Public Disorder

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly do that. That is why, as I said in the statement, there will be the facility for businesses affected to pay their tax late.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

May I voice my support for the police, including the brave officers who faced unprecedented violence and criminality in Manchester on Tuesday night? The Prime Minister says that this is about now, but there is one practical thing that he could do that would reduce the pressure on the Metropolitan police in particular: delay, or preferably cancel, the proposal to allow terrorist suspects, who are currently required to live away from London, to return to the city from the start of next year. Will he give that serious consideration?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman served in the Home Office, I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says. Let me join him in paying tribute to the police; his fellow Member of Parliament for Manchester, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), put it slightly differently. I am sure that everyone in this House will praise the bravery of officers, and what they do, putting themselves in harm’s way. It is not fair to blame them if sometimes the tactics do not work. I think we have to be very careful in the way we express ourselves on this issue.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I have particular concerns about two bodies that were taken out of the Bill by the House of Lords but that the Government intend, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has suggested this afternoon, to put back into the Bill in Committee. I remain hopeful that Ministers are still listening and are prepared to change their minds.

The Youth Justice Board has brought leadership and coherence to a system that was deeply fragmented. The creation of youth offending teams has been very impressive, as has the reduction in the number of young people going into custody: a 30% reduction over the lifetime of the board. I would expect the Government to be interested in that if for no other reason than because it represents a saving, in relation to the places that have now been decommissioned, of £38 million a year. If the Youth Justice Board is abolished, that might lead to a saving of a few hundred thousand pounds, but if the Government lose their grip on the youth offending system, and particularly of youth custody, because the board is not in place to grip it, that could produce incredibly high costs in future.

I am also deeply worried about the Government’s intention to dilute the office of the chief coroner. I hope that the House will forgive me for setting out the history so that Members and Ministers can appreciate the depth of betrayal that many individuals, families and organisations are feeling. In 2003, I was given ministerial responsibility for death certification and coroners’ services. One of the first things I did in that role was to receive the report of the independent review of coroner services led by Tom Luce. He found that the system was outdated, inconsistent and unsympathetic to families, and he proposed fundamental reform. A little time later, the then Home Secretary and I received the third report of the Shipman inquiry, which was the product of painstaking work by Dame Janet Smith into the failure of the death certification system to identify and stop the murderous activities of Harold Shipman. Dame Janet concluded that coroners and the coroner service must be independent of Government and that it was simply unacceptable for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department. That conclusion is hugely relevant given what the Government now propose.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite frequently the Government may be judged as culpable in contributing to a death and that it is therefore bizarre that a member of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor—should have some responsibility for the coronial service?

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In December, when this matter was debated in the other place, Lord Lester made the important point that unless there is a properly independent system of investigation of deaths, the Government cannot be confident about satisfying their article 2 obligations on the investigation of deaths. That is particularly relevant in relation to deaths in prison and police custody.

In March 2004, I set out proposals for reform in which the bereaved and their families were to be placed at the heart of the system. Ministers should be reminded of the importance of putting those people at the heart of the system. Under the proposals, a chief coroner was to be appointed with complete judicial independence to lead a streamlined and modernised service, to ensure training and high standards and to carry responsibility for undertaking appeals and presiding over more complex inquests. Eventually, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted those proposals. I pay tribute to Bridget Prentice—a good friend and very able Minister—who with characteristic energy and determination turned the countless words of the public inquiries, reviews and consultations into legislation, which was passed with the support of all parties in the House, including those that now turn their backs on it.

The need for a chief coroner is even greater now, with inquests becoming ever more complex and high profile. Only recently, we have had the Tomlinson and 7/7 inquests—cases in point. Another change since 2003, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) referred to in his very powerful speech, has been the experience of bereaved families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their experience screams out for a system that is sympathetic, that understands the circumstances they face and that has their confidence.

The Government’s arguments about costs do not hold water and cannot be justified. Ministers should not simply accept the figures in the impact assessment but should challenge them. There is not one Member of this House who does not believe that the set-up and running costs of the office of the chief coroner could not be reduced. It is the business of Ministers to get those costs down, not to hide behind what was in the impact assessment. Of course, they are not counting the costs of failing to implement the reforms that were agreed in the last Parliament, such as the £500,000 or more that is spent every year on judicial reviews—not to mention the costs that will be incurred by transferring some of the functions of the office of the chief coroner to the Lord Chief Justice. Those matters will still need to be overseen by judges, and judges do not come for nothing—they cost money. Those costs still are not being counted.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is it not remarkable that although the Government have announced that they will transfer the powers of the chief coroner to the Ministry of Justice and others, they have not yet laid out what that will cost to administer?

[Paul Goggins]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It really is a shabby case. The Government are relying on old figures, which have not been challenged, and bringing forward proposals that have absolutely no work behind them whatever. My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point.

In failing to follow through on these reforms, the Government are not considering the human and health costs that will be incurred by our not learning the lessons of unfortunate and tragic deaths—information that could help to prevent deaths in future. Ministers have no proposals to monitor timeliness or to introduce an appeals system. Other hon. Members have made the point about the importance of that issue.

What the Government are doing to the office of the chief coroner is a betrayal. If they proceed with this reform they will be turning their back on six or seven years’ worth of patient consultation and policy development, which led to legislation that was agreed by all parties in the House. They will be turning their back on Tom Luce, Dame Janet Smith, the families of the victims of Harold Shipman and the bereaved families of the service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be turning their back on many vulnerable people who have had to pick their way through our outdated coronial system. But the Government still have a chance: they have the rest of this evening and Committee proceedings finally to do the right thing and drop these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, both the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we think there is a strong case for looking at the rules of the succession, as they clearly need updating in this day and age, but it is not quite as simple as that, because this is subject to consultation with all Commonwealth Governments. Discussions at official level are taking place between this Government and Commonwealth Governments. I acknowledge that that is not a very rapid process, but it is right that we should deal with this sensitive topic as collaboratively as possible with other Commonwealth Governments.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

At the recent British-Irish Council, which I understand the Deputy Prime Minister chaired, was there any discussion of the economic impact of different levels of aviation taxes, given that for a long-haul flight from the UK that is currently levied at £85 a head, whereas from Ireland the tax is just €3?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am aware that the Treasury is undertaking a consultation on that subject, but it did not come up in discussions at the British-Irish Council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is well known and I pay tribute here again to the way in which his party has embraced the ballot box and the democratic process. In a referendum, that would be for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. I can do no better than support the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it is probably a career-advancing thing to do—who, in a speech in May 2010, stated clearly and unequivocally:

“I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart”.

I believe that, as Aristotle said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on powers to detain terrorist suspects.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding this issue. The Government are absolutely clear that reducing the maximum pre-charge detention period to 14 days will strike the right balance between civil liberties and the need to protect the public from the terrorist threat.

[Paul Goggins]

I thank the Minister for his reply. David Cairns was a fine colleague and I join all those who have paid tribute to him this morning.

The recent detention of three terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland for periods of 13 and 14 days indicates that the Government are right to bring in arrangements to extend the maximum period of detention beyond 14 days in exceptional circumstances. Given the likely pressures of those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the mechanism for implementing those arrangements needs to be both swift and straightforward?

[Mr Swire]

The Minister does very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in his usual responsible manner. The right hon. Gentleman is on the Joint Committee that is scrutinising the draft emergency legislation. I agree with everything he has said and I urge him to make his point very forcefully. The principle is right and we must make certain that, if necessary, we can enforce that principle swiftly whether Parliament is sitting or not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I certainly consult, and discuss matters with, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as and when problems arise, and the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind also that my right hon. Friend has legal advisers in his Department who can help him with his work. The United Kingdom takes very seriously international law obligations and the maintenance of international standards of behaviour, and I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter with which the Government will continue to engage.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

4. What assessment the Crown Prosecution Service has made of the likely effect on prosecution rates of the comprehensive spending review settlement for victim support services.

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service’s assessment is that there should be no impact on prosecution rates. May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for Trafford victim support?

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his answer, and I am sure he takes very seriously his obligations towards the victims of crime, whose evidence is often crucial. Given the cuts to his Department and to police budgets, however, can he confirm to the House that he will uphold the standards set out in the victims code, and in particular that enhanced services will still be available to intimidated and vulnerable victims and witnesses?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his ministerial experience in England and Northern Ireland, and as I am sure he will agree, it is vital that victims are enabled to get their evidence into court. Special measures to protect vulnerable witnesses and intermediaries and other measures are therefore available, and from the work that his Government did and this Government will continue we intend to ensure that victims get their evidence into court—because without the evidence there are no prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

The short answer is because that is what the statute says. It is confusing that there is a limitation on sentences that we can ask the Court of Appeal to consider. Cases that are triable on indictment only and cases that are triable either way are listed in the Statutory Instrument that followed the main statute. I am happy to have a discussion later with my hon. Friend to see whether we can help his constituents understand that rather complicated area of law.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The details that emerged during the recent trial of Bolton, Griffin and Marshall in Manchester were truly appalling, but their case could not be referred to the Court of Appeal because they were convicted only of lesser offences. May I encourage the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General to consider carefully the merits of extending the list of eligible offences to include a wider range of violent offences?

[The Solicitor-General]

My right hon. and learned Friend and I are always happy to consider suggestions of that nature, but the legislation would have to be amended by the Secretary of State for Justice and his team. Another point to bear in mind is that members of the public often contact us outside the 28-day limit and we cannot consider sentences, even if they are, in theory, reparable, if they are brought to our attention after 28 days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

At the previous Question Time, we announced that we had approved the final tranche—the £12.9 million that was required for the new technology, which I expect to have a real impact in bearing down on the small number of dangerous people. Its implementation is in the hands of the local Minister and the Chief Constable. I shall meet them in the forthcoming days and ask how they are progressing, but at the time of my last meeting with them, they were well on the way to introducing the technology.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and, indeed, other Members who have made generous remarks this morning. I wish the Secretary of State and his deputy every success in their responsibilities.

Dealing with threats to security in Northern Ireland requires full public confidence in a police service that is representative of the community it serves. Although policing has now been devolved, the legal framework for ensuring that 30% of officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland come from the Catholic community remains the Secretary of State’s responsibility. Will he take this opportunity to confirm his commitment to achieving that target as soon as possible?

[Mr Paterson]

As the shadow Minister knows, the Patten commitment was to achieve a figure of 29% to 33% by this year. The current figure is 29.33%, so we have achieved the Patten threshold. The renewal of the measure was due to last one more year, and we agreed to that when we were in opposition. What we do next is up to us to discuss with the local Minister responsible and with those who now run the police service, but I hope that we have established enough momentum to ensure that people throughout the community will see joining the PSNI as a worthwhile career, and will be attracted to it.

Superannuation Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

We have had a good and thorough debate, with some thoughtful and powerful contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), as well as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

The difficulty that we face as we prepare to vote on this issue is that the words we have heard from the Dispatch Box are very different from those that are written in the Bill. On 14 July, the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out his approach to the reform of the civil service compensation scheme. He said:

“I want to engage with the unions quickly to develop a scheme that protects the lowest paid…we need to negotiate”.

When I pressed the Minister to take the previous Government’s reform package as the starting point for those negotiations, he accepted, as he did again at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, that had

“that scheme been in existence when the coalition Government came into office, a pressing case would have been made to leave it as it was and work on that basis.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 932.]

It was a good beginning, with an acknowledgement of the merits of the previous Government’s reform package, set out in February, and a clear undertaking to protect the lowest-paid.

Unfortunately, our hopes were dimmed when this draconian Bill was published just 24 hours later, with no prior consultation with staff or the trade unions. The Minister was open and transparent about the purpose of the Bill. He said that it is not the final word. Indeed, in a phrase echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the Minister described the Bill as a “blunt instrument”. It contains a sunset clause and powers to repeal at any stage. In no sense is it a reformed scheme: it simply places a cap on the existing unreformed scheme. It means, typically, that a civil servant earning £21,000 a year who is made compulsorily redundant and who would get £63,000 under the existing scheme—and would have got £60,000 under the February 2010 scheme—will get just £21,000. Someone earning £18,000 who would have got £54,000 under the existing scheme or the February 2010 scheme, will get just £18,000.

The truth, which has been freely acknowledged by Ministers, is that the Bill is a negotiating device to ensure drastic cuts in the civil service compensation scheme. But as legislators we have to ask what will happen if those negotiations do not succeed. The Chair of the Public Administration Committee, in a thoughtful speech, warned about the dangers that might lie ahead in terms of legal challenge and delay. It is good to know that he and his Committee will keep a watchful eye on this legislation and other matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who chairs the PCS parliamentary group, has described this Bill as a landmine Bill, and he set out his definition of that. Whether that is true or not, there are real dangers if this Bill passes through Parliament while parallel negotiations go on outside that remain uncertain and, if unsuccessful, could create real resentment among those whom they affect.

There is no argument from my party about the need for reform. Indeed, we engaged in considerable detail in those reforms before the election. The focus of our reform was the vast majority of civil servants who do vital work on the front line of our public services. They include those who work in jobcentres trying to reconnect unemployed people with work; those who work in our prisons dealing with difficult and dangerous offenders and ensuring that our communities are safe places to live; and those who deal with tax credit claimants, ensuring that families have at least a decent minimum income on which to live. Most of those people, as we have heard from many hon. Members, work for modest rewards. Indeed, the Minister has said on several occasions that half of all civil servants earn £21,000 a year or less.

I genuinely want to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt—that is my starting point. I want it to be true when he keeps repeating the claim he makes in the Chamber and the media that he wants to protect the lowest-paid, but at some point those words have to turn into action, and he has to put flesh on the bones. My real concern this afternoon is that his comments have raised expectations above anything that his Government are likely or willing to deliver.

In particular, I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), to look again at the proposal that the previous Government agreed with five of the six trade unions, and which even now could provide a realistic, practical starting point for negotiation with all six of the unions—namely, that any civil servant on a salary of less than £20,000 a year who is made redundant would be entitled not to 12 months’ or 15 months’ salary, but to three years’ salary. Labour Members will be tabling an amendment to that effect in Committee, and I encourage the Minister to indicate this evening that he and his colleagues will, when that moment comes, show that they mean what they say when they talk about protecting the low-paid and support that amendment. At the very least, that would be a clear indication, in their discussions and negotiations with the trade unions, that they are acting in good faith and mean it when they say that they want to protect the lowest-paid.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) was among a number of Members on both sides of the House who reminded us that this debate and these proposals come before us in the context of deficit reduction, so it is important to remind the House, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) made clear, that our reform package would have saved £500 million over three years. The Government have pledged that, however tough life becomes as a result of the cuts that they introduce, fairness will be the watchword. How many times have we heard that from the Government Front-Bench team? But what is fair about the regressive provisions in the Bill that mean that maximum redundancy payments mirror exactly what an individual earns? If someone earns £100,000 a year, under the terms of the Bill their payment would be £100,000. If someone earns £50,000, the payment would be £50,000. And if someone earns £20,000, it would be £20,000, not the £60,000 promised in the reform package that we negotiated and set out in February.

What is fair about a set of negotiations carried out against the backdrop of a Bill that threatens severe cuts if the trade unions do not agree to a new scheme that dramatically reduces the provisions in the civil service compensation scheme? And what can be fair, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) asked pointedly, about unilaterally rewriting a contract with staff, either from a moral or even perhaps a legal standpoint?

[Mr Reid]

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely the Labour party believes in reforming the present system, so should it not be supporting the Bill on Second Reading, moving its amendment and then voting against it on Third Reading only if that amendment fails?

[Paul Goggins]

Absolutely not. Our starting point is, and the Government’s starting point should be, the February 2010 proposals agreed by the then Government with five of the six trade unions, not this miserable backstop provision in the Bill.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Paul Goggins]

I will take one more intervention, but the Minister wants to wind up and we have to reflect the debate, which has been a good debate. However, I will happily give way.

[Martin Horwood]

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the starting point for this process should be something that has already been declared illegal?

[Paul Goggins]

The reasons it was declared illegal relate to the standing of the original legislation—the Superannuation Act 1972—and there is nothing preventing the Minister for the Cabinet Office and his colleague the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner from sitting down tomorrow with the six trade unions and taking our February 2010 proposals as the starting point for negotiations. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do that—he is in his place now. I was just reminding the House that he accepted that had the proposals gone through before the election, there would have been a pressing case for leaving it well alone. We are where we are, but it is fair to suggest that that could be the starting point for negotiation.

I ask again: what is fair about sending a message to loyal, dedicated, hard-working staff that they would be better off if they decided to go voluntarily, rather than staying in the job that they are committed to and running the risk of being made redundant compulsorily, resulting in a 20% reduction in the payment that they would receive? My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) asked what was fair about deep cuts in the conditions of staff who run the very services on which those with the least in our society depend, including jobcentre staff and those who deal with tax credit claims.

I shall turn now to what I regard as the misuse of a Bill in the pursuit of these draconian changes to the civil service compensation scheme. I particularly commend the pertinent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who has considerable experience as a Minister in Scotland. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I shall not comment on whether or not this should be a money Bill. I am sure that you will take advice on that and make your decision when the Bill finishes its proceedings in this place. I am sure that you will not need advice from me; you will get it from others.

Having heard the promise of so many reforms and changes, it was bizarre, so early in this Parliament, to hear Ministers openly saying that they hoped they would never need to use the Bill. How bizarre is that, so early in the Parliament? Government Bills should be about putting policy into legislation, not about providing negotiators with a backstop bargaining chip, especially when so much about the Bill remains unclear and uncertain. The 12-month and 15-month caps are entirely arbitrary; they have been plucked out of the air. No rational explanation has been given, and no evidence brought forward, to explain why those time periods have been chosen. The equality impact assessment does not even acknowledge the potential impact on older and longer-serving civil servants, who stand to lose huge sums of money and who might very well be those who find it the most difficult to find alternative employment.

Ministers cannot tell the House how much money would be saved as a result of the Bill, because they do not yet know how many civil servants will be made redundant as a result of their cuts. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more in his winding-up speech about the negotiations. I recognise the constraints involved, and I do not expect him to carry out negotiations across the Dispatch Box this evening, but even an indication about the mood of the negotiations would assist hon. Members. Are Ministers close to agreement? Does the Minister believe that the Bill will actually be needed? When are the next meetings scheduled to take place? Does he expect to be able to come back after the conference recess and tell us on Report that substantial progress has been made, and that we might not need the Bill after all? If he is not going to table amendments when the Bill goes into Committee—the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated that it was not his intention to do so—will he heed the advice of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) that he should go as far as he can to indicate the kind of measures that he and his colleagues are considering?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is right: it is unacceptable to expect hon. Members to vote for a Bill that is so far-reaching in its impact without knowing the detail of the provisions that sit beside it. If the Minister cannot go a little further in providing that detail, I believe that any sensible Member will be forced to conclude that words about fairness are just that, and that the only way to vote tonight is in favour of the reasoned amendment and against the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and he states a fact that I have placed on the record before: that the previously agreed terms were struck down by the courts and were not accepted by the Council of Civil Service Unions. The deal failed, and there is no guarantee that it would succeed in future.

[Paul Goggins]

It is important to be clear about this. The ruling was not about the content of what was proposed by the previous Government and agreed by five of the unions; it was about the fact that the legislation did not allow the Government to compel the solution. It is important that Members are clear about that before they vote tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

It is precisely for that reason that I want to engage quickly with the unions to negotiate additional protection for low-paid workers. Contrary to general belief, large numbers of civil servants are not very well paid—half of them earn £21,000 a year or less—and we want there to be extra protection for them. I want to engage as quickly as possible with the unions to negotiate an arrangement that has not only fairness but accountability built into it.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Last week, the Minister said that his proposals may not have been necessary if the Public and Commercial Services Union had joined the other five trade unions in agreeing to the previous Government’s reform package. That being so, will he start his negotiations with that package, which would have saved £500 million over three years and protected the lowest paid?

[Mr Maude]

As I say, we are very keen to have proper protection for the lowest-paid workers. Had that scheme been in existence when the coalition Government came into office, a pressing case would have been made to leave it as it was and work on that basis. That option is no longer on the table, so it seemed to us right to look at a scheme that is sustainable for the long term. The previous revised scheme made only relatively modest changes, and it was still way out of kilter with anything available under the statutory redundancy scheme or, indeed, throughout most of the private sector.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for that answer. However, it is hard to take the Minister seriously about these negotiations when after all the press speculation, and more than a week after he sent his letter to the trade unions, the 600,000 staff who are affected still have no details of what he is proposing other than the threat of a 12-month cap on redundancy payments to all staff. Why should the lowest-paid staff—the junior official in a jobcentre—be treated in exactly the same way as the permanent secretary of a Government Department?

[Mr Maude]

It is precisely my intention that that should not be the case. That is why I want to engage with the unions quickly to develop a scheme that protects the lowest paid. It is quite a complicated thing to do—it is not capable of being done in the course of a Bill—so we need to negotiate it. I want to ensure that it works and is effective in providing fairness, but is also affordable. I hope that we can engage with this as soon as possible. I have made it clear to the unions that it is our intention not only to negotiate on the ceiling that is available for voluntary redundancy schemes but to provide protection for the lower paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is completely right that the result of the previous Government’s attempt to cut the number of websites was actually a significant increase. We will take urgent steps to cut the number of websites, particularly in relation to those that compete with each other. I discovered that the Department of Energy and Climate Change was bidding against the Carbon Trust for spots on Google, which is one indication of the lack of discipline in that field.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Has the efficiency and reform group made an assessment of the Government’s programme for converting 800 schools into academies at a cost of £495 million over the next four years? In particular, has the group formed a view on whether that represents good value for money when set against the loss of hundreds of new school buildings following the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme?

[Mr Maude]

That was a very good effort from the right hon. Gentleman, but we believe that the coalition’s programme to increase the number of academies is very valuable. It is part of the process of giving much more power to parents, and of giving the schools that are available for local people the ability to reflect what they want rather than what central planners dictate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and wish her every success in following in some quite formidable footsteps. The point she makes is extremely important and that frustration has been expressed to me by a number of voluntary organisations. I hope that she will be pleased to know that, in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to reviewing the criminal records and vetting and barring regime and I will make sure that the relevant Minister in the Home Office is aware of her concerns. She and I will be following that review very closely.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new and important role. Given statements made in recent days by the Prime Minister and others about deep and early cuts in public spending at the same time as statements about an extended role for voluntary organisations in the delivery of public services, I am sure that, as the Minister for the voluntary sector, he will want to move swiftly to reassure anyone who thinks that there is any suggestion that this means that the Government want to get public services on the cheap. He will want to rebut that suggestion very swiftly. Therefore, will he confirm to Members on both sides of the House who value greatly the work of voluntary organisations that he and other Ministers will uphold the compact with voluntary organisations and, in particular, the commitment to three-year funding as a minimum and to full recovery of costs for volunteering?

[Mr Speaker]

Again, I am afraid that that question was a little on the long side. I know that the answer will not be.