none. The responsibility for the policy lies with the Secretary of State for Justice.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a serious concern that if we introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases, other witnesses will not then come forward and rates of prosecution will drop. Hon. Members understood that the Government were to compile all available research and statistics, and report to the House before the summer. However, reports in the media say that that will not now happen. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman urge the Ministry of Justice to commission research into the impact on victims of rape and their likelihood of reporting the crime if anonymity is granted to defendants?

[The Solicitor-General]

The research is ongoing and will be published in the autumn, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Justice has the matter well in hand.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing the debate.

It is almost a year since the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 went through its Commons stages. I remember it well. The Act created the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and gave it a number of administrative and regulatory functions, including payment of MPs’ allowances, dealing with allowance claims and revising the allowance scheme for MPs. The key aspect of the Act is that it gave IPSA those functions in relation to Members’ allowances, yet when IPSA published the first scheme for consultation, it changed the word “allowances” to “expenses”.

Most right hon. and hon. Members understand the anger and annoyance generated in the public by the term “MPs’ expenses” following the scandal of last year. It therefore seems to me to be incorrect and somewhat provocative of IPSA to describe allowances designed to support MPs in carrying out their parliamentary functions as expenses. We could debate the different definitions, but the definition of “allowance” is money defined or set aside for a purpose—in the case of MPs, to pay essential costs such as staff salaries and national insurance, rent, business rates and utility costs. It includes the sense that the sum specified in the allowance may or may not be used, but IPSA seemed to react to the term “allowances” by suggesting that if it made an “allowance scheme”, MPs would use all of the allowance allocated. That has not been the case in the past.

There is a wide variety of definitions of expenses, but a common one is that of costs incurred by an employee that are payable by an employer. As other Members have said, that does not fit the situation of MPs as we are not employees of the House. I strongly feel that “expenses” has overtones that work to hamper Parliament’s recovery from the scandal generated by the discredited system used in the previous Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North has said, we all want to get over it. In my view, IPSA would be well advised to describe the scheme as an allowance scheme, as the 2009 Act laid down.

Interestingly, IPSA uses a different definition of expenses when it comes to its own reporting. It states on its website that it will publish all expenses and hospitality incurred by the IPSA board and senior staff. If it used the same definition of “expenses” for its own staff, it would report its office costs and the salaries and other support costs of its staff, as well as personal expenses. What it actually publishes is travel and accommodation costs.

What was called the office costs allowance is now split by IPSA into two allowances: constituency office rental and general administrative expenditure. The previous allowance was more than £22,000 and could be supplemented by transfer from other allowances if office running costs were higher than the allowance. The IPSA scheme split the allowance into two parts and reduced it by £1,300. One part of the allowance has to be used to pay office rent, business rates, utility bills and office insurance, and the other for office furniture, computers and printers, phone systems and bills, stationery and postage. Why does IPSA feel that it is right to reduce the total amount of allowances for running an MP’s constituency office?

The Committee on Standards in Public Life looked at the previous allowance and, in its report, recommended no change. Not only has IPSA reduced the allowance, but it has arbitrarily split it and insisted that office rental and associated costs must somehow fit into the reduced half, with the other part of the allowance not able be used for rent, rates or utility bills. Apparently, the level of rental used by IPSA to set the constituency office rental cap is about £5,000 a year, which is meant to pay the annual rent of offices for the MP and up to three and a half staff, plus filing space, printers and space to meet constituents. It is not adequate. The cap is said to be the average office rent paid in the previous Parliament. The concept of an average rent is strange—rents vary up and down the country and probably half of the MPs in that Parliament had a higher cost than the £5,000 average. Many MPs are able to rent office space at low cost from constituency associations or have subsidised offices from their local authority, but for other MPs such subsidised and low-cost offices are not available. There is a danger that IPSA’s splitting the allowance and setting such a low cap on the office rental element could drive MPs out of their current constituency offices and into unsuitable premises.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is even more absurd to put things over which no one has any flexibility into one budget. We sign up to all the things included in the rent five years beforehand—they are not under our control—and all the flexible things are in another budget. Putting those two budgets together would make management of the money far easier.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North referred to new MPs setting up their offices from scratch. Some new colleagues have told me that they cannot afford the offices used by their predecessors. The rent will last for a number of weeks and then they will be pushed out of those offices.

On the same day that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr Timms) was stabbed at a constituency surgery, I challenged a person whom I thought was breaking into a property neighbouring my constituency office. The police advised me that challenging would-be burglars is not a good idea and that I should desist from doing so in future. My current constituency office is a place in which I feel that my staff and I are safe—it is not a shop, it is not on the ground floor and we have good security protection in the building—but I am very aware of the possibility of crime in the area and the other security threats posed to MPs and their staff.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I am an MP for a new constituency following a boundary change. It would plainly have been the wrong decision for me to try to inherit the premises occupied by my former colleague, David Clelland, which are on the outskirts of the new constituency. In Gateshead town centre, there is a significant transport hub that feeds virtually every part of my constituency, so it would be right for me to establish a new constituency office there. However, the IPSA recommendations on rents do not take account of town centre locations, where rents are necessarily higher because of market conditions. That precludes my establishing a constituency office that is handy for my constituents to access, unless I subsidise it out of my own salary.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a well made point.

I am short of time, so I want to end my remarks on that aspect by saying that I cannot get another office that I believe would be safe for my staff at the rent that IPSA has used to calculate office costs. IPSA is considering my case, and presumably that of other Members in my situation. I hope that it will be true to its word and not force me and other MPs out of our constituency offices. If it forces us into cheap premises in unsuitable areas, what does that say about security and safety considerations? Following on from my hon. Friend’s intervention, I am now thinking about finding ways to subsidise my office costs. That is the position we have been pushed into.

In summary, why has IPSA changed the terms laid down in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009? Why does it describe our offices and staffing costs and other essential elements of MPs’ costs as “expenses”, given that the word has such a particular resonance with the public? Why has it caused a great deal of doubt, uncertainty and problems to MPs by reducing the office costs budget and splitting an allowance that worked well into elements with caps that are too low to work properly for a number of MPs and that, by forcing MPs into cheaper office premises, could have very serious implications for the safety and security of MPs and their staff?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

We have 10 minutes left, and three Members are trying to catch my eye. I leave it for Members to decide whether they wish to allow others to get in.