parliamentary debates - United Kingdom Parliament

Tuesday 9 November 2010

Volume 518 No. 67

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 9 November 2010

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected]

123

9 NOVEMBER 2010

House of Commons Tuesday 9 November 2010 The House met at half-past Two o’clock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Mr Speaker: I remind the House that Thursday is 11 November, Remembrance day. The House will meet at 10.30 am, as is the norm for a Thursday. At 11 o’clock, I regard it as appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will also be issued to heads of House Departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence may do so.

Oral Answers to Questions FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE The Secretary of State was asked— EU Treaties 1. Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What recent representations he has received on the procedure [22524] for amendment of EU treaties. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister’s statement on the European Council on 1 November. The Council agreed that Herman Van Rompuy should consult member states about a limited treaty change connected with the establishment of a permanent crisis resolution mechanism for the eurozone. We also secured a clear agreement that any such treaty change, should it occur, would not affect the United Kingdom.

124

we established at the last Council that any possible future treaty change would not affect the United Kingdom and would not transfer power or competence from the UK to the European Union. Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Given the promises made in the Conservative party manifesto, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Government will be bringing forward proposals to repatriate powers from the European Union? Yes or no? Mr Hague: The Government’s position is set out in the coalition agreement. What is also clear from that agreement is that one of our top priorities in Europe is to bring realism to budgeting in the European Union since his party gave away many billions of pounds of the British taxpayer’s money for nothing in return the last time the financial perspective was negotiated, in 2005. The answer to his question is that our top priority in seeking change in the European Union is to ensure realistic budgeting in the future. Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that the German Chancellor is insisting on the amendment of European treaties, including Lisbon, will there ever be a better opportunity for Britain to renegotiate its relationships with the European Union and seek the repatriation of powers abandoned by previous Governments, or is that vetoed by the Lib Dem members of the coalition? Mr Hague: It is certainly a coalition Government that we have here and my hon. Friend should bear that in mind. I would also ask him to bear in mind that instability in the eurozone, as he well knows, is a serious danger to the British economy. It is clear that the United Kingdom will be exempt from the provisions of any such treaty change. Where we have considerable negotiating leverage in the European Union, as we certainly will over the coming years, our first priority—as I said in answer to the previous question—is to change the way in which the budgets are determined so that, unlike the previous Government, we are not involved in spending billions of pounds extra of the UK taxpayer’s money.

Mr Andrew Turner: It is said that the eurozone needs a new treaty to make it lawful to bail out Greece. It is claimed that that will not affect the United Kingdom as we are not part of the eurozone. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will not need to sign the treaty or, if we do, that the public will be given a referendum on the issue?

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): May I congratulate those on the Government Front Bench, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, on their new flexible approach on this issue? I understand that the new treaty change would happen under the passerelle clause. Clearly, the non-euro using members of the EU—Poland, ourselves, Denmark and Sweden—and our officials and Ministers will be involved in this discussion, and there will be a small transfer of competences. I thoroughly welcome this and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his new Europe-friendly approach.

Mr Hague: It is my long-standing position—and, I think, that of my hon. Friend—that any treaty that transfers new areas of power or competence to the European Union should be subject to a referendum. Clearly, there are still consultations about what form a treaty change might take. It is clear beyond doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to be exempt from any sanctions under the stability and growth pact and

Mr Hague: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with an approach that involves not joining the euro, transferring no more powers or competences to the European Union, making sure that this country will have a referendum if any future Government ever propose doing such a thing, and bringing the European budget under control—all things that he has never agreed with before and which his Government never did.

125

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

BBC World Service 2. Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the effect on the BBC World Service of the proposed transfer of its funding away from his Department; and if he will make a statement. [22525] The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): The transfer of the BBC World Service funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the licence fee from 2014-15 represents a £212 million reduction in public spending. I will continue to set the objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service with the BBC, and no language services will be opened or closed without my agreement. Mr Bradshaw: Is it not the case that in parts of the world the World Service can be a better ambassador for Britain than any number of embassies and diplomats? But does not the change raise some serious questions about its long-term governance and funding? Why should the licence fee payer in Britain pay for programmes that they cannot receive and probably would not be interested in receiving, and why, therefore, should the BBC continue to fund them? Mr Hague: The BBC is very enthusiastic about the change. I have discussed it with Sir Michael Lyons and with Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC. They believe there is more that they can do, through bringing the BBC World Service and other BBC activities together, to develop the World Service in the future. Clearly, we would want them to do that, and I do not think that any future Foreign Secretary would allow them to run it down, given the powers that are reserved to the Foreign Secretary. So here we have an arrangement that can maintain or improve the World Service, has the necessary safeguards, and saves £200 million of public spending without increasing the licence fee. That is something that we should all be enthusiastic about. Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): The Foreign Secretary said that responsibility for the finance of the World Service is being transferred to the BBC, but can he say whether responsibility for the strategic direction of the World Service is also being transferred? In other words, who has the last word on editorial content? Mr Hague: The responsibility for the direction of the World Service will remain exactly as it is now. What I agreed with the BBC Trust and the director-general of the BBC is that the key parts of the governance arrangements previously agreed in 2006 will be replicated in a new agreement, so the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with the BBC, will set the objectives and priorities and, as I mentioned earlier, the Foreign Secretary will retain a veto over the opening and closing of services. So those arrangements stay the same as now. Gaza Blockade 3. Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): What recent discussions he has had on the blockade of Gaza. [22527]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I discussed Gaza with the Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister during my visit there last week. I stressed that

Oral Answers

126

economic revitalisation will best safeguard Israel’s security. Gaza’s dependence on aid will continue until there is progress on exports and a better framework is developed for enabling imports of reconstruction materials for UN-led projects. Mr Ward: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the blockade not only represents an act of inhumanity, but is against the long-term security of Israel and is therefore against its national interest? Mr Hague: Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. I have said before in the House that I think the blockade of Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable. The tunnel economy that has arisen in Gaza often serves the interests of Hamas, rather than the interests of anyone else, so it is important for Israel to continue to allow an improvement in the flow of goods into Gaza and, as I said, to begin to allow reconstruction materials so that there can be a real improvement in conditions on the ground in Gaza. That will help the security of the whole region. Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a briefing provided for me last week in Jerusalem by John Ging, the admirable head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, Mr Ging said that the situation in Gaza now is worse than it was before the flotilla incident, that huge numbers of children are going hungry and undernourished, and that the schools are not being built? Will the right hon. Gentleman take every action available to him to impress on the Israelis that persecuting the people of Gaza will not bring peace? Mr Hague: As I mentioned earlier, I raised the issue with all the leaders of the Israeli Government on my own visit to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv last week. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the school construction that we wanted to take place is not yet taking place. The British Government have announced additional help for the work of Mr Ging and UNRWA—£23 million of new support for the Palestinian Authority, £8 million of that for UNRWA and £2 million to help 300 businesses in Gaza. Britain is doing a lot to help the situation there and we must continue to do so. Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an outstanding visit to the state of Israel last week, but Israel has clearly honoured obligations of humanitarian areas and aid for Gaza. Did the discussion that took place last week concentrate on the effect that Hamas has had in terms of its rocket capability and launching rockets and bombs into the state of Israel? Mr Hague: It is important to bear in mind that dimension as well. The behaviour of Hamas obviously makes all those issues much more difficult to deal with. Indeed, I visited the family of Gilad Shalit, who is still imprisoned—held hostage—in Gaza, and I believe that he should be released immediately and unconditionally. So my hon. Friend is right that it is important to bear in mind that dimension to what is happening in Gaza, but I think that we are united in this House in making the case to Israel, as I did last week, that the best way to improve its security is to permit and encourage an improvement in the conditions in Gaza. That in itself will, over time, weaken Hamas and help to ensure that a new generation of Palestinians is not turned against Israel and against peace.

127

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recognition of the importance of lifting the blockade of Gaza. He will know the importance for the people of Gaza not just of lifting the blockade, but of being part of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel in a two-state solution. Therefore, what discussions did he have during his recent visit on the role of Gaza in the future peace process? Mr Hague: Gaza plays, ultimately, a very important role in the peace process, because there cannot be a successful peace in the long term without its involvement and inclusion. The immediate priority is to get the peace process going again and the direct talks going, and of course I put the argument very strongly to Israeli leaders and on Israeli media that that requires a new freeze on Israeli settlement building on the west bank. That is the immediate issue, and in that regard the announcements that we have heard in the past 24 hours are extremely disappointing. The immediate priority is to get the direct talks going. A real settlement would have to involve Gaza as well. Northern Cyprus 4. Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey on the deployment of Turkish troops in Northern [22528] Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): British Ministers raise the Cyprus settlement process with our Turkish counterparts at every opportunity. I last did so with both Turkey’s Foreign Minister and Minister for Europe on 23 October. The presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is one of the issues that will need to be resolved as part of a comprehensive settlement. Mr Offord: I inform the House that I have registered an interest, as I attended the Morphou rally just a month ago. In addition to the religious and cultural destruction suffered by orthodox churches in the northern part of Cyprus, is the Minister aware of the desecration of graves in towns such as Morphou by the siting of army bases and the parking of fire tenders on Cypriot graveyards? What pressure can he bring on the Turkish Government to stop such actions and return those sacred sites to their former use? Mr Lidington: It is important that the Turkish Government lend their full weight to the negotiating process that is under way between the two Cypriot communities under the auspices of the United Nations special envoy, and the issues to which my hon. Friend has referred need to be considered as part of those discussions. Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): I hear what the Minister has said about the representations made to Turkey, but has he made any representations to either of the two community leaders, the President of Cyprus and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community? What extra efforts are the British Government going to make, knowing that the UN has invited both leaders to go to New York? What extra efforts will be made to ensure that we have a proper, comprehensive peace settlement?

Oral Answers

128

Mr Lidington: At both ministerial and official level, we are urging the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community, President Christofias, and of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Eroglu, to demonstrate leadership, flexibility and a willingness to compromise in the interests of everybody living on the island of Cyprus. We welcome the decision by both leaders to attend the meeting with Ban Ki-moon on 18 November. We remain in very close contact not just with the Governments of Cyprus and of Turkey, but with Mr Downer, the UN special envoy, and we will lend whatever support we are able to in the hope of bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Will the Minister for Europe make it absolutely clear that the British Government’s position is to continue to seek a united, peaceful Cyprus for both communities, and that as one of the three guarantor powers we, with Turkey and Greece, will lead that effort at the United Nations and in this country, and reject the idea that there might be an acceptable settlement that divides the island between the two communities? Mr Lidington: Our treaty obligations, as the hon. Gentleman implies, require us to prohibit any action which might lead to the partition of Cyprus or its union with another country. We remain committed to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation where there is political equality and respect for the human and cultural rights of all. Trade Promotion 5. Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on his Department’s promotion of trade and industry. [22529] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is totally committed to the creation of a strong and open global economy, and we are working with Ministers and their Departments across Whitehall to this end. During visits overseas and in London, FCO Ministers are continually pressing the UK’s commercial interests. As we speak, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading a delegation of 50 business leaders to China. Sajid Javid: The tectonic plates of the global economy are shifting from the west to the east, not to mention the resurgent economies of Africa. Fortunately, Britain is in a unique position to take advantage of this, given our location, our language, our culture and our legal system. Does my hon. Friend agree that to take full advantage of this change and to make Britain the gateway to the BRIC economies—Brazil, Russia, India and China—his Department has a critical role to play? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him entirely. Exports and an export-led recovery will play a key role in restoring Britain’s economic fortunes. That is why trade promotion is one of our top three priorities. It is also why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has instructed our diplomats to focus relentlessly, along with UK Trade & Investment, on seeking out and securing new trade and investment opportunities.

129

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the recent UKTI visit to the Kurdistan region of Iraq. May I press the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that its base in the Kurdistan region is effective and that it makes it clear to everybody that that part of Iraq is well and truly open for business? Mr Bellingham: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s comments, and I will certainly ensure that what she says is implemented. She might be interested to know that UKTI was recently voted by its international peers the best trade promotion body in the developed world. Burma 6. Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): What recent reports he has received on the political situation in [22530] Burma; and if he will make a statement. 11. Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): What recent reports he has received on the political situation in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [22535]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): Elections on 7 November were neither free nor fair. The military regime is clearly using them to entrench its grip on power. No political prisoners have been freed, including Aung San Suu Kyi. An opportunity for national reconciliation has been missed. The Government will maintain pressure on the regime until there is progress on both democracy and human rights. Dr Pugh: I congratulate the Government on a very public and scathing criticism of this bogus democracy, but I suggest that they keep calling the generals’ bluff and press the new Government to act like genuine democrats and release political prisoners who are committed to non-violence. Mr Browne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on his consistent work with the all-party group on Burma. He is right to point out that there are more than 2,000 political prisoners in Burma. In those circumstances, it is impossible to see how the election can have been described as either free or fair by any observers. Although I very much hope that Aung San Suu Kyi is released, her release will not in itself wipe the slate clean. Tim Farron: Given the absence of free and fair elections in Burma, how will our Government demonstrate leadership through Europe to maintain the arms embargo and ensure that the EU sends the strongest possible signals that the regime must release all its political prisoners? Mr Browne: There is an agreed EU position on Burma set out in the European Council conclusions and decision of 26 April this year. The position of the British Government is entirely consistent with EU policy. EU sanctions on Burma are among the EU’s toughest autonomous measures against any country, and they make plain our determination to see change. Sanctions are designed to target regime members and their associates,

Oral Answers

130

not to harm the ordinary people of Burma. The regime’s complaints about sanctions suggest to us that they are biting. Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): The key country with influence in Burma is China. Can the Minister tell us what representations the Prime Minister is making to the Chinese authorities about the human rights abuses in Burma and the need for it to move to democracy? Mr Browne: We regularly raise our concerns with the Chinese Government, and indeed with other countries in the region, and they can be under no illusions about the strength of our views on Burma. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself raised the issue of Burma with Asian counterparts at the October Asia-Europe meeting in Brussels, and I have raised the matter during recent visits to the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan and China. Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): Both sides of the House are united in condemnation of the Burmese regime for stealing this week’s election. I welcome what the Minister has said about China, but I wish to press him. Will the Prime Minister raise the question of Burma during his visit to China? Burma’s regional neighbours have a special responsibility to put pressure on the Burmese regime. Did the Prime Minister also raise the issue during his July visit to India, and if so, what was the Indian Government’s response? Mr Browne: This is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench duties. We have something in common, of which not everybody in the House may be aware. We both contested Enfield, Southgate at the 1997 general election, although that contest is remembered primarily for somebody who is not present. We raise Burma with the Chinese on a regular basis, as I have already said, and yes, the Prime Minister did raise the matter during his recent visit to India. Non-proliferation Treaty 7. Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/ Co-op): What recent representations he has received on the UK’s obligations under the nuclear non[22531] proliferation treaty. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): We have received no recent representations about the UK’s obligations. We welcome the result of the review conference in May, and particularly the final document, which the UK played a leading part in negotiating. We were able to announce for the first time our nuclear warhead capability and a re-evaluation of the declaratory principle, which has now taken place. Cathy Jamieson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he have any concern that the announcement of a 50-year Anglo-French nuclear deal undermines in any way our commitment to achieving nuclear disarmament at an early date, as outlined in article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

131

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Alistair Burt: No. I thank the hon. Lady for her question and am aware of her keen background in the matter. The arrangement with the French is entirely consistent with our obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It is designed to ensure that we safeguard the reliability and maintenance of our nuclear weapons stockpile, and it makes sense. We are proceeding, through the non-proliferation treaty talks, towards a world of disarmament, and maintaining our nuclear capability and signing the treaty in no way belies that undertaking. Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Given that article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty does not require either France or the UK to give up their nuclear weapons while other countries remain nuclear powers, is it not particularly unfortunate that the Government have thrown the future of the British nuclear deterrent into doubt by postponing the vital main gate decision to the other side of the general election? Alistair Burt: No. I do not think there is any doubt about the United Kingdom’s position on the nuclear deterrent, and in fact everything that we have done since the election confirms our intention to both maintain the security and defence of the UK and stake our international obligations on the future prospects for disarmament to the fullest extent. Overseas Territories 8. Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): What his policy priorities are for the overseas territories in 2011; and if he will make a statement. [22532]

12. Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): What his policy priorities are for the overseas territories in [22536] 2011; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are passionate about the overseas territories, as they are an important part of the British family. We are developing a new strategy for them involving the whole UK Government, with the aim of bringing renewed focus to our relationship with them. We have a particular responsibility to ensure the security and good governance of the overseas territories, as well as to support their economic well-being. Bridget Phillipson: Specifically on the Turks and Caicos Islands, will the Minister update the House on the progress of Helen Garlick’s investigation into corruption there and when he anticipates its reporting in full? Mr Bellingham: I visited the Turks and Caicos Islands recently and had a couple of meetings with Helen Garlick. I also met her, along with my counterpart from the Department for International Development, the week before last. She assured me that the investigation is making good progress, and she is hopeful that she will be able to prefer charges early next year. That will be an important milestone in our plans to get the Turks and Caicos Islands back on their feet.

Oral Answers

132

Yasmin Qureshi: Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), will the Minister tell the House how much money the UK Government have given to the Turks and Caicos Islands for the maintenance of their Government and public services? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question on the Turks and Caicos Islands. In a written statement in July, the Secretary of State for International Development announced plans for the provision of a temporary package of financial support. Work to put the package in place is currently under way. To address the immediate shortfall, the Department for International Development provided a loan of £9.7 million to the Turks and Caicos Islands between June and August, and provided a further loan of up to £10 million to cover the period from September to November. We are determined to get the territory back on a firm financial footing and to ensure that its finances are in order, and then we can announce elections. Hopefully, I will be able to make a statement on that later this year or early next year. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I congratulate the Government on their new, refreshing and positive approach to British overseas territories. Will the Minister tell us something about the Pitcairn Islands? It has been a British territory since 1838—it was the first British territory in the Pacific. Will the Minister confirm that the Pitcairn Islands will remain British for as long as there is a Conservative Government? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He is an indefatigable champion of the OTs in this place. Let me assure him that both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself are passionate about the overseas territories. I have waited 27 years, from first coming into the House, to become Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories. I have no intention of doing anything other than respecting their wishes, their right to self-determination and trusting them. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): No Minister has ever visited the island of St Helena. [Interruption.] I acknowledge that the former president of a European nation was once there. Will the Minister please discuss with his colleagues in DFID the construction of the airport on the island, with a view to bringing it forward as quickly as possible? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my coalition colleague, for that question. I will do all that I can to facilitate his visit to St Helena, which is an important overseas territory. I am delighted that one of the first things that DFID did was to put an end to the prevarication and delays in the announcement of the airport. The project, which will cost a substantial amount of money, will hopefully go forward apace. Although I do not want to prejudge the commercial negotiations that will have to take place, the news is, none the less, good. Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently said that tax evasion and avoidance were unacceptable, and he

133

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

announced a crackdown on those hiding money offshore. Will the Minister explain to the House why his Government have abandoned the demands of the previous Government for the Cayman Islands to give up their tax haven status and introduce some form of direct taxation? Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and I congratulate her on her appointment. Having been a special adviser at the Foreign Office, she will have a great deal to bring to her new Front Bench job. The previous Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), approved last year’s Cayman Islands’ borrowings at £217 million with conditions attached. This year, I approved borrowings of £123 million, with the same conditions attached. For the Cayman Islands to get their economy moving again, we strongly feel that they need to maintain their offshore status, and we are following the policy of the previous Government. Afghanistan 9. Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [22533] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): We assess that steady progress has been made since the successful Kabul conference. The High Peace Council has been established, and it is working towards the political settlement. The UK is working with groups or individuals who are willing to accept the conditions that were laid down by President Karzai for a political settlement. Insurgents should cut ties with al-Qaeda, renounce violence and work within the constitutional framework. Pat Glass: I thank the Minister for that answer. There have, however, been some differences between recent statements made by President Obama and the Prime Minister on troop withdrawal dates for Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm that President Obama and the Prime Minister are talking to one another about these important issues, given that any discrepancies give succour to the Taliban and expose our troops to greater risk? Alistair Burt: I do not think there is any discrepancy. The interests of all the international forces—48 countries are now represented—are the same: to ensure that the Afghans have a stable and secure country, and selfgovernance without outside influence. The work to ensure that that happens will be carried out by combat troops from this country until 2015, but the necessary work of development and governance will continue after that. The international forces are working together on these plans and proposals, are constantly in contact with each other and are working towards a series of political and military objectives in Afghanistan, with the full co-operation and activity of the Afghan Government. Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): There are reports that in Kandahar the Taliban are infiltrating the city, while progress is being made in the rural area outside. What is the Minister’s assessment of the political situation in Kandahar, and does he think that overall we are still making progress?

Oral Answers

134

Alistair Burt: We do believe that progress is being made. It is a cautious process everywhere, and my hon. Friend is right to draw a distinction between provinces. Last week, we had a successful visit from Governor Mangal of Helmand, who was able to report on two years of progress in the economy and on health, as well as security. He also paid a moving visit to the national memorial to show his debt of gratitude to our troops who have given their lives, and met the mother of one of the soldiers who gave their lives in defence of Helmand. It is a complex process, but Kandahar is making progress. It will always be patchy, but it reminds us of the debt we owe to those who are making life safe and more secure for those in Afghanistan. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Following the sad death of Linda Norgrove in Afghanistan, her family have started the Linda Norgrove Foundation—the website is lindanorgrovefoundation.org —in her memory to help to raise funding for women, families and children in Afghanistan so that they can access education, health care and child care, as well as scholarships for women so that they can go to university. Her family were heartened by the attendance of the Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan at her funeral. I know that we have both been struck by the— Mr Speaker: Order. This is an extremely sensitive matter, and I was aware of the interest of the hon. Gentleman, but he must bring himself to a question straightaway. Mr MacNeil: Will the Minister support the setting up of the foundation and encourage and back its arrival on the public scene? Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Attending Linda Norgrove’s funeral on the Isle of Lewis was one of the most moving and important things I have done as a Minister. I think we have all been struck by her family’s remarkable ability to respond to the situation without bitterness or rancour, but with deep appreciation of what that young woman achieved. It would be in the interests of the Foreign Office and all of us to support the aims and objectives of the foundation in memory of her and others who work so hard to bring development to the women and children of Afghanistan. Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): In June the Prime Minister indicated that he was planning troop withdrawals from July 2011, which is reinforced in the business plan. Will the Minister outline his current thinking on troop levels for the next 12 months? Alistair Burt: The Prime Minister made it clear that that was only a possibility, and of course it depends on circumstances. The major commitment made is to ensure that troop withdrawals are completed by 2015, and in that time, as I indicated earlier, the objective is to ensure that Afghans themselves have the opportunity to ensure that their country is secure, through the Afghanisation of the police and the Afghan national army. That work and training are going ahead. Last week Governor Mangal said that the province was becoming more secure, and that the training was on track. I am sure that the timetable that the Prime Minister has laid out will be adhered to.

135

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Defence Capabilities 10. Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence capabilities required [22534] to meet his foreign policy objectives. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I have had extensive discussions with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and other members of the National Security Council. The national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review set out our place in the world, our foreign policy objectives and the breadth of capabilities that we require to meet those objectives. Together they demonstrate the strategic and co-ordinated approach the Government are taking to advance our national interests and protect our security. Mr Hamilton: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that a robust foreign policy must, by its very nature, have a strong military capability to back it up, as we saw with the role that we played in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, for example? Is he satisfied that we still have that capability, following the defence cuts that are being made? Mr Hague: I am satisfied that we still have the necessary capabilities. We have had to sort out a defence budget that was £38 billion overcommitted when we inherited it, but as Secretary Clinton of the United States said: “We are reassured that the UK conducted its review in a thoughtful and clear-eyed manner, and that the result will be a UK military capable of meeting its NATO commitments and of remaining the most capable partner for our forces as we seek to mitigate the shared threats of the 21st Century.”

Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con): Will the Secretary of State please clarify the way in which foreign policy can really drive defence policy institutionally, and in particular, could you define the relationship between the National Security Council and the Joint Intelligence Committee? Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary can. Mr Hague: Yes, I can. That is one of the objectives of setting up a true National Security Council, on which the Foreign Secretary sits with the Defence Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee— and, indeed, with the directors of all our intelligence services. Really for the first time on a systematic and weekly basis—sometimes more than once a week—we sit together and look at the issues of foreign and defence policy in the round. That is a huge step forward in the way British government works. European Union 13. Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): What his priorities are for the European Union in 2011; and [22537] if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers

136

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): In 2011, our priorities for the European Union will be to ensure, first, that it can seek to deliver economic growth, through action to increase trade, competitiveness and jobs; and secondly, that it demonstrates effective control over its own spending. Pamela Nash: I thank the Minister for that answer, but can he explain to the House why the European Parliament’s lead budget negotiator has stated that the EU spending increase is likely to be at least 4.5%, when the Prime Minister is still publicly stating that there will be a 2.9% cap? Mr Lidington: I think the MEP concerned is demonstrating a certain amount of wishful thinking. Our position remains that we are not prepared to accept anything beyond 2.9%, and the Prime Minister was able to win the support of 12 other Heads of Government for that position at the recent European summit. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): At a time when the European Commission’s accounts have not been signed off for the 16th year running, would that not be a decent priority for the Government to raise in the coming year? Mr Lidington: It certainly forms part of the efforts that we need to make to ensure much more effective budgeting and expenditure control by all the European Union institutions. As my hon. Friend knows, part of the problem is not simply fraud; it is the over-complicated, bureaucratic nature of many European Union rules. That root cause needs to be addressed. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): May I suggest to the Minister that our priority should be to seek the abandonment of the common fisheries policy, which is universally regarded as nonsense and has been a major factor in the depletion of fishing stocks in the North sea and elsewhere? Mr Lidington: My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be trying to ensure in the forthcoming fisheries negotiations that we reform the fisheries policy in a way that delivers the proper conservation of fish stocks and the marine environment. Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Could the Minister reconfirm that it is a priority of the coalition Government to veto any transfer of powers to Brussels by treaty, and thereby also confirm that there will never be a need for a referendum on Europe during this Parliament? Mr Lidington: It is certainly the policy not just of my hon. Friend’s party and mine but of the coalition Government as a whole that there should be no transfer of powers or competence to the European Union by way of treaty change for the duration of this Parliament, up to 2015. We also intend to introduce legislation to ensure that any future British Government would need to seek the approval of the British people through a referendum if they ever sought to impose such a transfer of powers or competencies.

137

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Moldova 14. Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/ Co-op): What his most recent assessment is of the political situation in Moldova; and if he will make a [22539] statement. The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Early parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova on 28 November 2010. It is important that these elections are held to internationally accepted democratic standards. High standards of democracy, human rights and media freedom are essential for Moldova to continue to move closer to the mainstream of the European family of nations, and the UK is playing a full role in monitoring those elections. Alun Michael: I thank the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging about the processes. Does he agree that it is important that we help to consolidate the democratic processes in Moldova, and help to resolve the problem of Transnistria? Does he encourage British MPs to engage with our counterparts in the Moldovan Parliament towards those ends? Mr Lidington: I certainly encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to engage in the way that right hon. Gentleman, who is vice-chairman of the all-party group on Moldova, suggests. When I visited Moldova recently, I was struck by the courage and determination of the democratic politicians there. I think it is important for all parties in this House to demonstrate our support for Moldovan democracy. Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con): Is it not one of the great successes of the last 20 years that countries from the former Soviet Union in the east of Europe, such as Moldova, have moved from the dead hand of communism towards democracy? If Moldova ends up with a coalition Government after its forthcoming election, will the British Government have any particular expertise to offer them? Mr Lidington: It is always dangerous for one country to try to export exactly its own way of doing things to a different nation, but we will do whatever we can to address the continued impasse with Transnistria, and to entrench democracy and the rule of law in Moldova. Topical Questions T1. [22549] Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): I have just returned from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, where I lent British support to efforts to restart the middle east peace process, and discussed vital security issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme. I look forward to discussing those matters further with Secretary Clinton in the US next week, when I will lead a special UN Security Council session to discuss the situation in Sudan. I will meet President Abdullah Gül of Turkey later today, and tonight I will give the Canning lecture in which I will emphasise the importance of building links and elevating our relations with Latin American countries.

Oral Answers

138

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to put pressure on the Iranian Government to stop their appalling abuse of human rights? Mr Hague: Yes, I certainly will. I discussed the matter directly with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Mottaki, when I met him at the UN General Assembly in New York at the end of September, and I made this country’s views on human rights in Iran absolutely clear. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I have often made statements to the same effect, and we continue to lead and rally opinion in other nations to raise those issues. Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): May I welcome the Government’s delegation to China and its work to strengthen economic ties? We wish it well. The Foreign Secretary knows that the strategic dialogue that was agreed with China before the election also provided a framework to pursue human rights and climate change, as well as trade and the economy. Given the importance of human rights, as well as economic ties, will he assure the House that the Prime Minister will raise the case of Liu Xiaobo with Premier Wen during his visit? Mr Hague: I thank the right hon. Lady for what I think is support for the strong continuity of policy with China. The last Government pursued an expanded commercial and economic relationship but also raised human rights issues, and that is exactly this Government’s approach. When I conducted the strategic dialogue in Beijing in July, I raised Liu Xiaobo’s case, and I did so directly with Premier Wen. The Prime Minister will certainly be raising human rights issues on his visit, and we will give the details when he has had those meetings. T2. [22550] Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): Now that legal routes seem to have been exhausted following the disappointing High Court judgment on investment scams in Northern Cyprus, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Minister will take up the matter, and will he meet me, my constituent Sandra Kacinski and other victims to discuss it? The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent, as well as other colleagues, to discuss this issue, which we take seriously. T7. [22555] Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): Although I fully understand our treaty obligations on Cyprus, and I wish next week’s talks with Ban Ki-moon well, will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge the reality that there continues to be de facto partition, from which the Greek Cypriot side benefits and with which it is comfortable, but which leaves the Turkish Cypriots in isolated limbo? Does he agree that that situation cannot go on as it is? Mr Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise our treaty obligations. He will know that we want the forthcoming talks hosted by the UN SecretaryGeneral to be a success and that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said earlier, we have been supporting

139

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

the work of Alexander Downer, the UN negotiator. I read the right hon. Gentleman’s article in the newspapers yesterday, so I am fully cognisant of his views on this matter, but I am sure he will appreciate that, as the incumbent Foreign Secretary, I do not want to say anything at this moment that might make those talks more difficult. T3. [22551] Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I am delighted that the Prime Minister is visiting China today. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in congratulating Renishaw and other fine Gloucestershire companies on the growth of their exports to China? Does he agree that other companies should be encouraged to follow their path of hard work and success in that crucial market? Mr Hague: Yes, absolutely, I congratulate that firm and many others. The agreements signed during the Prime Minister’s visit to China could add up to about £1.7 billion of contracts. We have already seen the announcement of a huge contract for Rolls-Royce engines earlier today, and my hon. Friend has given us another excellent example of how British businesses can do much more in China. T8. [22556] Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Minister share my concern, following Richard Falk’s comments, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is irreversible? Will he assure the House that the Government are doing everything they can to press for a Palestinian state and to support the Palestinian people? Mr Hague: We certainly are doing that. I visited Ramallah last week and met Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. I also met non-violent Palestinian human rights activists and other leading figures in east Jerusalem. During my visit, I restated the position of this country, and indeed of the whole European Union, which is that we want to see a settlement based on the 1967 borders with a just settlement for refugees and with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. That is the clear British Government position. T4. [22552] Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): May I applaud my right hon. Friend’s decision to focus the FCO’s attention on promoting British exports? Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): You can, you can! Andrea Leadsom: Thank you. Can my right hon. Friend also reassure me that, as well as promoting exports, the FCO will play its part in attempting to reduce the interminable red tape that is preventing a company in my constituency, Enterprise Control Systems, from servicing the award-winning defence products that it is successfully selling overseas? Mr Hague: My hon. Friend is welcome to applaud that decision and anything else she might wish to applaud; we are grateful to her for that. Cutting barriers to trade is an important part of our approach to expanding British commerce. In many of our meetings with other Governments, we ask for improved market access. If she would like to give me the details of the difficulties that the company in her constituency is experiencing, we will look at that matter specifically.

Oral Answers

140

Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: Order. We have a lot of interest and little time, so I need short questions and short answers. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the multilateral surveillance procedures for EU budgets, which apply to all member states, whether they are in the euro or not. Is he aware of Com. (2010)526, which makes it plain that we have to provide more financial information to the European Union, whether we are in the eurozone or not? Mr Lidington: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took part in the taskforce, he ensured that we would not need to supply anything to the European Commission that had not been given to Parliament first or that the Commission would be unable to find through the intelligent use of Google. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has anything to be afraid of. T5. [22553] Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I am pleased that the Prime Minister will raise human rights issues while he is in China. I hope this is a sign of a Government who take international human rights seriously and who want to have a truly ethical foreign policy. Will the Prime Minister also take the opportunity to talk to the Chinese about the sale of weapons to Sudan and ensure that they are not used there to cause human rights problems and further the conflict? Mr Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the approach we take to human rights. As he knows, we argue that that goes hand in hand with the expansion of trade and business across the world because it is the rule of law and respect for human rights that help to assure businesses that they are able to do business across the world. I very much take note of and agree with the point about Sudan. As I mentioned earlier, I will be chairing a special session of the United Nations Security Council specifically to discuss the situation in Sudan. One of our objectives is to show that the whole world is working together and that China—it is, of course, a permanent member of the Security Council—participates fully in the vision for the future of Sudan that we will set forth. Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): If the inter-city express programme goes ahead, Hitachi will build the rolling stock in Newton Aycliffe, adjacent to the Foreign Secretary’s constituency. The Foreign Secretary said in Japan in August that Britain is open for business. I know that the British Prime Minister and the Japanese Prime Minister have spoken about this issue, but if it does not go ahead, what effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that will have on bilateral relationships with Japan? Mr Hague: Of course we have had strong representations—to the Prime Minister, to me and to other Ministers—from the Japanese Government about that, as one would expect. This is a very important project. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to get Government expenditure under control, so the decision is primarily one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The hon. Gentleman’s representations will, as ever, be conveyed to the Secretary of State.

141

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

T6. [22554] Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that combating piracy off the coast of Somalia is vital to protecting the UK’s trading interests? Will we take a lead in finding a political solution inland, as opposed to dealing with what is happening offshore? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. The Royal Navy is playing a leading role in the counterpiracy operations. Once pirates are captured, they need to be detained, tried and imprisoned. That is why we are working with countries like Kenya, the Seychelles and Tanzania to provide this capacity. I agree that we must try to find a political solution on the land, as that is the only way to eliminate this evil crime. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Three people were killed yesterday when Moroccan forces clashed with Sahawi people in a refugee camp outside Layoun in occupied Western Sahara. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene urgently with the Government of Morocco and the UN to bring about a resolution to this crisis? It has gone on for more than 30 years, and people are wasting their lives in refugee camps when they should be allowed to return home to their own land and decide their own future—not under occupation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns; he came to see me last week to discuss Western Sahara. The circumstances of the most recent incident are still unclear, and we have asked for monitoring by our own people based in Morocco. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns are shared by many: Western Sahara is an issue that has gone on too long and the problem is very difficult to resolve. T9. [22557] Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Can the Minister tell us how the van Rompuy economic governance proposals will help to ensure that European economic crises are better managed in future so that we are not all taken unawares again? Mr Lidington: The taskforce conclusions are intended to provide a framework for stability and decent economic governance in the eurozone so that never again are all European economies taken by surprise by the sort of financial collapse that we saw in certain southern European economies about 18 months ago. It is profoundly in the interests of the UK that the eurozone should be strong and stable, given the interdependence of their economic interests and ours. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the less well known but most insidious aspects of the blockade of Gaza is that Israel threatens to shoot any Palestinian considered to be near the Israeli border? Israel defines 17% of the entire territory of the Gaza strip as constituting nearness to that border, while 17 of the 22 Palestinians killed have been killed in the area. What can the Foreign Secretary do to get Israel to see sense on that issue? Mr Hague: There have certainly been shooting incidents in the area. That underlines the importance of what we discussed earlier: a different approach to Gaza. We need to ensure that reconstruction takes place to prevent,

Oral Answers

142

for instance, arguments and incidents involving people who try to collect building materials from near the border and are shot at. That is one of the controversial incidents that have taken place. An improvement in reconstruction and a general improvement in economic conditions would be at least a first step towards dealing with the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. T10. [22558] Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I applaud the Foreign Secretary for obtaining the agreement of 12 other member states to a cap on any increase in the European Union budget. Can he square that with the EU treaty provisions which state that the budget must be set through co-decision between the institutions? What progress can be made in that regard? Mr Hague: That is the position of 13 members of the European Council. They are therefore able to resist any proposal for a budget increase larger than 2.9%. As my hon. Friend has said, the procedure involves co-decision between the Parliament and the Council, and negotiations are now commencing. If there is no agreement, the 2010 budget will be rolled over into 2011. Everyone concerned had better bear that in mind. Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): Does the Foreign Secretary realise how fed up people are with the footdragging over the universal jurisdiction issue? Instead of all these vague promises, why can we not have a simple, straightforward piece of legislation to sort the problem out once and for all? Mr Hague: It is a bit of a cheek for someone who supported the last Government to ask that question. The last Government’s feet were not dragged; they were stuck solid in the cement of inertia that characterised their closing months in office. We have set out what we are going to do. We will introduce the relevant clauses in the next few weeks, and I hope that, given the support of Opposition Members, they will be passed in the current Session of Parliament. Where there was complete inaction opposite, there has been rapid action on this side of the House. Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for the attention that they have given recently to the case of Shaker Aamer, who has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for eight years. He is a former resident of my constituency, and his wife and four children remain my constituents. Ministers are aware that this is a critical period. Will they undertake to press their United States counterparts hard, in person, for Mr Aamer’s early release back to the United Kingdom? Alistair Burt: I met my hon. Friend and Shaker Aamer’s father-in-law only last week. This is a very difficult case, and it is not entirely up to the United Kingdom, but our position is that we are seeking the return of Shaker Aamer to the UK, and will continue to press the United States authorities to that effect. Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab): I have just returned from Mexico, where I saw at first hand the human rights abuses of Los Mineros, the

143

Oral Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

miners who have been on strike for four years. I understand that there is to be a ministerial visit shortly. Would it be possible for me to meet the appropriate Minister so that he can hear of the atrocities of which I heard? The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): The hon. Gentleman is right: I shall be visiting Mexico the week after next. It would be good for us to meet beforehand to discuss the concerns that he has just raised. Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con): My constituency is home to many refugees from Zimbabwe, including 80-yearold Peter Seymour-Smith, who fled the country when his land and business were confiscated. He has said that he would go back if free and fair elections were held, which President Mugabe has intimated might be a possibility. What steps would the ministerial team take to ensure that if the elections were held, we would not see a repeat of 2008’s shameful practices and vote-rigging? Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will now take a breath.

Oral Answers

144

Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her special interest in Zimbabwe, which is due to the fact that a constituent of hers is an expert on it. I entirely agree with her. It is essential for any forthcoming elections to be properly monitored and observed. It is also essential for monitors and observers to be in place at an early stage to monitor the electoral registration process, to have full access to all the remote areas, to monitor the poll on the day and to monitor the count. We are working with the Southern African Development Community and other organisations to ensure that there is no repeat of 2008.

Mr Speaker: Let me just say to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) that what I said earlier was a compliment. I am sorry that I have not been able to call every Member, but there is a great deal of interest and no time.

145

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Armed Forces Charter Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 3.34 pm Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give statutory effect to certain aspects of Armed Forces personnel’s and veterans’ welfare provision; and for connected purposes.

Let me begin by—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. It would be helpful and courteous if Members leaving the Chamber did so quickly and quietly. I certainly want to hear Mr Thomas Docherty. Thomas Docherty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by paying tribute to the armed services, at this time of all times, for the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make on behalf of our nation. It is also proper that we recognise the sacrifice made by their families, and I am sure that the House is at one in showing our support both for our brave service personnel and for their families. It is right that the issue of the welfare of service personnel and their families should have crossed the political divide. In that spirit, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on their work in the previous Government on producing last year’s Green Paper on the service personnel. The Command Paper brought together proposals from across Departments to support not only our armed forces and their families, but veterans of current and previous conflicts. Although it is absolutely right that attention focuses on casualties from current conflicts, we must not forget that our veterans should expect a lifelong commitment from a grateful nation. We should also recognise the work done by service charities, and I wish to place on the record my thanks to the Royal British Legion for highlighting that important area and the need for an armed forces charter. The House has recognised that many veterans face varied challenges on return from active duty, and the Royal British Legion is right to highlight the fact that returning personnel are more likely to develop psychological symptoms as a result of their experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. This nation has a duty of care to them and

Armed Forces Charter

146

their families. Opposition Members have to agree with the legion that the Ministry of Defence needs to introduce more effective prevention and treatment strategies to tackle mental health problems, binge drinking and drug abuse. As the chairman of the Royal British Legion said recently: “The legacy of the fiercest fighting since the Second World War will be the nation’s to meet for decades to come… politicians…have a…lifelong duty of care to protect and support veterans and their families. The Military Covenant must be honoured, both for those currently serving and those who have served.”

This House has heard and debated many of the challenges facing our veterans as they return from active service or leave our armed forces. Although we should acknowledge the steps taken by both this and previous Governments, the time has come to place on a statutory footing certain aspects of the welfare provision that should be offered by central and local government, and to take the issue out of party politics. My right hon. and hon. Friends worked hard in the last Government to improve the standard of accommodation for personnel and their families. Under their plans, 75,000 single-bed spaces will be modernised or upgraded to a higher standard by 2013, and I pay tribute to their efforts in this area. However, there will still be a shortfall of some 35,000 bed spaces that are below the acceptable standard, and it is regrettable that this Government have no plans as yet for the upgrading of 25,000 bed spaces outside the current schedule. For family homes in the UK, the situation is even worse, according to the Royal British Legion. Of the 50,000 service personnel family homes, two thirds do not meet the Ministry of Defence’s own definition of high quality. Under current plans, it will take 20 years to bring all family accommodation up to the higher standard. We bring forward this Bill today in recognition of the continuing sacrifices made by our brave men and women in the armed forces, and by their families, and in recognition of the fact that our nation must honour its debt of gratitude in a fitting and practical way. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Thomas Docherty, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Michael McCann, Grahame M. Morris, Mr Ian Davidson, Mr Bob Ainsworth, Hugh Bayley, Ian Murray and Tom Blenkinsop present the Bill. Thomas Docherty accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November and to be printed (Bill 104).

147

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Opposition Day [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing Benefit 3.40 pm Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab): I beg to move, That this House believes that, whilst housing benefit is in need of reform, the Government’s proposals will mean significant losses for hundreds of thousands of working families and pensioners and risk spending an additional £120 million on the cost of providing temporary accommodation; and calls on the Government to bring forward revised proposals for the reform of housing benefit which do not penalise those who have been unable to secure employment within 12 months, and which ensure that any proposals are implemented on a revised timetable which allows councils, tenants and landlords to adjust, allows the impact on rents to be observed and understood, and avoids additional spending on temporary accommodation.

It is common ground across the House that the deficit needs to be cut and that, as the motion states, housing benefit needs to be reformed. The shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), will speak later and I am sure she will reflect the views of many in this House in recognising that the issue of housing benefit cannot, and should not, be detached from broader issues of housing provision. However, it is important to start the debate by setting out some of the facts that explain the real and rising concerns that have been expressed from both sides of the House about the impact of the Government’s proposed housing benefit changes. I will address first the reach of the changes, then the reason for them, and finally their potential impact. If we were to believe everything we read in the newspapers, we would have thought in recent weeks that housing benefit reform is solely a London issue and that it matters only to people who have large houses and should be, but are not, working. Broadcasts and newspapers have suggested that the key issues are workshy families in Mayfair mansions, so let us start with some truths, however inconvenient they are for the Opposition Front Bench. Some 4.7 million people in the United Kingdom currently receive housing benefit, 2 million of whom are pensioners on pension credit guarantee of just about £132 a week, while 500,000 are people on jobseeker’s allowance and 700,000 are people in work in low-paying jobs. From just one measure of the Government’s proposed changes alone—the cut in local housing allowance from the 50th to the 30th percentile—700,000 of these, many of the poorest people in our country in and out of work, stand to lose on average £9 per week. Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): I am looking forward to hearing the rest of what I know will be a very passionate and important speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people—not only in my constituency, but throughout the country—who have disabilities or who are carers for people with disabilities are terrified that these proposals might affect them?

Housing Benefit

148

Mr Alexander: To illustrate my hon. Friend’s point, one of the depressing aspects of the changes is that we have not yet had a comprehensive impact assessment; I will discuss that during the course of my remarks. We have had figures about the proposed changes from the Department for Work and Pensions, which confirm that they will hit every part of Britain, and from the smallest flat upwards. A poor pensioner living in a single-bedroom flat in Glasgow will lose £7 a week, and a family in a two-bedroom flat in Liverpool will lose £10 a week. Housing benefit recipients in Yorkshire and Humberside are most likely to lose out from this 30th percentile measure, with 90% of local housing allowance recipients seeing a reduction in their housing benefit. Little wonder that Shelter’s chief executive, Campbell Robb, explained only yesterday: “The focus of debate so far has been the cap to housing benefit and the impact on London, but this analysis shows that these cuts will affect hundreds of thousands of people across the country.”

That is why the Church of Scotland, a body with a long and distinguished tradition of work and witness in deprived communities across Scotland, on Friday wrote to every Scottish Member of Parliament, raising concerns and questions in advance of today’s debate about the impact of the proposed measures on the communities it serves. Today, Shelter in Cornwall raised concerns about the Government’s proposals, saying: “The reality is that we are going to be facing much more homelessness and more evictions because of this. Cornwall’s low incomes mean that lots of hard working people do have to claim housing benefit.”

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people not affected by the cuts are appalled that this Government sought out the poor and needy and attacked them with these cuts? Mr Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to explain to the House and indeed to the country why, in the package of measures contained in the spending review, the Government decided to take more money from the nation’s families than the nation’s banks. Calls for a rethink on these proposals have also come from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), whose constituency covers the Isles of Scilly. I hope that he will vote in support of the motion, as he has said: “The impact on Cornwall is likely to be very severe indeed.”

He also said that the proposals “will put a lot of families in extreme stress and ministers should think again.”

Concern is rising among those on both sides of the House and across the country, from Cornwall in the south to Shetland in the north. We have to recognise that when we talk about these rushed and ill-considered changes, we are talking about changes that will affect our constituents, no matter what part of the country we represent. The changes will affect many of our constituents, those in and out of work, as well as many of our poorest pensioners. This debate should be informed by that state of mind, rather than by the lurid headlines that Ministers have worked so hard and so shamefully to create in recent days.

149

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): I agree with the following statement: “Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”

It came from this year’s Labour manifesto. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with it? Mr Alexander: I do, which is why I wish those on the Government Benches would spend less time reading our manifesto and more time changing their proposals. Let me deal with the substantive points. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should have just a little patience—one of the virtues that I wish the Secretary of State had learned in relation to these changes. Two arguments are being advanced in favour of the changes, the first being that the housing benefit bill is out of control and the second being that reform will lower the rent levels paid by the state for private sector accommodation available through housing benefit. Let us start by examining the facts and the merits of those arguments. First, as the Building and Social Housing Foundation points out: “Housing benefit has remained remarkably consistent at around 14% of the benefits bill for many years and most of the increase over the last 18 months has been down to an increase in the number of claimants, which is exactly what we would expect to happen in response to a recession.”

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD) rose— Mr Alexander: I will give way in a moment or two. Next, it is stated that in the past five years housing benefit has risen by £5 billion and it has been suggested that the cuts are necessary to stop a soaring housing benefit bill. Housing benefit did rise by about 21% during the recession—that is undisputed—but that was driven by a case load that increased by 18%, including a 26% increase in respect of those of working age; it was not driven by a few rents. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain how the figures show that the real-terms increase over the past five years was 50%, not 18%. That was fuelled hugely by the Labour Government’s reform to local housing allowance. The figures show that today’s rates of LHA are 10% higher than those that they inherited, and that is due to their change. Perhaps he would like to explain that. Mr Alexander: I am happy to come on to deal with exactly those points, which echo some that we have heard. Bob Russell rose— Mr Alexander: I shall seek to let the hon. Gentleman in as soon as I can. Housing benefit bills— Mr Duncan Smith: Explain it. Mr Alexander: I am just about to explain it, if the right hon. Gentleman would just exercise a little patience. If he had done his homework, he would know that his Department’s own statistics show that since 2000 more than half the increase in the housing benefit bill—54%—did not come from the few high claims. It came from poorer private tenants—those in low-paid work, and disabled or elderly people—claiming housing benefit. More than

Housing Benefit

150

half the increase is coming from more people claiming, not from significantly increased rents. What Ministers seem to fail to understand is the number of households on local housing allowance who are in work. Over the past two years, there have been 250,000 new cases in work claiming LHA. During the recession, as wages and the hours that people were able to work fell, people turned to housing benefit and to LHA to stop themselves being made homeless. In recent years, during the recession, housing benefit has been vital in keeping people in their homes. Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: I feel that I should give way first to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Bob Russell: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Government. He started his speech with a brief mention of “housing provision”, but he has not said anything about it since. Will he inform the House how many council houses were built and how many were sold by the last Labour Government? Mr Alexander: The hon. Gentleman made that point in the debate in Westminster Hall. I will not pretend that our priority was council housing as distinct from social housing, because for Governments over many years there has been a move away from direct provision by local councils to broader social housing, principally provided by housing associations. We will happily stand comparison between the number of social houses that we built during our time in office and the number being trumpeted by those on the Government Front Bench. Incidentally, almost half of the 150,000 in the figure that is now being used by the Conservatives are houses that were initiated by the Labour party when it was still in office. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not think that that was a point worthy of the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern, I hope that he will back up the words of the early-day motion with his actions this evening and join the Labour party in the Division Lobby. Mr Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, as all commentators have said, that since the introduction of the LHA the transparency of it has led to landlords putting up rent? Does he not think that there is a duty on Government in these difficult times to do something about it? Mr Alexander: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is a difference between having a duty to act—and we support the case for reform in housing benefit—[HON. MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I know that that might be an uncomfortable truth for those on the Government Benches, but there is a difference between a duty to act and acting in such a precipitate and reckless fashion that it ultimately ends up costing the taxpayer more. I think the hon. Gentleman is just old enough to recollect that under the Conservatives in the ’80s and ’90s the impact of higher homelessness was a greater cost to the taxpayer; it did not lower bills for the taxpayer. The core of the Government’s policy is their belief that by cutting or capping housing benefit—this has been the substance of a couple of interventions—they

151

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

will reduce the level of rents in the private sector and thus reduce the deficit. In seeking to find a rationale for the scale and speed of the cuts, the Government seem to be getting themselves in some difficulty. The Daily Telegraph today sets out that LHA rents are rising faster than non-LHA rents in the private sector. The Government’s regulations require that the LHA rates are set at the median of the private rental sector rent, excluding those let to housing benefit claimants, so rent officers collect data on non-housing benefit rents in each broad rental area market and use that data to set the local housing allowance. In passing, incidentally, if the Secretary of State is so concerned about rent levels in the private sector, will he explain why he decided to scrap our proposals for a national register of landlords or indeed for the regulation of letting and management agents, designed to give more protection to tenants? The sound of silence is deafening. Why did he bin the recommendations of the Rugg review? Mr Duncan Smith: Bureaucratic nonsense. Mr Alexander: I do not think that protecting tenants from bad landlords is bureaucratic nonsense. If the Secretary of State did more than visit Easterhouse, he might share that point of view. Not only does the Government’s core belief that rents will fall risk failing to reflect how LHA works, at a much deeper level it risks ignoring what is happening in the housing market at the moment. Rents in the sector will probably rise, according to the National Landlords Association, which has published results of a poll showing that 50% of landlords would not reduce their rents at all and that nine out of 10 would not rent to housing benefit recipients—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), says, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” Would that be the claim that he would make against Shelter, the indisputably well-recognised housing charity? “Yes,” I hear from Conservative Back-Benchers. Well, their interventions are perhaps more telling than they realise. Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman is keen to use statistics. I wonder whether he is comfortable with the statistic that more than 50% of Labour supporters believe that housing benefit should be reformed. They support us. Is it not ironic that he is proposing such a motion today when his supporters support this Government? Mr Alexander: First, I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the motion. Secondly, I suggest that he recognises that we introduced the LHA, which has already been the subject of an exchange across the Floor of the House. He might also want to go back and read the statement of the former Chancellor at the March Budget, when we suggested further measures for reform of housing benefit. That is commonplace. There is a difference between the right reforms that will save the public money, and the wrong reforms that will potentially cost the public money and lead to higher homelessness, as we have seen so often in the past.

Housing Benefit

152

Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress. According to a study commissioned by Shelter from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research—I wonder if the Government will dispute the integrity of that body—more than four in 10, or 42%, of landlords currently letting to LHA claimants planned to scale back. Shelter estimates that that will equate to 100,000 landlords. Liz Peace, the chief executive of the British Property Federation, said: “Landlords might decide to abandon the social sector.”

The Conservative Mayor of London—I wonder what the Government will say in relation to this evidence—says that the Government’s proposals will lead to “the loss of the private rented sector as a major safety net for London boroughs”.

He continued: “We expect landlords to leave the housing benefit market due to the perceived instability of housing benefit in the short and medium term.”

Those are the words not of the Labour Front Bench, but of Boris Johnson. Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend seen the Daily Mail today? Under the headline “Archbishop is wrong about…welfare…says Iain Duncan Smith”, the opening paragraph states: “Iain Duncan Smith has attacked the Archbishop of Canterbury’s claims that housing benefit cuts will lead to a cycle of despair that will socially cleanse the poor from Britain’s cities.”

The article goes on to quote the Secretary of State as saying of the Opposition and special interest groups: “‘They have even tried to suggest that our real purpose is not just to cut the budget deficit but to remove poor people from the heart of our cities.’”

If that is not the purpose of the Government’s intentions, surely that will be the net effect. Mr Alexander: I can understand the embarrassment of those on the Government Front Bench, but whether it is the Deputy Prime Minister attacking the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury, they diminish the case that they are trying to make. Mr Duncan Smith: I would like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman now. He was asked an interesting question. Does he agree with Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), who think that our measures will socially cleanse London? Will he please answer that question? Mr Alexander: I have a clear view that if these proposals pass unamended, London will look very different in the years ahead. [Interruption.] I noted that the Secretary of State did not dispute the fact that he had attacked the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps he will choose to do that next time. Mr Duncan Smith rose— Mr Alexander: I am happy to give way.

153

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Duncan Smith: I just want a straight answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. and hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, who for the past two weeks have said that what we are doing will remove every social tenant from London and socially cleanse it? Is that correct? Mr Alexander: I have said that I think London will look very different in the years ahead if the Government’s proposals are passed. We can have a contest across the Floor of the House in which I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he feels about Boris, and he can ask me how I feel about some Labour Back Benchers. I know it is uncomfortable for the Secretary of State, but this is a debate about the Government’s policies, not about my words. Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend compare the current position to the days when Lady Porter decided to take measures in this part of London to shift people out of certain areas for political reasons? Is not the Government’s current idea one that Lady Porter could only have dreamed of, because it is 10, 20, 30 times worse? Mr Alexander: The cumulative impact of Lady Porter’s measures was in the hundreds or the few thousands. The impact on people being removed from their homes if the current proposals pass unchecked will extend significantly beyond that. Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend discovered which Conservative Minister described the measures as having such a high social impact in terms of moving people out of London that it would be greater than the highland clearances? Mr Alexander: Alas, I cannot answer that question, but I hope the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will do so.

Housing Benefit

154

Perhaps we should move on from Edinburgh to the east midlands. In the other place, the Bishop of Leicester said: “The present belief that cutting housing benefit will depress the market and reduce private sector rents might just work if there were more houses to meet the demand. As it is, all the risk is being born by the vulnerable, not the comfortable.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1446.]

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are perfectly right to raise this important issue, which is of concern across the House, but will he be his usual self and use careful language? There is no evidence to suggest that the implication of the policy is what his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) have suggested—or, indeed, what the Mayor of London has implied. Yes, there are issues, but the idea that people will be moved forcibly from where they are to somewhere else is neither necessarily the case nor evidentially the case. Mr Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be characteristically careful in my language. I hope that he will be characteristically careful in aligning his words with his actions. We will be watching carefully this evening to see whether this is another instance of the Liberals either being able to prove that they are willing to match their words with actions or, alas, not. Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) rose— Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) rose— Mr Alexander: I am going to make a little more progress. There is a substantive question, and that is: on what evidential basis do the Government assert that rents will fall? In the debate involving the Bishop of Leicester last week in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Hanham, in response to being challenged directly on the evidence that the Government could adduce for a fall in rents as a result of the changes, said that it was a “suggestion”.

Several hon. Members rose— Mr Alexander: No, I have been generous and I will make a little progress, although I will be happy to take further interventions. Given that the subject has moved on to the highland clearances, let us move from London to Edinburgh and take the example of Edinburgh to prove that the issue is not exclusively a London one. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: I will give way in a few moments, because I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman intends to do later this evening. Let us take the example of Edinburgh. About 20% of all households live in the private rented sector, and about 18% of housing in the private rented sector is occupied by people who receive some housing benefit. If landlords no longer wish to have tenants on housing benefit because of the lower local housing allowance, they will have ample scope to find other tenants in that city.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb): I think that the shadow Secretary of State is a measured and reasonable man who will not want to be hysterical but will want to look at the facts. Since November 2008 private rents have fallen by 5% and local housing allowance rents have risen by 3%. LHA is pushing rents up. Does he accept that? Mr Alexander: I have already covered the point that LHA is calculated in relation to rent in the private rented sector. The Minister generously characterises me as a reasonable fellow, but the fact is that this is the second time in as many days that a coalition Minister has accused the Government’s critics of being hysterical. I think that it was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who yesterday told London councils, when perfectly reasonable questions were being asked, to “grow up”. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions speaks in this debate we will have a more measured and reasonable account of why the policies have been decided on and of whether the Government are willing to reflect on the points being raised, and in turn change their mind.

155

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend recall the answer that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) gave less than one month ago, when he indicated that at the last count 48% of local housing allowance recipients received a sum less than the rent that they were due to pay? The idea that half of all local housing allowance recipients are forcing up rents, when they are not actually getting enough housing allowance to pay the rent, is an extraordinary proposition. Mr Alexander: My right hon. Friend’s expertise is well revealed in his question. I have been told to avoid hysteria and be careful and measured, but any of us who recollect the impact of the community charge, when a number of poor people started with a small but rapidly accumulating debt and ended up owing significant arrears to local authorities—which ultimately had to write off those debts—have reason to be very cautious before endorsing these proposals. Matthew Hancock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Alexander: No. I am keen to make a little progress, by looking at the individual measures that the Government are advancing. When the Secretary of State speaks, will he explain why the Department for Work and Pensions is not producing an impact assessment on the whole package of changes to housing benefit before the House? An assessment has been made of the introduction of the LHA measures during 2011-12, as the Social Security Advisory Commission requires, but that is partial, and of course does not take account of the effect of the consumer prices index cap on LHA rates from 2013. We would also expect a separate impact assessment of the jobseeker’s allowance measure and social sector size limits to follow once the secondary legislation is published. At this stage, however, it is unclear whether an assessment will be made of the CPI changes. The fact that no comprehensive impact assessment has been completed before the announcement does nothing to reduce the widespread anxiety about this package of reforms. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will now accept the concerns of his colleagues and undertake to publish an assessment of the whole package. Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a statutory duty of the Secretary of State to undertake to give an impact assessment, on the basis that this greatly affects London’s ethnic minorities—and if there is a disproportionate effect, to do something to alleviate it? It is extraordinary that that impact assessment has not yet been published. Mr Alexander: That is an outstanding point made by a tireless fighter for the people of Tottenham. I know that my right hon. Friend has already taken the opportunity to raise this matter directly with the Secretary of State, who I hope will be able to find an opportunity to respond to it. Mr Slaughter: My right hon. Friend is right to analyse and dismantle the individual points made, but there is also a cumulative effect. The cumulative effect on my borough after these changes are introduced, if they are,

Housing Benefit

156

is that 6% of neighbourhoods—seven out of 111—will be affordable to people in receipt of housing benefit. Mine is by no means the worst affected borough in London: all the central London boroughs are affected. If that is not forcing people out of London and making it impossible for people on low incomes to live in London, I do not know what is. Mr Alexander: My hon. Friend speaks with force and knowledge about the impact of these changes in his own constituency. I hope that when Government Front Benchers reflect on the range of points that have been made about the impact on our communities and constituencies across London, they will take the opportunity to think again. Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): It takes the entire income tax paid by seven average earners in my constituency, and by nine average earners in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to pay one family’s housing benefit bill. Does he think that is fair? Mr Alexander: I will come to the issue of the cap. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the importance and seriousness of this debate by simply reading out the questions the Whips have given him. In terms of the cumulative effect, which is what we were talking about, this package involves £1.8 billion-worth of cuts. The measure that he identifies accounts for £65 million of that £1.8 billion. One of the many attributes missing on the Government Benches is a sense of proportion. Let us look at some of the individual measures. Labour Members do not have any objection in principle to asking younger single adults to live in a shared house or flat—after all, that is what has happened a great deal in the private sector. Yet it is revealing that the Chancellor, in his spending review statement to the House, described this as a chance to limit the ability to live on housing benefit as a lifestyle choice. So why have the Government not produced an impact assessment for these proposals? How can we be reassured that there will be sufficient supply to accommodate additional people and that the specific needs of young people in special circumstances, such as the disabled, will be addressed before this measure is introduced? On the social sector, even the Government themselves seem to be struggling to understand some of the proposals. The June Budget promised to change housing entitlements for people of working age in the social sector. Can the Secretary of State explain what that means, and whether it will mean forcing people to move out of their council homes when their children turn 18? The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, who has already contributed to the debate, recently said in an answer to a written question: “The detailed policy design of this change is still being developed.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 565W.]

In that case, why are the Government are so confident that it will save £490 million? Let us move on to the issue of the CPI. The shadow Chancellor has made it clear that we would support changing the uprating of benefits for a time-limited period, but this is not what the Government propose in relation to housing benefit. Index-linking of local housing allowance to the CPI, which does not in any way reflect

157

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Douglas Alexander] housing costs, means that the LHA’s value will drop substantially against rising rent levels, and households will increasingly find themselves priced out of all but the poorest-quality accommodation. The impact is clear if we view the decade from 1997 to 2007 and then project forward. During those 10 years rents increased by 70%, while the CPI—the new inflation index that the Government have chosen—increased by only 20%. On that projection, by 2020 housing benefit based on CPI will have fallen so far behind private rents that it may cover only 10% of the available property. In Manchester it would cover only 5% of available twobedroom flats, and in parts of Winchester, within 10 to 12 years not a single two-bedroom home would be affordable on housing benefit. I ask Ministers in all seriousness whether it is coincidental that in evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions last week, Lord Freud suggested that the coalition Government now saw it as “quite valuable to rewrite the homelessness legislation?”

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether that is indeed the case, and can he further assure the House that the Government are not simply seeking to rewrite the rules for those threatened by homelessness as they rewrote the rules for the unemployed in the 1980s and ’90s, parking a generation of people in the unemployment figures? Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman is being careful not to set out the Labour party’s position on the cap. Does he agree with his leader, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), or does he agree with the shadow Health Secretary, who said nine days ago: “Those top level benefits do need to be capped”?

Mr Alexander: I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), introduced an option for dealing with extreme cases in the March budget—excluding a proportion of the highest rents from the calculation of the median. I am sure that given his past employment, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) will be aware of that change. As I have previously stated, I have no objection in principle to a cap, if it is introduced on a staged timetable. I commend to him the speech that I gave at the Institute for Public Policy Research as recently as Friday. However, we have to ask whether a national cap is the most appropriate plan, or whether a regional cap would target the very highest claims in all regions. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) rose— Mr Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress. I rather fear and suspect that the focus on the cap in some interventions owes more to Andy Coulson than to the Secretary of State. As I have already made clear, despite the fact that it will yield £65 million, it is only one part of a package of more than £1.8 billion-worth of proposed housing benefit changes resulting from the cumulative impact of the June Budget and the spending review.

Housing Benefit

158

Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to answer some specific questions. Why is it necessary to introduce a cap on rent levels from April next year, and the change in the maximum rate to the 30th percentile in October? Is there not a real risk that some households will be displaced twice within a short period, with all the costs and individual traumas that that would entail? Let us look at the reality of the matter for a moment. Many households will be making their housing arrangements now without full knowledge of what the proposals will mean. They may be arranging for their children to go to a local school, to sign up for child care support or to buy a season ticket for travel to work. It must be right to give individuals enough notice and clarity about what the first tranche of measures will mean for them to be able to ascertain whether they will be able to avail themselves of the discretionary housing payments that the Government claim will be available. What estimate has the Department made of the impact of the changes on homelessness? Does the Secretary of State accept the figures provided by London Councils, which expects that 82,000 households will be forced from their homes? What estimate has he made of the cost of the changes to local government? Shelter has said that the costs of introducing all the rushed changes will be as much as £120 million. Does he have an alternative figure that he would like to share with the House? The Mayor of London’s own director of housing has stated that the introduction of the cap in London alone will lead to a 48% rise in homelessness acceptances, which will mean £78 million being spent in London on temporary accommodation. Yet the Budget Red Book estimates savings of only £65 million a year. Given those figures, why would the Government introduce a policy that could end up costing the taxpayer more than it is intended to save? I now move from the cap, about which people have been so keen to talk in the newspapers for so many days, to the change to the 30th percentile, which is perhaps more deserving of that level of publicity. Liz Phelps of Citizens Advice UK has remarked that the change “will potentially affect people across the country. It will mean lower rates…It is very crude, short-term thinking. It will cut the DWP budget but it will explode the homelessness budget. We will see a lot more rent arrears, a lot more debt and acute poverty, and then more homelessness.”

Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): I wish to put on record that however important the change is in London and the south-east, it is not simply an issue for that area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Department’s own figures, which show that some 5,500 local housing allowance recipients in Blackpool will lose up to £25 a month, are not acceptable in such areas, which have some of the highest rates of deprivation in the country? Mr Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend speaks with authority about not just Blackpool but a number of seaside towns where there are real communities that are suffering and afflicted by deprivation. That is why it is incumbent on the Secretary of State and the Minister, who is winding up this debate, to offer a clear and unequivocal answer to my hon. Friend. Why is it acceptable that people in Blackpool who are in work but low-paid, and who bear no responsibility for the global financial crisis, are now being asked to bear the burden?

159

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Betts: That is precisely the issue that affects cities such as Sheffield as well. The Deputy Prime Minister has objected to the word “cleansing” and other Members have objected to the word “clearance”. In a disparate housing market such as Sheffield, the effect will be to disperse families from the affluent part, the Sheffield, Hallam constituency—the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency—to the rest of the city. That will lead to a more segregated city, and it is that sort of effect that the Government should address. Mr Douglas Alexander: I shall resist the temptation of suggesting that the one person who should be dispatched from Sheffield is the Deputy Prime Minister. I acknowledge the fact that in communities such as Sheffield, and in cities across the whole of Britain, there is deep anxiety and concern about the impact of these changes. That is why the Local Government Group agreed that the move to the 30th percentile is “ likely to increase homelessness costs,”

since it will diminish “the willingness of private rented sector landlords to let to housing benefit customers. This will have hugely variable and disproportionate effects on different parts of the country.”

The Government’s impact assessment of the 30th percentile change goes into great detail to demonstrate that at least 30% of the market is available in every area. However, is it not the case that the inevitable consequence of the LHA cap and the CPI cap is that, over time, the proportion of the available market will shrink below 30%? Finally, let me come to one measure that has absolutely nothing to do with welfare reform and everything to do with a welfare cut. The Government propose that someone who is doing everything that we would ask of a person on benefits—applying for jobs, going to interviews, and even getting on the Secretary of State’s famous bus from Merthyr Tydfil—will still lose 10% of their housing benefit if they cannot find a job within a year. Let me unpick the statistics in two communities. Wolverhampton has six claimants for every job. If they were to be sanctioned tomorrow on housing benefit, 1,116 families would lose 10% of their benefit. To take Norfolk, a very different community from Wolverhampton, the figures say that there are 5,000 jobs, mainly casual, and 15,600 claimants—and that under these rules, 1,254 families would be sanctioned tomorrow. How can such an approach be fair when there are five claimants chasing every vacancy in the British labour market? On Sunday, the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, stated: “Sanctions in the welfare system only apply when people don’t take advantage of the help and support that is on offer.”

Such a statement is irreconcilable with the policy that the Treasury has now imposed on the Department for Work and Pensions. I have to say to the Secretary of State, for whom I feel great respect, that he is losing even old and dear friends as he tries to defend the measures that he has signed his Department up to. Indeed, when Bob Holman, the man who brought the right hon. Gentleman to Easterhouse in 2002, was asked why the Secretary of State had changed track, he said: “It is hard to say. I think he has come very much under the influence of George Osborne, who is very much more aggressive, who is much more anti-working class and I think that Iain probably is looking at it—if I am to get my big reform through, the universal credit system, I’ve got to go along some way with the attitude of Osborne.”

Housing Benefit

160

Indeed, how does the right hon. Gentleman want the unemployed to answer the question originally asked by Norman Tebbit? The truth is that homes are cheaper where there are fewer jobs. Should the jobless from Middlesbrough move to London where there may be jobs but fewer homes, or should the homeless from London move to Middlesbrough where there are homes but fewer jobs? I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to answer that question in the course of his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman once styled himself as “the quiet man”. I simply cannot believe why, given all the work he has done over recent years, he stayed silent in his conversations with the Chancellor when the latter told him that this was a progressive move to help people into work. It is the very opposite of a progressive move. The party that once said that unemployment was a price worth paying now wants to fine the unemployed if they cannot find a job. We were guaranteeing work for the long-term unemployed, but the Conservative party seems to be threatening them with homelessness. Steve Webb: My eyes may deceive me, but I sense that the shadow Secretary of State is on the final page of his speech. He must have dropped a very long section in which he was to set out Labour’s alternative. Perhaps he will do that now. Mr Alexander: It might help the hon. Gentleman if he recognised that as he has chosen to align himself with the Conservative party in government, it is now his responsibility to answer the questions. I know that, as a former professor of social policy at the university of Bath, he is a man of great erudition and deep thinking. May I commend to him the speech I made on Friday in which I went through each of the measures and set out our thinking, as I have done on a range of them today? We disagree fundamentally about the balance between the cuts that have to be borne by the poor and the vulnerable relative to the contribution that should be made by the banks. So we disagree about the deficit. We also disagree with measures such as the 10% cut in housing benefit relative to jobseeker’s allowance— [Interruption.] What do we support? In the March Budget we made it clear that we wanted to take the top rental—forgive me, Mr Speaker. I should not get into a debate with someone who is sitting down. I shall address you, Mr Speaker. We have made it clear that we could support a phased approach to caps, and that we want to look into regional caps. We have made it clear that we are willing to consider the proposal—once we receive an impact assessment—on the deductions available for non-dependent individuals living in households that receive housing benefit. We have also made it clear that we regard the 10% cut in housing benefit for those who have been unemployed for a year as completely unacceptable—and in his previous persona, I fear, the Minister would have found them unacceptable as well. I need to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as was kindly anticipated by the Minister. Let us be honest: this package of rushed, ill-considered and potentially devastating cuts has raised concerns beyond the debates in this Chamber in communities across the country. In the 1980s, the previous Conservative Government showed that higher homelessness, like longer dole queues, ends up costing the taxpayer more, not less. These ill-thoughtthrough proposals have already led a number of MPs of

161

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Douglas Alexander] conscience and concern, on both sides of the House, to register their disquiet. I do not claim a monopoly of concern about the proposals for any one party. Perhaps that is why the Government have run scared of putting an amendment to the House today endorsing explicitly each of the present proposals on housing benefit that they continue to advocate. Fortunately, however, there is still time for the Government to think again about these proposals. I urge Members on both sides of the House to take the opportunity this evening to reflect on these changes, and I commend the motion to the House. 4.22 pm The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): I rise to oppose for a number of reasons the motion moved by the Opposition. I will deal with it quickly, and then move on to the rest of the rationale behind the speech by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander). In the past two weeks—particularly, in the past two or three days—the right hon. Gentleman has started trying to reset the tone in the motion. None the less, the facts are exaggerated. For example, there is the ridiculous fact that we might have to spend an additional £120 million to provide temporary accommodation. That is ludicrous. There is no policy in this motion at all. Despite the major deficit that we have inherited, and despite the fact that housing benefit is running out of control, he did not say a thing about what he is planning to do. Opposition comes with responsibilities, and one of them is to have some policies before criticising, but the Labour party has none. The right hon. Gentleman is basically a reasonable man, and I look forward to dealing with him— [Interruption.] That is very kind. Thank you. So we are all reasonable across the Dispatch Box. But what is not reasonable is what has gone on over the past two weeks. I am pleased that in the past few days he has suddenly entered the fray, because he was suspiciously silent when a lot of his colleagues were running up and down the place trying to frighten the public about the changes. In many senses that was quite disreputable. Two weeks ago, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—the right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend—accused us of deliberately trying to “socially cleanse” London, and that is in Hansard. Furthermore, in the other place, one of the right hon. Gentleman’s great friends, Baroness Hollis, talked of “Weeping children, desperate mothers, defeated fathers …carnage”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1743.]

This has gone too far. I should also say that, encouraged by a nod and a wink from his Front-Bench colleagues, one of their great supporters in one of the national papers—a columnist—talked about our “final solution” for the poor. What they have actually managed to do— Mr Lammy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way in a minute, but not right now, because I want the Opposition to chew on this for a little. The way in which they have behaved over the past two weeks has been atrocious and outrageous. They knowingly used terminology used to describe

Housing Benefit

162

events such as the holocaust, making shrill allegations of bitter intent that they knew would frighten rather than inform. I say “rather than inform”, because until Saturday, when the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave his interview to The Guardian, the Opposition’s manic rabble-rousing had failed to tell the public a rather interesting point: that had Labour Members been re-elected, they knew that they would have had to take strong measures. I will read a few quotations that should explain to his Back-Bench colleagues just exactly what Labour was planning to do. The first quotation that I want to give them is from somebody whom I hope they will identify: their right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition. He said: “Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”

In the run-up to the election, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that Labour’s LHA—he was describing his own party’s reform—had discouraged employment and was unfair. He made it clear that the policy was set for a major change and that Labour was to blame. Mr Lammy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Duncan Smith: Before I do, I want to finish this one off. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), went even further before the previous election, hinting strongly at a much bigger change. She said that “it isn’t fair for the taxpayer to fund a very small minority of people to live in expensive houses which hardworking families could never afford.”

I wonder who was in power for those 10 years, but none the less. While acknowledging that Labour’s flagship LHA reform was in an expensive mess, she went on: “We will publish further plans…to make the system fairer, and to make sure housing benefit encourages people into jobs.”

Of course, as with everything else that Labour Front Benchers did before the last election, they cynically refused explicitly to tell their own Back Benchers or the public—the electorate—what they were actually planning. So now we learn that, according to the hon. Member for Rhondda, all those Back Benchers apparently stood on a secret manifesto to socially cleanse London. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I am sure that had Labour Members been in government and raised such matters, he would have been the first to jump to their defence, like he always was. The answer to that is: shame on them for scaring all those people in London. Mr Douglas Alexander: Let me invite the right hon. Gentleman to get off his high horse for a moment. He seems to be claiming that there is a conspiracy on the part of the Labour Front-Bench team against the Labour Back Benchers not to tell them what was in the manifesto on which they were elected. If he has established that there is a consistent approach between me and my predecessors in my current role, would he like to share with the House his thinking about the comments that were offered by the Conservative Mayor of London about the proposals, Boris Johnson? Mr Duncan Smith: I agree with Boris Johnson. What he said is that there will be no “Kosovo-style cleansing” of London. Quite right. He was responding to the scare

163

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

stories and the scaremongering of all those on the Opposition Benches, because that is exactly the phraseology that they were using. Emily Thornberry: Will the right hon. Gentleman help us now? Which Front Bencher has been scaring my constituents by saying that the policy will be worse than the highland clearances? Which shameful Front Bencher has been telling the press that? Mr Duncan Smith: I think that that is the case on the Opposition side. The reality is that they have been scaring the public, and they know it. I detect just a little dog whistle blowing from those on the Labour Benches, freezing and frightening everybody out there in the socially rented sector. Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I want to deal with some of the allegations. Opposition Members made the allegations, so let us get the record straight. The first was that London will somehow end up like Paris—socially cleansed so that people live only on the outer circle. Mr Lammy: It is true. Mr Duncan Smith: Oh, it is true? Okay. Let me remind the House about one simple point. The proposed changes to the local housing allowance concern the private rented sector. London has nearly 800,000 social homes—by the way, the Labour Government built far too few in their time—and the changes do not affect them. London has social housing embedded in its heart, and that will not change. So Labour Members must have known that they were scaring people with a complete pack of lies and nonsense. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Secretary of State. I accept that there are strong views on this matter, and that the atmosphere is highly charged, but there are many subscribers to this debate, and for the benefit of Back-Bench Members, the Chair would like to accommodate as many as possible. The more noise there is, the greater the delay, and the more difficult it will be to accommodate them. Perhaps we can calm down a little. Mr Duncan Smith: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. In the calmer mood, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): Is it not also part of the right hon. Gentleman’s housing policy to ensure that rents in the social housing sector will rise to 90% of the median, and that the Government are considering abolishing secure tenancies? Mr Duncan Smith: The answer is no for existing tenants. Our policy will apply to new tenants and new build, so the hon. Lady should check her facts. Let us not forget that the private rental market is dynamic. That is the point that the Opposition fail to mention. Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Housing Benefit

164

Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way in a moment. Around 40% of private rental tenancies are less than a year old, and 70% are less than three years old. What effectively happens in the marketplace is that there is a huge amount of movement. Another nonsense that Opposition Members have peddled over the past two weeks is that the sector is made up of a static group of people who have mostly lived in the same place all their lives and that we are about to uproot people who have a reasonable and rational reason to live where they are. In the past year, more than 100,000 people in the sector moved naturally. The idea that we will go in and raid all those homes is utter nonsense and scaremongering. Mr Slaughter: The report referred to earlier says that independent research shows that 134,000 households will be evicted or forced to move when the cuts come in next year, and those are just the first set of cuts. It is the Government’s policy to get rid of new social tenancies and to raise rents for new tenants to 80%. Over a period, the exact effect of that combination of measures will mean that no one on a low income can live in the inner city. Will the right hon. Gentleman have the courage to admit that that is his Government’s policy? Mr Duncan Smith: The impact assessment does not say that, and it is typical of the Opposition to take a figure for those who will be affected and assume automatically that they will be driven out of their homes. That is shameful. Angie Bray: The scaremongering is a disgrace, and I am sure that many of us have had scared constituents coming to us having been worried unnecessarily by stories that they have heard from Labour Members. I have been looking online at some of the properties on offer in the private rented sector in Ealing and Central Acton. There are some remarkably good offers around that are well within the proposed caps—for example, a four-bedroom house with a garden at under £400 a week, and a flat for about £250 a week with access to a swimming pool. The situation is really not as dire as the Opposition are suggesting. Mr Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We believe, and our calculations show that one third of all properties are available and will be ready for those who have to move. I say “have to move” because that assumes a static marketplace, and this marketplace is not static. I will return to that point in a second. Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way? Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way in a moment. I want to deal with another point that is being trumpeted by Labour Members, and some others who have risen to the worst extent of some of the figures. Families with children over 10 who must share a bedroom are classed as homeless and that led to the strange suggestion during an exchange in the Select Committee that tens of thousands of people will be homeless. That definition of homelessness is not one that I recognise. In fact, I looked at the report of that Select Committee and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) asked Roger Harding of Shelter whether

165

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Duncan Smith] he, my hon. Friend, having shared a bedroom as a child, had been homeless according to Shelter’s definition. Shelter’s response was yes, he had been. We are none of us served by this kind of nonsense. By all means let us have a rational debate about the reality of what we are trying to do. Mr Douglas Alexander rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am quite happy to engage with him on this point, but, in answer to my original question, will he now disown all those who have been running around the houses telling everybody that there will be social cleansing and that all these people will be made homeless? Will he now say that that is not true, and will he apologise for what they were doing? Mr Alexander: I do not think that the best interests of the country are served by the kind of exchange that the right hon. Gentleman is engaging in. I accept his offer of a rational conversation, however, and he has just raised the issue of the definition of homelessness. Only last week, his colleague Minister, the noble Lord Freud, said that it was desirable that the legislation be changed in relation to the category of homelessness. Will the Secretary of State please clarify the Government’s position on this? Is he supportive of changing homelessness legislation, or is he now going to cut his own Minister adrift? Mr Duncan Smith: We have absolutely no plans to do that. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to engage in a sensible, constructive discussion on how we define homelessness, I am happy to do that. The point I am making about what has been going on is that Opposition Members should know better—he has an ex-housing Minister sitting next to him—and that they know full well that those definitions of “homeless” are simply not true. He should have disowned them early on, before we started this debate. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is rightly trying to lower the temperature and to ensure that we deal in facts and not in hyperbole. Will he take this opportunity to deal with one other myth that has become common? Will he confirm that, if anyone in the private rented sector has to move because their property has become too expensive, it is not the Government’s policy that they should move to a far-off community with which they have no links, and that the intention will always be that they should ideally stay in the community or council area where they come from and where they have lived? Mr Duncan Smith: That is exactly what we want and what we intend. That is what we believe, for the most part, will actually happen—and in smaller numbers than people think. In some cases, there will be short moves even within boroughs. I was asked about impact assessments, and we are going to publish them. We are bound to do so by the legislation. I am not trying to hide from that. We published an impact assessment after the Budget, and we are going to publish them when the legislation is due. I have already said that we will do that.

Housing Benefit

166

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): My right hon. Friend was right to point out that I was shocked to learn in the Select Committee that I had been homeless as a child. I believe, however, that the question is not so much one of the definition of homelessness as one of whether people living on housing benefit should be forced to make the same choices that other low-income working families are forced to make. Those low-income working families typically pay rent to the 30th percentile and their children are forced to share bedrooms, as they would be in any ordinary family. It should be no different for anyone on housing benefit. Mr Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend’s exchange was the most interesting one to come out of that Committee sitting, and he is right about this. I do not think that the previous Government intended these consequences; they simply failed to recognise that their change was going to fuel this growth. If they are honest with themselves, they would say that they know that. The ex-Chancellor actually said that he thought that this was out of control. These are the sort of choices that ordinary people have to make when they cut their budgets in accordance with what housing they can afford, and that is what we are trying to do here. It is not about punishing people; it is about trying to get the rents in the social area of private renting back into line with what people are paying who are working and earning marginal incomes and are therefore unable to make ends meet. Mr Douglas Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement saying that this is not about punishing people. Can he reconcile that statement with his policy of cutting 10% of somebody’s housing benefit, when that person has done everything right, turned up for interviews, filled in applications and sought to secure jobs but alas, in a job market where five claimants chase every vacancy, has been unable to secure a job after 12 months? Mr Duncan Smith: The realities of what we are bringing in around that will make the change happen. [HON. MEMBERS: “What?”] Wait a minute—here is the real point. About 90% of all those who are unemployed are back into work within the year. That leaves us with a target of 10%. Remember that we are now bringing in the Work programme, which will work extensively with all the people in that category and return them to work. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman earlier, the changes we are making to the benefit system will make it much easier for those people to go back to work. My point is simply this: they will be achievable; they get rid of a disincentive to go to work, and we believe that they will actually work. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Bob Russell: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point? Is he saying that rents are too high in the private sector? If that is the case—I am sure that is what he said—should there not be, in the interests of fairness, other measures to deal with landlords whose rents are too high?

167

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Duncan Smith: Let me deal with that question. My Department pays for 40% of all rental housing in Britain—we pay 40% of the total bills—and is the biggest purchaser. What we do therefore has a massive effect on the marketplace. This is the point that Labour Members missed out on when they were in government. Any change they made had a direct effect on the marketplace. My simple point to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is that the change in local housing allowance, as we can see from the graphs, fuelled an immediate increase—it was not just down to the recession, but down to two particular factors. In getting the calculations wrong about the median line and the capping, they ended up allowing LHA to rocket to provide landlords with excess amounts of money for providing housing that would have cost less. How do we know that? [Interruption.] I am going to answer this really important question. We know that for two good reasons. First, if we compare those who remained on what was there before—it did not change for them because it was new people who came on to LHA—we find that the differential between where they are now and where the LHA rate is amounts to 10%. LHA growth is thus 10% above where we might have been had the change not been made. That is the first thing. [Interruption.] Hold on a second. That was one factor that fuelled the problem because it allowed landlords to push up to the 50% point, which is exactly what they did. The second point is that there are many things we can do. We now know that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the private marketplace in housing— Labour Members are completely wrong about this—fell by around 5% last year. At the same time, LHA rates, which the previous Government had set and left to us, had risen by 3%. There is thus a 7% gap with what is going on in the marketplace. What we want to do, by working with councils, is to drive those rents back down. The purpose of these changes is to give a real impetus to getting the rents down to make affordable housing more available in some areas. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): I have an excellent researcher who earns £22,000 a year. Just before I came to attend this debate, he pointed out that he has to commute into London because he cannot afford a room in central London. He remarked that his best chance of getting a flat in central London was to resign from his job and make himself homeless.

Housing Benefit

168

Mr Douglas Alexander rose— Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Members should not be constantly standing on their feet. The Secretary of State is indicating to whom he intends to give way. I would be grateful if Members resumed their seats. Mr Alexander: I would not wish the Secretary of State, however inadvertently, to leave the House with a misapprehension in relation to the impact of the 10% cut in housing benefit on those receiving jobseeker’s allowance who find themselves unemployed after a year. If I heard him correctly, he came close to saying that people would not lose out because of other changes to the benefits system, such as the introduction of the Work programme. Will he therefore explain why, in the Red Book, it is scored as a saving of £110 million? Either people will lose money and be punished because they find themselves unemployed after 12 months, or they will be better off, in which case there should not be that saving score in the Red Book. Mr Duncan Smith: We do not believe that they will reach that point. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures— Mr Alexander rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in a second. In the current static state, we will save money through the reforms that we have made. Mr Marsden: The right hon. Gentleman is setting the cap and justifying the 10% cut for the long-term unemployed on the basis that people will be moved from welfare into work. Does he not realise that part of that process involves retraining and reskilling? If he does realise that, why has there been so little discussion between him and Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? Mr Duncan Smith: I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I have been talking about the issue endlessly to Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take my word for it that I have spent a great deal of time talking to them, but if he would like to attend the next meeting, I should be more than happy to invite him.

Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: May I answer my hon. Friend’s point first before I give way? My hon. Friend’s real point is that there is no fairness in this particular system when people who have to make decisions about their housing have to commute distances to get to work. That is the reality for them. The idea that people can live exactly where there is work is simply not the case. That is the choice that people have to make. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: Many of the colleagues of the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South want me to give way to them. Does he really want to take their place? Okay—

Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way, but I want to make some progress first. The fact is that we have heard a lot of this nonsense. We have put aside a large amount of money—some £140 million, and we have been keeping the position under review—so that we can deal with the hardest cases when we believe that it is necessary for anyone to be affected or moved. The Department for Communities and Local Government is assisting us with that. Among the Opposition’s other charges was the charge that our changes were somehow not fair. The maximum rent following a cap—and the Opposition still have not said whether they agree with it—is £400, the weekly

169

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Duncan Smith] equivalent of more than £20,000 a year. Let me remind the House what someone who was out there earning would have to earn to pay that £20,000. That person would have to earn £80,000. The Government left us an LHA rate of £104,000 a year. Someone would have to earn £250,000 a year to pay that in rent. [Interruption.] I fully accept that we are dealing with the top end of the cases, who constitute by no means the largest number. The point is, however, that the previous Government were so slack with the system that they allowed abuses and excesses. Before the last election, even people on their own side were saying that they would have to change it. That is the reality. Toby Perkins: Will the Secretary of State give way? Mr Duncan Smith: I will, but then I must make some more progress. Toby Perkins: I think that the Secretary of State is focusing excessively on the cap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) has already made it clear that that is not the main focus of our objections to the Government’s proposals. The Secretary of State dealt with myths earlier. Will he now deal with the myth that housing benefit recipients are out of work? Many of them are working, but they are low-paid. More than 350 of them in Chesterfield will be badly affected, when they are trying to work their way towards a better life. Why are they the people whom the Secretary of State is attacking with his policy? Mr Duncan Smith: There are people in work who receive housing benefit, but the worst aspect of the changes with which the previous Government left us is that many of them are now trapped in short working hours. They dare not work for more hours, because they would lose too much of their housing benefit and would lose their homes as a consequence. Setting housing benefit at the levels at which the previous Government set it was no kindness to people who really do want to get on and work longer hours, because they are faced with the invidious choice of whether to move. That is one of the reasons more than 100,000 people moved in the rental market last year. Many people have to move to find a house that is suitable so that they can go and find better work. That is the reality. The hon. Gentleman’s party left us with that situation, and it is his party that he should now blame for the mess and chaos. Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way? Mr Duncan Smith: I must make a bit of progress. I will give way in a second. Although that was not the largest number, the fact is that the top 5,000 of those cases of housing benefit cost the Exchequer £100 million a year. Unless Labour Members think that £100 million a year is not a lot of money, I should like to know why the shadow Secretary of State does not say that he agrees with the capping system that we want to introduce. Will he perhaps tell me whether he agrees with the capping system? No, he will not. Yet again we have heard no policy from the Opposition, but the fact is that we inherited a chaotic housing system.

Housing Benefit

170

Mr Alexander: I repeat what I said earlier: we want to avoid the arbitrary imposition of an immediate cap resulting in higher costs, not lower costs, for the taxpayer. We are prepared to look at a phased approach, but we also think that a regional cap should be considered. Is that clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman? Mr Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of that £100 million comes from London. So what is he saying? Is he going to impose a cap on London? Mr Alexander: Even the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree that London is contained within one of the regions of the United Kingdom. Mr Duncan Smith: At last, we have an admission from the shadow Secretary of State that Labour is going to cap this. Now we only have to deal with the levels. It is unbelievable. If he wants to say that he is going to cap it, why was that not in the motion? There is not a word. Labour Members have spent the last two weeks scaring everybody out there and then not daring to tell people that they themselves want to cap. What a ridiculous lot of nonsense. The reality is that we inherited the mess that their Government left behind. Ms Buck: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Mayor of London’s housing adviser has stated that, in London alone, the cost of temporary accommodation for homeless households, arising from the impact of the caps, could exceed the total savings by £13 million in one region alone? Will he also confirm that the figure for working households on local housing allowance is almost half the total case load, including those on JSA with the 90% annual turnover that he has just confirmed? Mr Duncan Smith: The reality is that the adviser said that before he even knew about how much we were using for the discretionary allowance. [Interruption.] Hold on a second. He said “could”. The reality is that this is not going to happen. There should be no need, with the discretionary allowance, for people to be made homeless. That is just the nonsense with which Labour Members want to scare everybody. Ms Buck rose— Mr Duncan Smith: No, no; I am already answering the question. I do not agree and we do not agree with the statement that the adviser made. I have explained the issue to him personally, and he has accepted that. Ms Buck rose— Mr Duncan Smith: No, I am not going to give way. I also want to say to the hon. Lady that she includes in her figures those who are in work with those on jobseeker’s allowance. She must not confuse two different positions, yet again trying to merge figures that are not right. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I am going to make progress. Labour Members continue to try to accelerate the figures to the worst level and then make ludicrous assumptions.

171

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

That is what is going on. The fact is that we inherited 5 million people on out-of-work benefits from the Labour Government—the hon. Lady was in the Government— which they did nothing about at all. Two million people of working age are claiming incapacity benefit, of whom 900,000 have been claiming it for an entire decade. The figures that lie behind this issue are astonishing. Today we spend £1 in £3 on British welfare, which that Government left us, yet youth unemployment is higher, inequality is greater and there are 800,000 more working-age adults in poverty than in 1998-99. That is the great record of the last Government. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con) rose— Mr Duncan Smith: The housing benefit reforms have to be seen in the context of that terrible bill that we were left. Housing benefit has rocketed from £14 billion in 2005-06 to nearly £22 billion in cash terms in 2010-11. By the way, I say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who I gather was on TV earlier saying that the benefit was basically in a steady state, that that is a real-terms 50% increase in the housing bill. That does not sound like a steady state to me or anybody else I know. If left unreformed, the budget is projected to reach £24 billion in 2014-15. That is £1,500 per taxpayer per year. If Labour Members think that reasonable and fair— Mr Alexander rose— Mr Duncan Smith: No, I am not giving way right now because somebody else wants to intervene. If Labour Members think that that budget is fair, they should say to taxpayers, “We think it’s fair to charge you, who are working hard, more, to give people housing that they could not afford if they were in work.” Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He will know that one of the myths put about by the Opposition was that councils in London were already booking bed and breakfasts across the city to cope with the consequences of this policy. I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to a website called FullFact.org, which has made some freedom of information requests to local authorities in London. I shall pick just a few. In Kensington and Chelsea, no such bookings have been made; in Wandsworth, no bookings have been made in bed and breakfasts; Lewisham council confirms that it has not made any bookings— Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was supposed to be an intervention, not an opportunity to read statistics on to the record. I am sure the Secretary of State is perfectly capable of doing that himself. Mr Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is right. That was based on one comment by one person, who backed it up with no evidence. The point here is that, as we are discussing with councils, there is no need for them to worry about having to put people into homeless accommodation because once we get these numbers right, which we believe we are doing, the money we will be allowing will be sufficient to cover the costs, such as for rents and school year changes, of those who may have to move, of whom there will be far fewer than the Opposition claim.

Housing Benefit

172

That is the real point, so my hon. Friend is right. What did Labour do with the figure in question? They just used it by ramping it up and saying, “This is terrible, all these people are going to be shipped out to Reading or somewhere on the south coast”—another scare story put about by Labour. It is absurd. Mr Alexander rose— Mr Duncan Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene yet again, he should take the opportunity to say something that he should have made clear in his speech: that he abhors all those who have frightened everybody over homelessness. Mr Alexander: I am very happy to condemn people who frighten on the basis of figures, like those the right hon. Gentleman has just used to suggest the total housing benefit bill at the end of this Parliament, as that is premised on there being absolutely no change in this Parliament, despite the fact that in the first half of his speech he seemed to argue that we had had lots of reform proposals up our sleeve. Please may we have some logic and rationality? Either we were proposing to reform the system, in which case the figure will not be £24 billion, or we were not going to reform it, in which case it was. Which is it? Mr Duncan Smith: There was nothing in the spending plans and Labour Members never had the courage to tell the general public what they were going to do. They fought an election on a false premise. [Interruption.] They pretended—[Interruption.] No, it was they who pretended. They fought an election on the false premise that somehow they were not going to have to make these changes and they were not going to be severe. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell me by exactly how much they were planning to cut the housing budget; would he like me to give way so he can tell me that? He does not rise to his feet because he cannot argue that case; he is completely wrong. Labour says one thing to the public and something else in its private discussions. I want to make one other important point. I recently appeared before the Select Committee and an Opposition Member put it to me that one reason the local housing allowance figures had risen so much was that there was not enough social housing. I agree, but who do we have to blame for that over the past 10 years? That is the point. [Interruption.] Yes, 13 years in total, but the situation was particularly bad during the last 10 of them. We must remember that the previous Government left us with a house building record that is the lowest since the early 1920s. Affordable housing supply as a whole was down by more than a third under the last Government. On average, 21,800 social rented homes were built each year, even lower than the figure—which they used to argue was too low—achieved by the previous Conservative Government, which was 39,000 a year. The reality is that Labour Members set a double whammy for themselves. They introduced an LHA which then rose because they did not build enough houses, and they allowed the whole private rented market to balloon, all because of their failure during their period in government. I hope they will apologise for that one day, but I suspect not.

173

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Emily Thornberry rose— Mr Betts rose— Mr Raynsford rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I will give way in a minute. Nine tenths of the rise in housing benefit in the past 10 years is down to increased rents. To put that into context, if that increased spend in rents going to private landlords had instead been used to invest in social housing, we would have had 80,000 social homes being built per year. I therefore wonder who Labour Members think has squandered the money they had flowing into the Exchequer. Political short-termism was the reason for that. Mr Raynsford rose— Mr Duncan Smith: Okay, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman as he was one of those responsible. Mr Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State please now put the record straight and say that the increase in housing benefit attributable to rent increase covers both the social and the private sectors, and that the increase in housing association rents contributed to building the homes that were built? Will he now put the record straight and say it is completely wrong to imply that this is entirely going to private landlords when it is not? Mr Duncan Smith: When the right hon. Gentleman is in a hole he should stop digging. The reality is that he was responsible for one of the lowest levels of building social housing. I do not know whether he is proud of that, but I would not be if I were sitting there with him. We have to ensure that people who pay their way without recourse to benefits will no longer have to subsidise people who live in properties that the former could not afford. As I said, the maximum rate under the cap will be set at a level that is affordable and which some will consider generous. Based on what people spend on average on housing, the figure will be quite high; about £80,000 a year is what you would have to have. Mr Betts rose— Mr Duncan Smith: Forgive me, but I am going to make some progress, as I have given way a lot. I might give way again later. Through the emergency Budget and spending review, we proposed a set of housing benefit reforms designed to bring back under control a system that has been out of control. I accept that the responsibility of Government is always to get the balance right as we protect, incentivise, and ensure fairness in the system. Critically, for housing, that means getting the rents down. Landlords have a responsibility, and I am prepared and determined to work with councils, with the Mayor of London and with any other mayor to help get those rents down. We are the biggest purchaser of rents and I believe we will have a real role to play there. As I have pointed out, private rents have, in any case, dropped in the past year—Opposition Members need to recognise that that involves an actual figure, not one that they can conjure up like the rest of their stuff.

Housing Benefit

174

Let me remind the House how distorted the private rental market is. As I said, between November 2008 and February 2010 private rents fell by 5% and local housing allowance rates rose by 3%. LHA has now run its unaffordable course and we must turn it around; it fuelled a landlords’ charter to raise rents and has made housing more expensive for the whole population. It has not done any favours for those on low or marginal incomes; it has done them a great disservice. There are parts of central London where people can live only if they are on housing benefit or they are very wealthy. One could argue that Labour has socially cleared parts of London of working people who are trying to earn a living. That is the effect of what Labour has been doing. One would think that as the country grappled with the storm of the recession, these rents would come down, but they did not. I agree with the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South that we must manage this transition, and I am happy to talk to him about how that works. We have sought to do that because local authorities still have a statutory duty to house people, and we will work with them as well; with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, we are working with councils right now on the transition plan. Our figures show that 96% of claimants will face a shortfall of below £20 per week and the vast majority of those will see a shortfall of over that figure—I remind people that this relates to a steady state and does not even begin to recognise what happens when the rents start to fall. If they fall by any small percentage, that changes the picture dramatically. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Duncan Smith: I have said that I have given way enough, so I am going to complete this. For where problems do arise, we have tripled the discretionary housing payment to £140 million. We will keep that under review; I am prepared, where necessary, even to add to that. We will not shy away from the duty of care to provide housing for those who cannot house themselves. A safety net will not just remain; it will be improved for the most vulnerable. That will be done through an increase in discretionary housing payments and an additional bedroom for non-resident carers—the previous Government should have provided that, but never did. If we are prepared to pay, as we are, some £20,000, there is no reason anyone should be left without a home. Our choices are tough but right, and we are weeks from regulations to fix the broken system. We are in touching distance of changing things, including through producing, later this week, a welfare Bill that will put all this into context and that could change the whole prospect for the next generation as we improve work incentives, secure fairness, and protect the vulnerable. We will introduce a comprehensive work programme, which will support people going back to work in a way that has never been done before; we will build a universal credit system to ensure work pays; and we will get welfare spending under control to regain economic credibility and stability. May I remind the House of something that the Opposition did when they were in government? They made changes when they sorted out the pathway back in 2005. At that time, they made an assumption that

175

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

those who were renting could cope with an £18 increase in their rent, which they duly did. It is not as if it was us who were hammering people in difficulty; the Labour Government were already doing it and then they took their eye off the ball. That is why, over the last week, we have witnessed Labour’s confusion. Some Labour Members, although not the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, to be fair to him, but a number of his colleagues—he knows this, and I am looking him in the eye—started to blow very faintly and then louder on the dog whistle, just trying to scare people outside, winding things up until they became ludicrous and he finally had to try to draw the tone back down to a reasonable level. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man and that what we need is constructive dialogue—I am ready for that. He should say to his colleagues that if they want to show what it is really like to be in opposition preparing for government, they need to put the dog whistle away, change what they are doing and behave as though they have a credible plan. Several hon. Members rose— Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on all speeches. There are 36 or 37 Members who wish to participate this afternoon and the time limit starts now. 5.5 pm Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): The Secretary of State began by making great play about the fact that there had been what he described as “scaremongering”. However, many of my constituents are very scared about his Government’s proposals. If they have taken the trouble to listen to his speech today, I regret to say that he will have done nothing to allay their concerns. Of those in receipt of housing benefit in my city of Manchester—70,000-plus—10,000 will be affected by the proposals. Some will be affected significantly, as I hope to make clear in a moment. That is the reality. People are scared because they see either a significant loss of income or the reality that they will be forced to move home. That is what the proposals will do. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is in the Chamber. He was quoted in an election leaflet for his party in my constituency recently and it seemed to run almost totally counter to his question to the Secretary of State. I will be happy to give way to him on this point, but the words that were put into his mouth in that election leaflet were that it was “Labour lies” that people would be forced to move from their homes—Labour lies told in order to win an election. A few moments ago, he asked the Secretary of State to confirm that were people forced to move, they would be in a position to stay in the same neighbourhood. He clearly accepts that people will be forced to move under these proposals, and that, of course, is not a Labour lie but something that the Government are proposing. Simon Hughes: For the avoidance of doubt, I am very clear that if people who are in the private sector have to move they should not be forced to move away from their communities, because community cohesion is very important, and that the proposal to knock 10% off

Housing Benefit

176

people’s benefit if they have been out of work for a year and have not been able to get a job is not something I support. Tony Lloyd: That is very helpful, but I hope that if the hon. Gentleman speaks later he apologise to my constituents, at least for the words that were put into his mouth in a Lib Dem election leaflet that went out during the by-election that was won very successfully by the Labour party last week in Manchester. It was quite clear that he was quoted as saying that people would not be forced to move, but it is now clear that both he and I accept that the Government’s proposals will force people to give up their homes, and that is unacceptable and atrocious. Simon Hughes: I do not think that we can anticipate exactly what will happen, which is why speculating and making people worried is unfair. We have to go on the figures that the Government have produced in their impact assessment and I hope that the local authorities and the Government, as I have said to the Secretary of State, will agree the figures. If we get common facts, we will reduce alarm considerably. Tony Lloyd: I think that that was nearly the apology I sought, although it was not quite the apology that my constituents were entitled to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who supports this coalition. It was not quite the apology needed by those who will lose significant sums of money and will be forced to absorb that loss by not being able to spend their money on other things. Steve Webb: I think the hon. Gentleman’s own manifesto pledged this precise policy. Tony Lloyd: I am talking about the Minister’s policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) made it clear what a Labour Government would have done. That was clear also from the statements of the then Secretary of State, and it was very different from the current Government’s proposals. The proposed income loss is not something that I recognise from any Labour manifesto. The income loss will be significant for those in one, two or three-bedroom houses. In my constituency, for example, 8,000 people face an income loss of £12 to £14 a week. That sum may be trivial to a Minister or Secretary of State, but £12 to £14 is a significant part of the disposable income of somebody on housing benefit or on benefits more generally. The House ought not to countenance taking away that amount of money. It penalises the most vulnerable people in our society to prop up the Government’s policies. That is not scaremongering; it is a disgrace. Ministers and their supporters should recognise that. There is another aspect of the proposals that we should not countenance. The Secretary of State made a long and complicated speech, which gave no comfort whatever to those in my constituency who will lose money. It gave no comfort to those who will potentially lose their homes. It gave no comfort because the right hon. Gentleman is far more concerned with the polemic of his speech than with the reality of human beings who will lose out in respect of both housing and their finances.

177

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Tony Lloyd] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Government Benches will think again, particularly about some of the most difficult aspects of their proposals. There are parts of them which, with proper care and attention, we could all begin to agree with. The problem, at least in part, is the ridiculous speed of their implementation and the lack of acceptance of the impact that they will have. Were the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government are prepared to look again at the speed of their implementation, we might have a basis for real debate. The worry among my constituents is that the proposals are driven, first, by concerns of budgetary restraint—the battle that the Secretary of State fought with the Chancellor and lost—and secondly, although this is a claim that I do not make against the Secretary of State, by the apparent desire among some of his Back Benchers to penalise the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That rhetoric has come through in some of the debate. Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con) rose— Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a limited amount of time and will lose some if I give way. The speed of the changes raises real issues. Even if I believed that rents would adjust as the Secretary of State believes, they would not do so at the lightning speed required by his policies. People will not suddenly find their landlords voluntarily reducing their rents by £12, £13 or £14 a week. That will not happen for a number of reasons. Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Tony Lloyd: No, I am sorry. The first of those reasons is that there is no evidence that rents adjust at that speed. The second and more important reason is that in a city such as Manchester—a complicated city which is quite different from the London housing market, with different types of housing tenure and different types of housing cheek by jowl—the housing benefit system is not the primary driver of rental levels. Those are driven by other factors. If that thesis is right, the Secretary of State’s proposals are doomed not to succeed. If they do not succeed, rent levels will not adjust downwards and people will inevitably lose money. Even if rent levels were to adjust, they would not do that overnight. That is why, partly as a plea and partly as a demand on behalf of my constituents, I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about the speed with which the changes are implemented. The Secretary of State’s argument about jobseeker’s allowance was rather confusing. He seemed to imply that no one would really lose 10% of JSA because nobody would find themselves in that position. Even in the relatively high employment times under the Labour Government, my constituency still had serious pockets of unemployment because it is one of those constituencies that are the repository of the longer-term unemployed. In those circumstances, it is fanciful to suggest that no one on JSA will be unemployed for more than 12 months and fanciful to say that nobody will be hit by that 10% penalty.

Housing Benefit

178

Ten per cent. of JSA is a huge amount of money for somebody in that situation to lose. I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at this issue, because, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said on many occasions, those whom we regard as blameless—those who have conformed to everything that the Government and society have asked of them, sought work and gone out of their way to upskill and everything else—simply should not be penalised in the way that the Government propose. I hope that the Secretary of State, almost mirroring what he said—if he believes it—will say that if all the other changes that he proposes to benefits are to be effective, he will withdraw the 10% cut. To follow his direction of travel, it is an unnecessary 10% cut, and it simply should not exist. People in my constituency who are in work, looking for work or disabled are going to lose out under the proposals. When Manchester city council considered the measures, it discovered that the people most likely to be hurt were single parents and those seeking work. They are simply not the people whom we should penalise. If Government Members’ ambition is to penalise, they should support their Government and these proposals. If their real intention is to reform the system, they should say to their Secretary of State, “Please think again.” 5.16 pm Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): After the election the Government found themselves in a situation whereby it was necessary to curb costs in a number of areas, and housing benefit was one of them. However, it is important to do so fairly and to bear in mind the policy’s overall effect. We cannot get away from the fact that housing benefit rents went up faster than the private rental market from 2000 right the way through to 2007. That is the evidence that was given to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. In 2008, the system changed, the local housing allowance came in and the situation became worse. The National Housing Federation, in its evidence to the Committee, said that “private sector landlords increased rents with the introduction of Local Housing Allowances… the average housing benefit reward for Local Housing Allowance cases is over £9 per week more than for people still on the previous scheme… the Local Authority Omnibus Survey…finds that Housing Benefit managers say that some landlords are using the transparency of the arrangements to raise rents to the Local Housing Allowance level.”

The British Property Federation said that “rents in some areas have adjusted towards the local housing allowance rates and in markets where there are significant claimants this is seen as the ‘going rate’.”

Paddington citizens advice bureau in central London said that “we understand the need to place a cap on rents paid by the tax payer, especially in central London where the LHA was spiralling out of control”.

I shall not cite any more evidence, but I remember that during the Committee’s previous inquiry into housing allowance earlier this year and before the general election, Blackpool, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden referred, was specifically mentioned, because the broad rental market area there included Fylde. As a result, all the rents in central Blackpool went up far faster and far higher than was expected, so

179

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

it is not surprising that the change under discussion, which I hope will rectify the situation, will have an impact in Blackpool. Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): In evidence to the Committee, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told us that the average returns for private landlords in the housing benefit market were 4 to 5%. Does my hon. Friend agree that that seems to be a significant return for any private landlord? Mr Heald: My hon. Friend, who makes an important contribution to the Committee, makes an important point. If we look at the effect of the policy, we find no doubt that landlords will reduce rents, because all the evidence to the Committee suggests that they will. There are arguments about how much effect the changes will have, but the British Property Federation and the Residential Landlords Association have said that 29% of landlords would reduce rents voluntarily. The Cambridge university research for Shelter shows that 29% of tenants will not be able to negotiate a rent reduction or make up the difference. It concludes that of the remaining 29%, 50% of the group will be in difficulties because landlords will not accept the lower rents paid and will not forbear. It says that some £42 million to £82 million a year will be needed to help those who do not get that forbearance from the landlord, are unable to negotiate a change, and so on. Let us bear in mind, however, that the Government have set aside very substantial resources for exactly this problem. One might say that the mid-point is around £60 million, which is the figure that the Government are moving towards, although the Secretary of State said, very reasonably, that he will keep it under review and see what exact figure is needed. It is completely wrong to suggest that the Government have gone into this without realising that they must match hardship if it is found. Mr McCann: If this is about a recalibration of rent, why are the Government using the poorest and most vulnerable in society as a battering ram to get there? Mr Heald: To be fair, the hon. Gentleman should think occasionally about the hard-pressed taxpayer. Working people on the lowest incomes pay lower rents than housing benefit claimants. Surely the principle should be that we all want to help someone worse off than ourselves, but that the average taxpayer should not be expected to put a person into a better position than he himself would ever be able to afford. Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): Would not a better approach be to follow the regulatory reforms in the Republic of Ireland and 40 other countries, and in New York city, where rents are capped for benefit recipients and for normal working people? That would enable the Government to control their benefits bill as well as making rents affordable for normal working people. Mr Heald: As somebody who believes in markets, I think that what really needs to happen is that we have enough social housing. As the Secretary of State said, it is woeful that the previous Government, who were supposed to want to help people in that situation, did so little over all those years. I am very hopeful that the proposals will improve matters.

Housing Benefit

180

Ms Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Heald: I am running short of time, I am afraid. Let me turn to disincentives to work. The fact is that the Government’s welfare programme is all about trying to get people back to work. It is a big ambition to do something about the 3 million households where nobody works, even though there are people of working age. Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab) rose— Ms Buck rose— Mr Heald: I have got only a few minutes left, and I have already given way three or four times. It is a disincentive for someone to work if they know that they will never be able to earn enough to pay their rent. That is a ludicrous situation in which to have trapped people. We need to tackle that problem, and there is no other truly sensible way of doing so. Ms Buck: Just before this myth takes hold too completely, will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that just under half the recipients of local housing allowance are either in work or on jobseeker’s allowance? The Secretary of State confirmed that 90% of JSA claimants returned to work within a year. Constantly repeating the idea that housing benefit claimants are not in work is misleading the House, frankly. Mr Heald: But the hon. Lady must accept that the Secretary of State has a grand ambition, which is to get people into work. One of the ways of doing that is the universal credit, which tackles the very problem that she is talking about. We should be supporting the Secretary of State, as a Parliament, for finally tackling some of these dreadful issues that have pulled our country back for so many years. She really must not go around telling people that 50% of such people are in work or on JSA, because 13% are in work, not 50%. Someone who enters work on low pay loses housing benefit very soon afterwards. Addressing that issue is one of the great improvements that universal credit will bring. I support the policy, and I believe that the independent evidence supports it. 5.24 pm Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed so far. The Secretary of State likened his welfare reform programme to that of William Beveridge in the 1940s. I welcome his ambition, but I suspect that Beveridge would have major criticisms of the unnecessary hardship that the Government’s housing benefit proposals will cause. It is a matter of great regret that no member of Beveridge’s party has yet risen to their feet to criticise these unjust proposals. Beveridge supported a contribution-based welfare state and the Government doing more to stimulate job creation. That would represent the foundations of genuine welfare reform, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their plans, which will unduly punish those who have the least. They cannot in any shape or form be described as progressive.

181

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr William Bain] There are three key issues of concern to my constituents: the proposals to slash housing benefit payments by 10% for those who find themselves on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more; the restriction of local housing allowance payments to rent for properties in the lowest 30% of rental levels, rather than the median level; and the plans for a crude national cap on housing benefit payments. The 10% cut hides the inconvenient truth for the Government that affected tenants will have to make up the difference from their jobseeker’s allowance. A single, childless person will therefore experience a drop of almost 30% in their disposable income, as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations established in its briefing. For the 970 people in Glasgow North East who have been out of work for more than 12 months, the measure could mean a loss of £25 a week in their incomes. Across the UK, the proposals are expected to save £110 million a year from 2013, but at what price to my constituents and to 4.7 million constituents of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House, who face being pushed into higher levels of poverty? The SFHA underlined in its briefing that approximately 700,000 people in the social and private rented sectors would be affected by the new rule, losing an average of £9 a week. Overall, 5,445 people in Glasgow who have been on JSA for 12 months or more will lose out—some 22% of all housing benefit recipients in the city. The loss for the 2,750 Glaswegians receiving the allowance for a one-bedroom flat will be £7 a week, for the 2,390 affected people in two-bedroom houses it will be £10 a week, for the 590 recipients in a three-bedroom house it will be £15 a week, and for the 50 families in four-bedroom houses it will be £22 a week. The Glasgow Housing Association has said that between 11 and 16% of its tenants will be affected by the changes to the rules on presumed under-occupancy of properties. Unable to make ends meet, tenants will suffer higher expenses and the prospect of substantial debts. At worst, they will lag behind on their rent payments and perhaps ultimately face eviction. People will be pushed out of prosperous areas where they have the highest prospects of finding work, and there will be an increase in unemployment and social tensions in areas that are already marginalised and suffer multiple deprivation. Under the stricter medical tests that the Government have introduced, people will be moved off employment and support allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance and on to jobseeker’s allowance. They will be at a greater disadvantage in the labour market, and will they not find it more difficult to find a job within 12 months? If healthy and fit people are unable to find work under the Government’s policies, what chance have the most vulnerable ? In the June Budget, the Chancellor assured the House that he was aiming to protect the most vulnerable in our society, but the Government’s proposals will hurt the most vulnerable and those who are trying to find work, at a time when their fiscal policies will make that much more difficult with the loss of almost 1 million public sector and associated private sector jobs, as PricewaterhouseCoopers established recently. The truth

Housing Benefit

182

is, as the Office for Budget Responsibility established in June, there is no guarantee that the economy will be in a state to secure the availability of sufficient jobs by 2013. Singling out those who can least afford to lose money is neither fair nor progressive. The Government should consider investing in affordable housing rather than slashing the budget by half over the course of this Parliament. That would not only secure savings in the long term, but protect the vulnerable and incentivise work in the coming year. I support welfare reform that ensures that taking a job will pay and that improves work and training opportunities for those whom previous initiatives have not reached. However, my hon. Friends and I cannot support plans that set out to punish the most vulnerable in our society, who make great efforts to seek work, and who deserve a Government who is on their side and not preparing to abandon them at their time of greatest need. These are the wrong proposals targeting the wrong people. I hope hon. Members across the House will reject them and support the Opposition’s motion in the Division Lobby tonight. 5.31 pm Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD): For many years, housing benefit has acted as a barrier for people who are trying to get back into work. I remember many debates in the last Parliament in which hon. Members raised concerns about people being trapped in poverty, out of work and frustrated. If, for example, a constituent got a job and lost their housing benefit, they would not be able to afford their rent. To be fair, the previous Government put much effort into ensuring that people would be better off in work than they were on benefits, but the housing benefit rules often scuppered such efforts. I hope that these proposals, which are part of the wider reform of the benefit system of which universal credit is a part, will help people get out of that benefit trap and into work. They should also benefit people who are working and paying tax. As many hon. Members have said, it is unfair when such people see the Government paying for a home for someone else that they could not possibly afford themselves, even though they are working. There have been some positive changes, including the proposals for people with disabilities. Previously, a person who had a full-time carer could not claim for a room for them. In the previous Parliament, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) said, the Work and Pensions Committee recommended a change to that unfair system. I am very glad that such a proposal is now being introduced, as it rights a wrong. I warmly welcome the long-overdue decision to reform housing benefit. Although I have concerns about some of the Government’s proposals, I have to say that much of the criticism of the plans has been extremely overblown. Much has been said in the media and in the debate today, and I am sure that more points will be raised later tonight. I will raise my concerns with the Minister, and I look forward to his response. One problem with the local housing allowance that was identified in the previous Parliament concerns the broad rental market areas. Many BRMAs are very large and cover very different areas. Cambridge is often cited as an example. The BRMA covers the city itself, a large

183

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

rural area and some smaller towns, including Newmarket and Ely. Shelter’s research found that in Cambridge itself, only 4% of rental properties were affordable to people on LHA, while in rural areas up to 70% were affordable. That has significant implications for people on local housing allowance who want to access work. They are pushed out of the city, which is where most of the jobs, particularly the low-paid jobs, are to be found. That is not a new problem. It arose as soon as LHA was introduced. If the Government change the LHA calculation from the median rent to the 30th percentile—I am afraid that this sounds like jargon—BRMAs such as Cambridge or Blackpool, which already have a problem, could find things getting even worse. The Select Committee recommended an urgent review of the particularly problematic BRMAs, which I hope the Government will consider further in the light of the proposed changes. I would also like some reassurance on the raising of the age limit for the shared room rate from 25 to 35. I understand the Government’s argument that it is often unlikely that young people in work could afford to rent on their own, and they are more likely to rent a room in a shared property. However, when the Select Committee considered that point earlier in the year, we found that the shared room rate led to an increased threat of homelessness, particularly for vulnerable young people. It is unlikely that those who have recently been made homeless, or those who are suffering from a mental illness or recovering from an addiction, will be able to organise living in a shared household, but they constitute the group most likely to face a shortfall between rent and local housing allowance. Increasing the age limit to 35 could broaden that pool of people and increase the number of people facing a shortfall and homelessness—and because plugging that gap is often left to discretionary housing benefit, this has implications for the Government’s plans in that area. I welcome the significant increase that the Government have announced in the amount available for discretionary housing benefit over the next four years. That will be very important in determining how well the changes are made. However, discretionary housing benefit is usually used only for short-term payments—certainly, my constituency casework leads me to believe that that is how local authorities see it. Often, for example, it will be paid, following a change of circumstances, to tide people over until they can make longer-term arrangements. Some of the Government’s proposals for changing housing benefit will have more long-term implications there, including the changes involving the shared room rate, and so on. Local authorities need more flexibility in their use of discretionary housing benefit over the long term in order to plug the gap and ensure that we do not end up targeting particularly vulnerable people. The biggest issue for my colleagues and me, however, is one that has been mentioned by hon. Members already—the proposal to reduce housing benefit for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year. If we really are trying to help people off benefits and into work, this arbitrary limit makes no sense. It does not take into account the job market in a particular area or the effort that a claimant may have made to find a job, and it could have serious implications for child poverty, in particular. I hope that the Government can think through that proposal again. If we are applying

Housing Benefit

184

the test that the reforms should support vulnerable people, help them into work and ensure they have a roof over their heads, while ensuring that work pays, reducing housing benefit for jobseekers after one year fails that test. That is a shame, because most of the rest of the proposals are sensible. Overall, I welcome the reforms, and I am glad that at last the Government are doing something. Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady confirm that her website states that the benefit cuts will hit the poorest hardest? If so, would she like to put that on the record in the House? Jenny Willott: I have to confess that I am not au fait with every page on my website. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”] Having returned a few weeks ago from maternity leave, I am afraid that my brain is suffering somewhat. However, that is for a debate on the comprehensive spending review in general. This debate is specifically about housing benefit, on which I have made my views very clear. Overall, I welcome the reforms, and I am glad that at last the Government are sorting out housing benefit. It has been of significant concern to Members on both sides of the House for many years. Government Members all have the same aim, and I hope that the Government can take my comments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. We would all like housing benefit to be set up in a way that helps people lift themselves out of poverty and progress through work, and does not act as a barrier to people trying to show ambition and better themselves. I hope that by tweaking the proposals we can do just that. 5.39 pm Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Let me draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register. It is clear that the Government are pursuing a policy not of housing benefit reform but of housing benefit cuts—a policy based on assumptions that are wholly untested. Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Raynsford: No, I have only just started. I will give way in due course, but the hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little impatient. He might benefit from listening for a moment before interrupting. The policy is based on assumptions, many of which are wholly untested, premises that are, frankly, incredible, and an absence of detailed impact assessments of how the eight different cuts will cumulatively affect the 4.75 million households that currently receive housing benefit. In my view, it is that absence of a detailed and thorough appraisal of the impact of the cuts that is the most serious indictment of the Government. We have heard the Secretary of State’s claim that the effect of the changes will be to reduce rent levels in the private rented sector. His noble Friend Lord Freud made a similar claim last week when, according to a report in The Guardian, he said: “We are expecting a large number of people who see less housing benefit to be able to negotiate their rents downwards, and the landlords will move to the new lower rate.”

185

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Raynsford] As the Secretary of State and Lord Freud are clearly not totally familiar with the rented market, let me remind them and their colleagues on the Front Bench what is actually going on. Yesterday’s Evening Standard reported: “Widespread rental ‘gazumping’ has hit London for the first time as desperate tenants fight to secure homes. Rents have soared by up to 35 per cent this year, with as many as one in four landlords asking for sealed bids from applicants, according to one agent.”

The director of a lettings agency is quoted as saying: “The exceptional demand for rental properties which we saw earlier in the summer is showing no signs of slowing down. If anything, the rental market is now more red-hot than a month ago.”

He said that “one four-bedroom ex-council home was recently let in Camberwell for £500 a week—£150 above the asking price and more than 40 per cent higher than the previous rent.”

A partner at Cluttons is quoted as saying: “occupancy rates stand at an unprecedented 95 to 98 per cent, as tenants opt to stay put rather than move and risk being frozen out,”

adding that “the stampede for homes was at all levels of the market, from studio to family homes and is in all areas of London.”

She said: “We had a studio let at Cinnamon Wharf in Shad Thames that had been on at around £225 to £230 a week. I suggested putting it on at £305 and we got that within half a day.”

The director of another agency said: “The demand for rental property will heat up even further in the medium-term and gazumping will become even more common as tenants look for any way in which they can get ahead of the competition.”

Bob Russell: I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what interest he was declaring, but my question to him now is this: is he not talking about supply and demand? If the issue is supply and demand, why did the previous Government, in which he played a leading role for 13 years, fail with the supply? Mr Raynsford: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in many previous debates. When we came into government in 1997 we inherited a very serious problem caused by the condition of the existing housing stock, as he knows. He also knows that a great deal of money was put into the decent homes programme to improve the condition of millions of social homes throughout the country. Because that was a priority, perhaps not enough was spent on building new homes, but if he looks at the figures, he will know that during the later years of the previous Government, until the recession hit, there was a rising trend of new house construction in all tenures, including social housing. Had that been sustained, we would now be seeing levels approaching those set out by Kate Barker in her report. Obviously there has been a recession in the meantime. It has hit the world—it has hit this country and everywhere else—but given that situation, we want to see policies that will improve prospects rather than make things worse. The problem is that the present Government have managed to destabilise every part of the housing market. House builders are in shock because of the ill-considered planning changes. The private rented sector

Housing Benefit

186

is in difficulty. Landlords are worried about the proposed changes to housing benefit. The social housing sector has been pulverised by the Government’s proposal to remove security of tenure and to jack up rents to near market levels. That has created a serious problem of anxiety and lack of confidence in all sectors of the market. Not surprisingly, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, there is therefore a problem with shortage of supply. That is precisely what is driving rent levels. Mr Burley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Raynsford: No. I have given way once, and I must make a little more progress. All hon. Members should realise that the Government’s hope that the changes will lead to a reduction in rents is delusional. It will not happen, and the consequence will be that many people who depend on access to private rented housing, and on a degree of housing benefit to support it—many of them are in low-paid work—will find it harder and harder to compete in an increasingly tough market. I am afraid that the Government are making things worse. Simon Hughes: One factor over the past 13 years that affected supply was the number of right-to-buy applications exercised by tenants. Does the right hon. Gentleman support a discretion for local councils to decide whether to allow the right to buy? That has become the policy throughout Wales. Mr Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject. The right to buy now has a relatively minor influence on the supply of housing, because most people in social rented housing are on incomes that make it impossible for them to buy. I would not change the current rules. I think it is right to have an option for people to buy, but in the current market there will not be many who take that up. I want the focus to be on securing a good supply of rented accommodation through social and private providers at rents that people can afford, supported by a proper benefit system. We know that a substantial number of local housing allowance recipients are in properties where the rent is higher than the LHA. I have quoted the answer given by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), earlier this month that 48% of LHA recipients had to meet a shortfall because their rent was higher than the LHA. It is absurd for the Government to argue that the LHA is driving increases in rent, when the evidence that I quoted from the Evening Standard shows that it is the private market and the huge demand in the private market that is driving the increase. A very high proportion of LHA recipients will find it increasingly hard to compete, because their LHA is already below the rent that they are paying. Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Raynsford: No. I will not give way because I have very little time left. The Minister should remember that private tenants who are dependent on housing benefit may find that they are priced out of the market as a result of the Government’s policies. I am surprised that he and his party are prepared to countenance that.

187

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Housing Benefit

188

The hard questions that Ministers must answer—they have not done so—is simply: where will the tens, and perhaps hundreds, of thousands of LHA recipients go when their allowance is cut to a level that makes it impossible for them to make up the shortfall, and their landlord declines to reduce the rent?

not intend to dwell for too long on the national debt that is approaching £1 trillion, the deficit of £150 billion, or on the fact that we are paying more than £40 billion a year in interest, which is £120 million a day. That is more than we are paying for either our police or our universities.

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman cited a £500 rent on a four-bedroom property—he quoted that from a newspaper—which is above our cap. Is it his policy that taxpayers should pay someone £500 for a four-bedroom property?

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we had to pay more to service the debt based on borrowing to pay for tax rebates than the cost of defence and transport put together?

Mr Raynsford: No, it is not, and the point has already been made that that is not a housing benefit letting; it is a market letting being driven by the market. The Minister finds that difficult to understand because of his extraordinary prejudice that the local housing allowance is somehow driving the increase. I would have thought that he understood that, because he has some grasp of economics. He should also understand the cumulative effect of a series of such changes: not just the cap, not just the local housing allowance, but the change in non-dependant deductions, the restriction of the entitlement of social housing tenants of working age who are deemed to occupy larger accommodation than they need, the extension of the shared room rate to single applicants aged 35—the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) raised that anxiety—the change to the uprating formula using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, the 10% cut in benefits for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year, and the overall cap on benefit entitlement. Cumulatively, those changes will have a devastating effect. Why has the Minister, with his distinguished background in social policy, not insisted on proper appraisals of the cumulative impact, and the impact over a period, of all the changes, which will have dire consequences for many people on very low incomes? This is not evidence-based policy making; it is faith-based policy making, using assumptions that most of the commentators in the outside world who have a real understanding of these things believe to be seriously flawed. I put it to the Minister that unless the Government can give us evidence that their policy will reduce rents in the private sector—for which there is not a shred of convincing evidence—and that the cumulative impact of the changes will not have dire consequences for many vulnerable people, the only decent thing for them to do is to withdraw their package and say that they will look again at the measures and discuss with the Opposition agreed arrangements to deal with abuses of the system without causing vulnerable people to suffer. If they do that, they will have our support. If they do not, I hope that all hon. Members with open minds will vote for the motion tonight. 5.51 pm James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): I disagree with much of what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said, but he made one key observation that many Opposition Members would do well to heed. He referred to the legacy that the previous Labour Government inherited from the Conservatives, and many Labour Members forget the context in which so many of the decisions that the new Government are now taking must be understood—namely, the terrible financial situation that we inherited from Labour. I do

James Wharton: The hon. Gentleman is right to voice his concern about any level of Government debt, and I entirely understand the historic context in which the new Labour Government found themselves, and the one in which we find ourselves today. It is important, however, that we do not spend all our time looking back. We must look forward and consider what the Government are doing to address the challenges that we face, and specifically address the issue of housing benefit, which is just one piece of that much larger jigsaw. Housing benefit today costs about £21 billion a year, and we have heard about the trend of housing benefit costs in recent years. Between 2000 and 2007, it increased by about 25%, and, in the past five years, it increased by about 50%. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the difficult times during the worst of the recession when it was increasing at its greatest rate. That was true, and we cannot take those times as typical and project them forward, but we can identify a clear long-term trend of housing benefit costs increasing unsustainably and putting a burden on the Exchequer that cannot be maintained in this day and age. The Government therefore have to make some tough choices. A word that we frequently hear on both sides of the House, in different contexts, is “fairness”. We are asked what it means to be fair. Opposition Members appear to dwell on outputs, rather than giving consideration, as is correct when considering any matter of fairness, to what people put in—that is, to inputs and outcomes. It is important to look at the proposed changes to housing benefit in the context of the national financial situation, and of the need for real fairness that takes proper account of what the Government can do to help people out of poverty and into work, and to take away the benefit traps that hold people back in poverty and on housing benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) said, housing benefit is one of the very worst benefits when it comes to encouraging people and helping to make work pay, because of the very steep rate at which it is withdrawn. Ms Buck: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact of housing benefit during the recession. Does he accept that 250,000 households claimed housing benefit during the period between 2008 and 2010 because their earnings dropped? Does that not show that housing benefit has a critical role to play in sustaining people, both in work and in their homes, during difficult times? James Wharton: The hon. Lady is quite right. That is why nobody on either side of the House would ever propose to do away with it. It is an important part of the welfare state in this country, but that does not mean that spending on housing benefit should be allowed to

189

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[James Wharton] escalate out of control indefinitely. That is why the Government are introducing measures to bring it under control and to ensure that people are properly incentivised to find work, to earn and to contribute successfully to our economy. The hon. Lady is right to say that housing benefit is important, however; that is why it is being reformed in a way that will secure its sustainable future. Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? James Wharton: I will not give way again. In the context of the understanding of fairness, let us look at what the Government are doing. We have heard talk about the cap, and it is abundantly obvious that it is not fair for a family or an individual to be able to claim more in housing benefit than an average family takes home in earnings in any given week, month or year. If we set the cap at £20,000 a year, that will still be a very high level. That is the equivalent of earning just over £26,000 a year, as that is what someone would need to earn to have the income to pay that amount of rent without claiming housing benefit support. That is more than the average wage of my constituents, and more than the average wage in the north-east generally. It is also more than the average wage in many of the constituencies of Members on both sides of the House. We cannot expect people who work hard but do not earn large sums of money to pay tax to subsidise individuals and families who are unable to work, for whatever reason, to live in homes that those taxpayers themselves could not afford. This is an important issue, but there are many other measures involved. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it was fair to use the 30th percentile to set the level at which housing benefit would be paid in any given area. The Department’s research has shown that, in any given area, just over 30% of properties would be available within that price band, and I suggest that that makes it abundantly obvious that this is not an unreasonable step. Given the difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves, this is a way of finding some of the necessary savings while ensuring that those who need help will still get it. It will ensure that support will be there for those who will benefit from it most, while not unfairly disadvantaging the people who work hard to pay their taxes to enable this to happen. It is important to look at these points in the round, and in the context of the world in which we live today. Many Opposition Members are not keen to talk about discretionary housing payments because, for many of those who hit particular hardship, such payments will increase. This will help individuals who are in danger of losing their homes, who fall through the gaps between policies or who find themselves in difficulty through no fault of their own. The Government are increasing the provision to £140 million over five years to ensure that, when people are in particular need or when their circumstances are particularly difficult, help is there to ensure that they can stay in their homes and communities. People should not be made homeless by the steps that are being taken, and the Government are taking steps to ensure that that does not happen.

Housing Benefit

190

Another measure that Opposition Members often overlook relates to overnight carers. At the moment, the fact that someone has an overnight carer, because they have a disability or for any other reason, is not accounted for when calculating the amount of housing benefit they receive. The Government will change that, and 15,000 people who currently have overnight carers but are not entitled to have the need to provide accommodation for them taken into account in their housing benefit allowance will be better off as a direct result. Their needs will specifically be catered for in a way that, disgracefully, has not been the case for many years. Lots of changes are taking place in housing benefit, as well as right across the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments. Opposition Members are right to raise concerns, when they have them, and to call for a debate when that is appropriate. When I look at the motion today, however, I find it most striking that they have suggested no alternatives. This is not an Opposition who are here to put forward alternative proposals or an alternative plan to deal with some of the problems we face. It is an Opposition who are opposing for opposition’s sake. Matthew Hancock: I compliment my hon. Friend on his extremely fluent speech. In talking about the tone of this debate, does he agree that it is important not to make scaremongering comments that put people ill at ease when the changes being made are very important to get a grip on this particular budget? James Wharton: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The point has been raised a few times already—that the tone of this debate in public and in the media has not necessarily been as it should. When we are talking about people’s homes, people’s allowances and changes that will affect people’s lives, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do so in a careful, measured and sensible way. Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con): I am not sure whether my hon. Friend’s experience has been the same as mine, but many people I talk to in my constituency think that the proposals being put forward are sensible, logical and should have been made an awful long time ago. James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend for another excellent intervention. He is, of course, right about how right-thinking people look at some of these measures—I single out the cap of £20,000 on the maximum amount of housing benefit that can be claimed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is equivalent to earning more than £26,000 a year. These are reasonable steps taken to deal with a very real problem. If Opposition Members wish to continue to oppose what the Government are doing, I urge them to come up with proposals and solutions of their own, so that we can have a properly informed debate—rather than mudslinging, calling names and worrying all the people who rely on Members from all parties to represent them and do the right thing. 6.1 pm Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am keen to make sure that we do not get bogged down in a

191

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

debate about what is happening to the caps in London, which has been the tenor of the debate in much of the media and, indeed, here today. I understand why my hon. Friends representing London constituencies feel angry and annoyed about the impact of the changes on their constituents, but I would like to look further afield at the impact across the country. The difficulty with the emphasis on the caps that might apply only in London is that we need to acknowledge that the real cap is the 30 percentile that will apply in each of the broad rental area markets. It is not right to look at four-bedroom houses that can be had for less than £400 a week in an individual constituency and then say, as did the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), “Well, that’s fine; you can get that if you are on housing benefit”. That is simply not the case. We already know, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), that even at the present the 50 percentile level many of our constituents still have to supplement their housing benefit to pay the rent. We know that people, even today, before any of these changes come into place, have to spend perhaps £10 or £20 out of their benefit to pay their rent. We know that because on a Select Committee visit, we encountered an elderly gentleman at a citizen’s advice bureau who had found it very difficult to get a house or a one-bedroom flat within the money afforded under the BRMA—broad rental market areas—level at 50 percentile. He already had to spend £10 a week out of his pension credit to supplement his rent. Another point worth noting is that the people who receive housing benefit are not all of working age, so the Government’s purpose of incentivising work does not apply to them. What incentive does an old-age pensioner have if they stand to lose perhaps a considerable portion of their rent, and what incentive is there for such a pensioner to have to move home in order to find an affordable rent? I hope that we can start to concentrate on some of the people who are not in the percentages quoted—the people who can move and can find somewhere affordable. For every 50% of the people who can move, there are 50% who cannot move; for every 50% who can easily find affordable rented accommodation, there are 50% who cannot. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) said, only £65 million of the savings on the housing benefit budget will come from the cap, which will apply predominantly in London, whereas the full savings amount to £1.8 billion. I would like us to consider what is happening in Aberdeen—not a typical place and probably an exception, but it might help to highlight some important issues. Only 6% of housing benefit claimants—910—in Aberdeen are in the private rented sector. Of them, only 370 of them—about a third—are likely to be worse off. Moreover, only 9% in the private rented sector actually claim housing benefit. If we accept what the Government are saying, this 9% should find it easy to find a house within the 30 percentile—obviously, because only 9% of them are trying to find it. That appears to be a no-brainer, but that is not the case. The reason is that they are competing with people who are already on low pay but perhaps do not have housing benefit and are trying to find somewhere else to live.

Housing Benefit

192

We also know that there is a housing shortage in Aberdeen, as there is in many other places, so many landlords will not rent for housing benefit. That might not be true elsewhere, but it is true in an area where we have a buoyant housing market. If only 6% of housing benefit claimants are in the private rented sector, it cannot be true that it is housing benefit rates that are pushing up the rents in Aberdeen. We know that rents are going up. It cannot be true that landlords will therefore reduce their rent because we know that there are plenty of other people who will be willing to take these houses if the housing benefit person cannot afford them. There will be areas in which the market will not operate effectively, as my “hon. Friend”—I call him that, because he is on the Select Committee with me—the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) said, but although it may be true in some areas, it will definitely not be true in other areas that already have a buoyant market. Lastly, even if we accept the Government’s argument that landlords will reduce the rent, there will inevitably be a time-lag for all that to happen. I do not think that people will move all that often in Aberdeen. Constituents have come to see me because they cannot afford the deposit on their new house or they cannot afford their first month’s rental or they cannot afford the bond that they are expected to find—I believe that applies just in Scotland. The cost of moving is difficult for people to meet. Landlords, however, will not reduce the rent initially; they will need to be persuaded in some way that they cannot get that rental anywhere else. In the meantime, individuals will have had to move at great cost and it might be difficult for them to find somewhere until the market adjusts. Even accepting the argument that the market will adjust, we are still looking at a six-month period in which people will be either forced to move or build up a huge amount of arrears. It is going to be difficult for this group of people to negotiate lower rents. I have tried to show that there are issues beyond what is happening in London. Different areas can have different problems. There is no single solution that will have the same effect across the whole country. I hope that the Government will listen to that argument. 6.9 pm Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con): Fairness is a constantly recurring theme today, and fairness has been the dominant feature of this reforming Government’s coalition agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) that we must also be fair to the people who pay the taxes that pay for the housing benefit and local housing allowance. I know what I am talking about, because my constituents earn extremely low wages. In the past 10 years the average wage in Hastings, which used to be £30 below the average United Kingdom rent, has fallen to £100 below that figure. I know about low wages. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) spoke of people who were vulnerable. People on low wages are also vulnerable, and I feel strongly that they should not be charged with paying the housing benefit of people who live in houses and in areas where those on low wages could not begin to live themselves.

193

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): Does the hon. Lady agree with councillors in Hastings who have expressed concern about the additional pressures that the Government’s policies will impose on their local community, including additional costs for education and children’s services? Amber Rudd: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that point, because it is exactly the one with which I am about to deal. Earlier in the debate, we heard about sensational articles in newspapers and unrealistic reporting. I am afraid that Hastings has been on the receiving end of quite a lot of that. I have spoken to the councillors who made those comments and to our director of housing, Andrew Palmer, who has done excellent work. I asked him how many London councils had made inquiries of him, and he said none. I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to speak to the people who run the bed-and-breakfast establishments that he very rarely uses—although he has had to do so occasionally—and to the landlords whom he uses for the purposes of the local housing allowance. He said that he had spoken to all of them, and that not one of them had received such an inquiry. I strongly believe that we have been reading sensationalist reports in the newspapers. There is an apocalyptic vision of a group of Londoners arriving on the south coast, but it simply is not happening. I think it important to repeat that so that people do not become fearful. They do not have to believe what is said by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about extra pressure on education establishments, because that is not happening at the moment. We hope that rents will fall. Members will not be surprised to hear that I agree with much that has been said by Conservative Members about reducing rents. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke of the unrealistic aspect of falling house rents, and referred to an article in the Evening Standard that focused mainly on larger houses. In my constituency at least, between 80% and 90% of people who receive local housing allowance live in homes with one to two bedrooms. The larger house element does not feature so much, although it represents a large cost. I am told by Westminster council, whose representatives I have consulted, that house prices in its area are falling rather than rising. Mr Raynsford: When the hon. Lady reads the record of the debate, she will see that among the quotations that I gave from the article in the Evening Standard was one from an agent who said that properties of all sizes were affected, from the largest to the smallest, and that all areas of London were affected. Amber Rudd: I am interested to hear that London is affected. We will see the consequences, but at present I am receiving different answers and people are reaching different conclusions. It is not entirely clear how the private sector will respond, but one thing is entirely clear: we cannot continue with the cost as it is now. Mr Heald: When the London councils gave evidence to the Select Committee, they said that 40% of landlords would cut their rents. Amber Rudd: The 40% figure is totemic in this debate. As we know, 40% of private rented properties are used by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Housing Benefit

194

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Like me, the hon. Lady represents a seaside town. If Kosovo-style clear-outs do take place in the inner cities—[Interruption.] It was Boris Johnson who used that phrase. If that does happen, it is logical to assume that people will go where there is cheap available accommodation: houses in multiple occupation in seaside towns such as the hon. Lady’s and mine. Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not want to let the facts interfere with a good story. Some of the newspapers have taken the same view. However, he too should try to look at the facts. He should establish whether London councils are making such inquiries, and whether B-and-Bs are being booked up. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Rents are expected to fall, which will make things less costly for us all. Ms Buck: My local authority, Westminster council, has written to me and to Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government, asking for changes in the homelessness legislation because of the potential impact of the cuts, and stating that it will expect substantial out-of-borough bookings for temporary accommodation if the proposals go ahead unamended. Amber Rudd: That is an interesting comment, but I can tell the hon. Lady that I have spoken to the cabinet member in charge of Westminster council—which has the largest supply of houses at the top level above the cap—and she told me unequivocally that the council was not doing that. Ms Buck: I have a letter. Amber Rudd: I also have a letter. Perhaps we can exchange letters later, and see what the conclusion is. It is impossible not to see these reforms of housing benefit outside the context of the overall attempt to carry out the reforms of the welfare system to which the Government are so committed. I commend to all Members a fascinating article in today’s The Times by a former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which he draws strong parallels between our efforts to reform the welfare system and the proposals on which he had been working for the past few years, until the last two years or so, when he was unable to obtain any traction and had to resign. He spoke of the line that Government must tread between the poverty trap and the welfare trap. That is exactly what this Government are trying to do, but let me add that there is not just a welfare trap or a poverty trap. The welfare trap is a poverty trap in its own right. It is not a good place in which to be, but our efforts to reduce housing benefit and introduce a universal credit will start to change the present position and make a fairer society for us all. Several hon. Members rose— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that I am going to reduce the speaking time to seven minutes, because so many Members wish to contribute and I want to ensure that all of them can do so.

195

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

6.17 pm Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): Let me begin by referring the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), although I beg to differ with her interesting interpretation of the word “fairness”. The Government’s £1.8 billion cuts in housing benefit will push the most vulnerable families in our society into poverty and debt. It has been estimated that up to 12,000 households in the north-east could be made homeless. The Government are using extreme examples to justify their wholesale swingeing cuts, but the simple truth is that most housing benefit recipients are low-income, hard-working families, pensioners, carers, and people with disabilities. The housing charity Shelter estimates that only one in eight housing benefit recipients is unemployed. We should not lose sight of the fact that housing benefit is also an in-work benefit. In fact, the average housing benefit award to private sector tenants in Sunderland is just £93 per week, and for social tenants it is even less: £69 per week. What concerns me most is that the cuts in housing benefit will affect not only hard-working, low-income families, but pensioners. In Sunderland alone, more than 20,000 housing benefit recipients are over 60. Those people have contributed to society throughout their lives, but in return—when they need help from the state at the time when they are at their most vulnerable— their security is threatened, and they are treated as mere statistics. Steve Webb: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not wish to alarm pensioners in her constituency. The figures that she has given relate to housing benefit, which applies overwhelmingly to social tenants who will not be affected by this change. Will she correct the record? Bridget Phillipson: What I will say is that many older tenants will move into different tenancies at different points, and will be affected by the changes that the Government are introducing. Many older people will, at times, vacate social homes and move into the private sector as their needs require, and may be affected by the Government’s changes. The only alarm being caused is coming from the Government Benches. I hope that the Minister will think again about some of these measures. The Chartered Institute of Housing summed things up best when it stated that the Government’s motive “appears to be reducing expenditure with little co-ordination or regard for the purpose of the benefit itself.”

This is not a genuine attempt to reform housing benefit and introduce a better system in its place; this is a Treasury-driven hit on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The House is unclear about Labour’s position on the cap. Labour Members have accepted that there is a need for public spending restraint, but Government Members want to know whether they think the cap is fair or not.

Housing Benefit

196

Bridget Phillipson: I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that had he been here earlier, he would have heard some of the arguments articulated by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. I also respectfully suggest that I am not referring to the cap. That is not the issue that I am discussing in relation to Sunderland; I am discussing the changes in respect of the 10% and the 30th percentile. That is my concern, and that is why this debate has to be on issues broader than London. I understand the concerns of my hon. Friends with London constituencies about the impact there, but the impact it will have in Sunderland will be different. On average, claimants of local housing allowance in the north-east will see a cut of about 10% a week, or £468 a year, in what they receive. That will have a massive effect in the region, and in Sunderland it will affect more than 4,500 households. Furthermore, those out of work on jobseeker’s allowance for more than one year will be hit particularly hard, with a cut of 10% in their housing benefit. Currently, 2,500 of my constituents are claiming jobseeker’s allowance in an area of ongoing deprivation, where jobs are increasingly hard to come by. That will simply drive people into further poverty and drive up homelessness at a time when, no matter how hard people try, it is often difficult to find a job. Sunderland city council prevented homelessness for 157 households in 2009-10, helping people to find accommodation, often in the private sector. Overall, the changes made in the comprehensive spending review will make it even harder for Sunderland city council to prevent homelessness. In the long term, the use of temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation will inevitably drive up housing costs for local councils and have massive social consequences. Changes in the calculation of housing benefit—pegging it to the consumer prices index—will lead to a dramatic rise in rent arrears, contributing to increased use of temporary accommodation and increased homelessness. It is not yet clear to me whether those who fall into arrears because of the cuts will be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless, which would mean that councils would not have a duty to house them. I would be grateful for some clarity from the Government on that issue. Before I was elected, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, and the city council supported these homeless families and got them rehoused, often in the private sector. The women would often pay a small top-up to their housing benefit, often to be near supportive family who could help with child care so that they could undertake training or return to the workplace. Such women will be doubly hit, and at the point when they are trying to get their lives back on track. It is clear that the Government have failed to come up with an acceptable plan for housing benefit. They fail to recognise the long-term solutions to the underlying causes, and they are certainly not progressive. Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Does the hon. Lady agree that for a great many people the purpose of housing benefit is to get them out of low-income housing? The changes that the coalition Government are proposing will keep those people in poverty and low-income housing for the rest of their lives. That is my concern. Does the hon. Lady share it?

197

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Bridget Phillipson: I do. It is clear that the changes will have a huge impact not only in England, but in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. While more social homes need to be built, the coalition is cutting investment and scrapping regional housing targets. When people are crying out for help on unemployment, the coalition Government are set to cut 23,000 public sector jobs in the north-east alone. Until we tackle unemployment and until the Government bring forward a credible growth strategy, the housing benefit bill will not come down. In the north-east, the situation has not been helped by the scrapping of One North East and the lack of a regional industrial strategy. Finally, when we need a system to stop unscrupulous private sector landlords from profiteering from the local housing allowance, the coalition Government do not even consider it. Instead, they focus their programme of cuts on the defenceless, the elderly and the least well off in our society. That cannot be allowed to happen. Labour Members all agree that there is a need to reform the current system of housing benefit—but not at such a cost, and not with the plan that the Government are implementing with such ill regard for the consequences. I oppose these rushed, punitive and divisive measures. I will do what it takes to protect the low paid and the most vulnerable people across the country, who rely on housing benefit, and I encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to do so too. 6.25 pm Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The debate so far has made only fleeting reference to child poverty. The previous Government left 3.9 million children living below the official poverty line, so we need to think long and hard about whether this Government’s measures are going to make that figure worse. According to Shelter, the average loss per family in my constituency will be about £9 a week. For a low-income family, that £9 now has to compete; if the rent is not paid, and a family lose their home, they are, in law, deemed to be intentionally homeless. Whatever faults there are in this country, one thing is for sure: the children of this country are not responsible. They must not be allowed to lose their homes. For that family in my constituency, having to find another £9 a week for rent means £9 a week less on food, clothing, shoes and utility bills. We know that fuel poverty has an adverse impact on low-income families. Others have mentioned pensioners and their points have been well made, but I am going to concentrate on the families. The loss of £9 from such a family’s disposable income will mean that the local economy will lose out. That could affect what else is going on. Incidentally, I have come up with a novel saving for middle-England households. It is not compulsory to buy the Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday, and not buying them will produce a saving of about £500 a year to a middle-England household. I recommend it. The Local Government Association has kindly provided the following suggestion: “a full and robust new burdens assessment should be made of the extra local authority costs that will be incurred as a result of these changes. This should not just include the expected homelessness costs, but also community safety, physical and mental health, social care, child protection and other services. The wider impact of these costs should not be underestimated and will result in increased costs for councils.”

Housing Benefit

198

The LGA has suggested that local authorities should have more flexible powers, so that they can work with local landlords to negotiate rents downwards. That would fit in with the Secretary of State’s view that the object of the exercise is not to penalise families, but to force rents down. In a spirit of collaboration, coalition and fairness, I think that the Government should take equal measures—put a cap on the rent as well as on the housing benefit. The problem is that we have had 30 years of successive Government failures to provide sufficient housing for rent. The last Government were as guilty as the previous Conservative Government, building fewer than 7,000 council houses in 13 years; even the dastardly Thatcher Government managed to build more than half a million. Indeed, the last Labour Government sold half a million council dwellings. I intervened earlier on the question of supply and demand because of the simple fact that for 30 years supply has not matched demand. Mr Betts: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to increasing the number of social houses built, but does he accept that under the comprehensive spending review the expenditure plans for new social homes have been cut in half ? The only such homes that will be built on the current tenures and rents will be those to which the previous Government committed? All new homes built after that will cost 80% of market rents, and that building will be paid for by increasing the rents on re-let tenancies to that level as well, so this Government are committing to no new social housing at all. Bob Russell: I was praying for an Opposition intervention because it gives me an opportunity to pick up and wave these pages containing the more than 50 questions on council housing that I have put in the last decade, including to former Prime Minister Blair, his successor and former Deputy Prime Minister Prescott, all of whom failed the Labour party. We should contrast what the last Labour Government did with what the real Labour Government of 1945 led by Clement Attlee did in the aftermath of the war. Chris Ruane: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency I visited a lady who had an 18-monthold child and who lived in a house of multiple occupation. She had one bedroom. That cost £85 a week in housing benefit, topped up with £20 a week from her own dole money. That is £105 a week for a one-bedroom rat hole, whereas the council charges £60 for a three-bedroom council house with both a front and back garden. It makes both economic and moral sense to spend money on building new council houses and social housing, and that would also penalise the Rachman landlords and reward the local authorities and social landlords. Bob Russell: I agree with most of that; and, of course, if the last Labour Government had taken note of what I said in those 50-plus parliamentary questions—if two successive Prime Ministers and a Deputy Prime Minister had listened—we would not be in the pickle we are in now. I might add that all of us know of former council houses in our constituencies that were sold and are now being let out at higher rents than those for the council house next door, and where the housing benefit tops that up. The coalition Government should address that. “When social historians write the history of the 20th century, they will contrast the huge advances made in the living standards

199

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

of the British people between 1900 and 1999. Even allowing for two bloody world wars and the years of economic depression, by the end of the century the quality of life had improved dramatically for the mass of the population, beyond the wildest dreams of those doughty pioneers of social change who sowed the seeds in Victorian Britain for better health, higher standards of education, longer life expectancy, improved working conditions, wider opportunities and vastly superior housing conditions for most people. While the improvements in the overall quality of life spanned the 100 years, for millions of people it was in the middle 50 years or so of the 20th century—the second and third quarters—when the great advances were made in housing. Council housing did it.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 237WH.]

I know that Members are fascinated by what I have just said, and they can read the 2003 speech I made in Westminster Hall on the subject of council houses. Again, had the Labour Government listened and taken note seven years ago, things would have been much better. For most people, the aspiration to home ownership cannot now be fulfilled. The resumption of council house building would have the twin outcome of supplying good quality houses for families to rent and lessening demand in the house buying market. There would be another bonus too; it would give a boost to employment in the building industry. The conclusion of my speech is aimed at my coalition partners. When I was leader of Colchester borough council between 1987 and 1991, I attended a meeting of the Essex branch of the Association of District Councils at which I told the then Member for South Colchester and Maldon, now Lord Wakeham, that a combination of the large-scale sale of council houses and a failure to build replacement houses would result in thousands of people being forced into the property owning market who would not otherwise have been, and that the demand for lower priced houses would therefore be greater than the availability, and that that would lead to an increase in house prices throughout the housing market. I suggested that that policy did not make economic sense, and that it was not fair on those who would be deprived of a decent home in which to live. I have been proved right, but, tragically, the problem is considerably worse than I ever thought it would be. For the homeless and those in accommodation that is less than ideal for their needs, there is no such thing as the dream of being part of the property owning democracy. Instead, there is the 24-hour nightmare of housing despair. That is particularly the case for the children involved. Big cities, towns and villages all have residents who are suffering because of the lack of council houses. In rural areas, young people are being forced to leave the villages in which they were born, and where their families may have lived for generations, because there is no housing for them, or none that they can afford. I urge the coalition Government to think again. They are right to tackle the higher rents, but that has to be done with fairness. At the moment, however, their proposals are being aimed only at the tenants, and I am particularly concerned about the children of the families who will be affected. 6.35 pm Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): From what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has said, I take it that he will be voting with us in favour of this motion, because it seems that that is where his heart lies, if nothing else.

Housing Benefit

200

The issue as presented by the Government is that we have a problem with housing benefit. Two explanations have been given for that. One is that local housing allowance levels are pushing up rents, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) dealt with that very well. The other is that housing rents and housing benefit levels are rising because there is a shortage of houses in this country. The hon. Gentleman said that that was the case, and I have a lot of sympathy with his point about the need for more social housing. Let us look at Government policies on housing provision to deal with this fundamental problem. The hon. Gentleman mentioned social housing provision, but he ought to understand that this Government’s policy is to withdraw from social housing provision, and that is what they are doing. Under the comprehensive spending review, the budget for new social housing is being cut in half, and the half that is left will simply fund the houses to which the previous Government were committed, which is about half of the 150,000 target. Where will the other 75,000 come from? The answer is that there is an assumption that social housing landlords will raise the rents on new lettings to 80% of market rents and that that increase in rental income will then fund the building of these extra 75,000 so-called social houses. They will not be social houses, however; they will be houses at 80% of market rents—or at intermediate rents, if we prefer that term. Effectively, therefore, the Government are withdrawing from the provision of social housing. I know some Liberal Democrat Members will not agree that that is what the Government are doing—indeed, the Lib Dem Communities and Local Government Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), said exactly the opposite in a recent Westminster Hall debate—but that is the policy. If it is not what they intend to do, the Minister who is currently in the Chamber should stand up and say so. As the Government claim that their key policy is to reduce housing benefit costs, they must also explain how the two bits of their agenda join up. If getting housing benefit costs down is the right thing to do, will there not be an increase in housing benefit costs from these new 80% market rents they are going to introduce, and how much will they increase by? I have asked that question, but no one can answer it. Do the Government not know or have they not done the figures? Is this another consequence of the impact assessment that they have not done? The Minister has done a lot of jumping up and down in the Chamber today, but he is surprisingly silent and sedentary at present. That is another major question to which we need an answer. Why are the Government intent on pushing up rents in the social housing sector? What will be the housing benefit costs of that, and is the fact that there will be such costs not an inherent and fundamental contradiction in the Government’s policy? Mr Heald: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the scope of the ambition of this Government. They want to get people back to work. They do not want there to be 3 million homes where nobody works and everybody is on housing benefit. They want to change that, and that is how the costs of welfare will come down.

201

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am not sure how putting 1.6 million people in the dole queue is part of a grand strategy to get people back to work. At some point, somebody will add those bits of the grand strategy up and explain how they connect together. On the lack of joined-up thinking, we have been taking evidence in the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government about the impact of the Government’s policy of abolishing the regional spatial strategies. Some people have told us that that is a good thing to do, others have been more critical of the inherent aim of Government policy, and some have said that eventually we will get policies in the localism Bill that explain the Government’s long-term strategy. However, almost every witness has said that in the meantime there is a complete vacuum in housing planning policy. The National Housing Federation has commissioned detailed research and it has been estimated that 160,000 planning permissions that would have been given under the previous planning regime have not now been given. That means that fewer houses will be built when eventually the housing market returns. Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): The hon. Gentleman mentioned joined-up thinking. Does he feel it is fair that so many families who are not working and who are not disabled receive more in benefits than families who are working and are on the average national salary or less? What would he say to my constituents about the joined-up thinking of the past 13 years that allowed that situation to continue unchanged for so long? Mr Betts: As Labour Members have clearly said, those on the Government Benches are involved in a complete misthinking about the fact that not everyone on housing benefit is unemployed; many people on housing benefit are on low wages and they will be affected by these changes too. There is a real issue to address about disincentives to work and tapers in the housing benefit system. I would appreciate those tapers being flatter than they have been or are now, but we all have to recognise that if the steepness of housing benefit tapers, or of any other benefit tapers, is reduced, the cost is increased. That is a problem and I look forward to seeing how the Secretary of State will solve it when he introduces his universal credit. I have alluded to the impact that these changes will have in Sheffield. It is not the cap that affects cities such as Sheffield; it is the 30th percentile change that affects us. That is the fundamental problem and it will cost the average family on housing benefit in Yorkshire and Humber about £7 a week. The total cost of the change for the average family in Sheffield will be more than £30 a month, and it will lead to dispersal. There are considerable differences in the rates that apply in different parts of Sheffield, and not only the unemployed, but those on low wages who are renting in the private sector will be dispersed from richer parts of the city, in the constituency of Sheffield, Hallam, to other parts of the city. I did not use the word “cleanse” or “clear”, because “disperse” is an accurate and proper word to use when describing what will happen. The city will become more segregated and more divided. The situation will get worse, because local housing allowances are linked to the consumer prices index but rents rise at a higher rate. Therefore, over time, people will be dispersed from

Housing Benefit

202

progressively more parts of the city. That is what the impact will be on cities such as Sheffield—that is the reality. At the same time, housing departments, such as Sheffield city council’s, will face pressure because unemployment will create more housing problems and more homelessness. The budgets of these departments will have been cut, yet they will have to deal with advising or re-housing people in desperate circumstances. What we have not had a clear answer to is whether people who have to move home because they cannot pay their rent as housing benefit no longer covers it will be considered intentionally homeless. That is a fundamental point, so can we have an answer on it please? Can we also have an answer on whether the Government really are going to change the homeless legislation as Lord Freud indicated in order to see their way out of this problem without local authorities having to have the responsibility of housing people? Those are fundamental issues. Why is it necessary to punish the couple in their 50s who lose their jobs, whose family have left home and who are living in a three-bedroom council house? Why is their home at risk because they have lost their jobs and housing benefit will not cover their rent as they are deemed to be under-occupying? This is simply not fair. It is a vicious and nasty policy that is aimed at hard-working people who happen to be unemployed and who then need to be re-housed too. These benefit reductions are not part of any grand policy on welfare reform and they are certainly not part of any clear housing strategy. They are part of an unfair agenda driven by the Chancellor, who has simply cut the incomes of some of the poorest people in our communities. 6.45 pm Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for his speech, despite disagreeing with many of the things he said, not least the last one. This is an interesting debate because we are considering housing benefit change, but in many ways it has to be regarded as part of a much wider welfare reform programme. As such, we can ensure that some of the observations of Labour Members will be addressed by the universal credit benefits, the Work programme and many other areas where the Government will make work reward and pay, by ensuring that we put the right value on, and give the right level of reward to, those who work. It has taken a lot of political courage to address housing benefit. It has not been done early enough, but the coalition can now deal with what has become a ludicrous and highly inflationary system. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), I represent one of the poorest areas in the country—it has the second highest number of low-paid workers. These people earn less than £7 an hour and often hold down more than one job at a time; they work in the care sector, in our hospitals and in the low-paid retail sector. Before and during the election, my campaign with them focused on asking how we could show how greatly we valued them. I promised to do something about this issue and said that my Government would try to help those people who hold down one or two jobs, who put food on the table and who ensure that they pay their rent.

203

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the majority of housing benefit recipients are people in work, pensioners and disabled people, and that less than one in five of the recipients are unemployed? Laura Sandys: First, it is 13% of people who work who receive housing benefits. It is good to see on the Front Bench the Minister who is responsible for disability, because in addition many provisions are made for people with disability. We need to protect those who are vulnerable, and they will be protected. It is crucial that we ensure that equity and justice is at the heart of the housing benefit structure. Housing benefit is one of the key problems in Thanet. In an area of real deprivation, the rate of housing benefit has dramatically distorted the market, disadvantaging those on low wages while not delivering an improvement in the housing stock for those on housing benefit. I wish to highlight three blights that my constituency faces as a result of the level of housing benefit. As I said, it is unfair on the low paid, who do not claim housing benefit. The double whammy of inequity is compounded by the inflationary impact on the overall housing market. Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): I, too, represent a seaside constituency, so I know that my hon. Friend’s point is strong and fair. The average wage in my constituency is £21,800. People earning that will be paying about £4,500 in taxes, yet they often find themselves priced out of the local market by people who move into the area from other parts of the world. Laura Sandys: My hon. Friend mentioned £21,000, but the average wage in the south-east is £17,000. The inflationary impact of housing benefit on those families has been huge. My second point is that these rates have not seen an improvement in the housing stock. Some landlords are interested in the rental value rather than the capital appreciation because that gives them such a high return on their investment. Investing in the properties and in the fabric of them is therefore not a priority. The third issue is the extreme concentration of housing benefit claimants in pockets in my constituency. That problem was brought up by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) and for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott). We create micro-economies that attract a significant amount of housing benefit because property prices are so low and the return from housing benefit is proportionally high. The current situation has fundamentally distorted housing in my area. The average wage in Thanet is £17,000 and housing benefits for the unemployed stand at more than £8,000 a year. Most working families cannot compete in that market. Richard Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the bizarre uses of the word “fair” during the whole debate has been the assumption that it is somehow unfair to people who are not working for them not to have better housing than those who are working? The whole point of this reform is to enable a level playing field in which people can live in the houses that they can afford from their work.

Housing Benefit

204

Laura Sandys: Absolutely. As I said, concentration is also an issue. Two wards in Thanet have 83% privately rented accommodation and 20% of all the benefits claimants in my district, but only make up 2% of the population of Thanet district. Some 30% of the activity of all our housing benefits department is taken up by those two wards. Why? The housing benefit has increased by more than 50% over the past 10 years. Some landlords are making a return on their investment of more than 12% through housing benefits whereas similar properties in Westminster would generate only 4 to 5%. These pockets are hugely attractive to landlords, particularly in coastal towns, and that can be very inflationary. In certain areas across the country, these micro-economies have significantly lower house prices than areas within their broad market rental area. I urge the Government to consider the possibility of allowing local authorities to create sub-districts to ensure that they can exercise the localism that is at the heart of our agenda and the discretion to assess where low market values are creating a magnet for housing benefit claimants. However, that has to do with broader issues of welfare reform. I am sure that throughout the universal approach that the DWP is taking, we will be able to reverse the current situation. Our system is broken. Those who want to work know that work does not pay. Those who work get less than those who claim and those who do not work often receive the most. I commend these measures and believe that many in my constituency and those areas that have lower income workers will welcome the reforms. 6.53 pm Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): I want to broaden the debate, because for me it is about not just housing benefit but housing in general. In particular, I want to talk about the problems that we have with private landlords. It seems to me that the Government are more than prepared to attack the tenants, whereas we need to look at the escapades and state of some of the private landlords we have to deal with—not just in the cities, but in ex-colliery villages in County Durham, such as those that I represent. There seem to be three basic problems. We need to look at housing benefit and the LHA and to reform them, but we also need to look at the rented sector and at housing supply in general. There are three pillars to the problem, as I see it. If we do not control and manage the private landlord aspect, it will suck the community spirit out of some of our villages and communities up and down the country. I have had problems in places such as Chilton, Ferryhill and Trimdon Station, where the police have been involved. I have had to address large meetings and the problems have basically been to do with the behaviour of some private landlords and, indeed, the tenants too. We should consider not only the reform of housing benefit but the depth of the problems in some of our communities. For example, we did a survey in some of the communities that I have just mentioned of just under 1,100 houses, 38% of which were in the hands of private landlords. More than half of those private landlords did not even live in the county and quite a few—a significant number—lived outside it. What kind of

205

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Phil Wilson] relationship with and understanding of the local community will they have if they do not even know where some of the properties they own are? That is something that the Government need to address. The Labour Government started to address it with a selective licensing scheme sanctioned by the Secretary of State. I have two or three in my constituency and they are starting to happen around the country, too. Local authorities can implement these schemes and they go some way towards imposing rules and regulations on private landlords and on the behaviour of tenants. The only problem is that although we have the legislation, if the Government are interested in that aspect of housing they should give it some funding so that we can have stable communities where there are private landlords and a lot of people on housing benefit live. Another thing that we wanted to introduce was a national register for private landlords. That was one of the things that I discussed with the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), before the election. However, the Government have said that they will not introduce it. I understand that they think that it is over-bureaucratic, but local residents who have to put up with some of the behaviour of the private landlords and their tenants do not believe that it is too bureaucratic. If there is a will, there is a way, and we will have to consider that in future. I do not agree with those who think that if housing benefit and the LHA are reformed in the way that the Government propose, rents will automatically come down. The British Property Federation briefing that I have received states: “Currently in areas across the country from Harrogate to Trafford to Brighton and most of the South West, for every LHA claimant searching for a two bedroom property to rent there are between five and ten individuals who are in work doing likewise. LHA”—

and housing benefit— “claimants will be left behind as landlords naturally seek individuals who are looking for property to rent and are in work.”

That is what will happen. People on housing benefit and LHA will be priced out of some of their local communities because the first port of call for the private landlord is those people who have a secure income—people who are actually in work. As the federation has said, five to 10 people in work are chasing every let, compared with two or three people on housing benefit. That is one of the main reasons why rents will not automatically come down. A major survey by the Cambridge centre for housing and planning research has found: “A majority of 500 landlords surveyed for the study believes the changes will increase arrears, and a large proportion of those who currently let to LHA claimants intends to reduce the number of such tenancies they offer.”

Those are some of the issues that we need to address. We should not focus on housing benefit and tenants and think that these people are just sitting watching the television all day long. Perhaps some of them are, but a lot of them are not. Some are pensioners, some are out of work because they have been forced out of work, and some are among the five people chasing every job vacancy. The Government must confront these issues. It is about not just sorting out the tenants, but sorting out the rest of the market, too.

Housing Benefit

206

Let me end on one point. I have with me a copy of a written answer from the Treasury. At the moment, about 100,000 tenants in the private sector are paying rents to private landlords—about 44,000 of them—who have not paid tax on that rental income. More than 50% of those landlords are receiving income from housing benefit claimants. The Government need to look into that. It is a case not just of tenants claiming benefit, but of many people in the private sector who rent out properties who are not playing the game. We need to look at both sides, not just one. 7 pm Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): I speak in this debate as somebody who has had experience in the commercial and residential property markets for more than 22 years. I was heartened to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). She highlighted the 12% return on some investments and the fact that that seems to attract a certain type of landlord. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) alluded to that as well. It is almost an open secret in the property business that that aspect needs reform. If truth be told, it seems to attract those who are not the best landlords. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), quoted Liz Peace, and the hon. Member for Sedgefield quoted the British Property Federation. Both quoted selectively. The context in which Liz Peace made that comment was much broader. She was making the point that many landlords do not receive housing benefit directly, so they prefer tenants who are working. Her comment was quoted selectively. As a member of the all-party group on urban renewal and regeneration, it is part of my remit to read such quotes comprehensively. Phil Wilson: Those affected by the cuts will find it increasingly difficult to find a place to live. I quoted most of the paragraph. In the private sector there are good landlords and bad landlords. The problem is that many of them are amateur landlords who have one or two properties. That sector needs to be regulated, and a national register would be extremely helpful. Paul Uppal: Brevity is always required of us, so I shall press on. Throughout the debate, I have been saddened by one feature of it. All of us on both sides use partisan language. Let us be honest and acknowledge that some of us use political partisan language, but the language used about the issue under discussion has been inflammatory and poorly judged. I refer specifically to the term “cleansing”. My family experienced partition in India in 1947. My father was eight years old when he saw people forcibly removed—Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. My maternal grandfather had to protect his neighbours from a mob of Sikhs and Hindus who wanted to burn out his Muslim neighbours. It is particularly difficult for them to accept the sort of language that has been used in the debate. As a new Member I say these words not through any pomposity or grand-standing, but because our words resonate widely outside the House. The advice that we received at the very beginning to use temperate language was impressed upon us by wiser heads than ours.

207

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Russell Brown: I am sure I recognise the background that the hon. Gentleman comes from. May I offer him a quote? “A mark of any society is how it cares for the vulnerable. It is not possible for any society to guarantee equality of outcomes for all; it is however possible to achieve equality of opportunities.”

That is a quote from the convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and to the House how people being forced from their homes because of the rent levels and the actions of his coalition Government will produce equality for anyone? Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) rose— Paul Uppal: I was going to respond to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), but I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps I can add another quote from a Labour Front Bencher: “This would lead to social cleansing on an unprecedented scale, with poorer people shipped out in large numbers”.

Does that bring anything whatever to the debate? Paul Uppal: We could trade quotes, but the issue was eloquently covered earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who made a passionate and pertinent point about the inflammatory language that has been used. Government estimates show that spending on housing benefit has risen from £14 billion 10 years ago to £21 billion at present. These figures self-evidently make the case for reforming the system and I, for one, believe that reform is long overdue. The central point of the proposed reforms is that people who receive benefits should have the same choices regarding housing as people who do not get benefits. To be balanced in these reforms, the Government have announced more support for the additional discretionary housing payment to help the most vulnerable cases, particularly where there are unusual difficulties. In a nutshell, if we are prepared to pay, as we are, £20,000 in housing benefit, is it not reasonable to assume that we can meet the vast majority of housing requests? But with a massive deficit, tough choices have to be made. We need to push ahead with the changes to ensure that hard-working individuals and families will no longer have to subsidise people living in properties that they themselves could not afford. Figures will undoubtedly be bandied across the Chamber today, and I have no desire to rerun arguments that have been put forward already, but it always important to put things in perspective. The maximum rent following the cap will be £400 a week, which is equivalent to £20,000 a year. As the Secretary of State said, based on what people spend on average on housing, this would require an income of more than £80,000 a year. The current maximum local housing allowance rate is £104,000 a year, which would require an income of well over £250,000 a year to fund. Can that be right? Indeed, it could be argued that extreme LHA payments act as a barrier to mobility, trapping people in unemployment and benefit dependency. It is also grossly unfair to expect hard-working low-income taxpayers to fund these rates.

Housing Benefit

208

Recently a constituent of mine wrote to me about his experiences as a landlord. The tenant received housing benefit directly after the landlord had been advised that he could be paid directly only if the tenant was in arrears by two months. I say this to show that there are always two sides to the argument—the tenant’s perspective and the landlord’s perspective. I quote my constituent: “Currently tenants are assessed for housing benefit and the amount paid is dependent on the tenant’s personal circumstances and size of house . . . However if the housing benefit awarded is over the amount of rent agreed on the assured shorthold tenancy, the tenant is allowed to keep the difference.”

If the tenant benefits under the existing assured shorthold tenancy agreement, the landlord would have to make up the difference in the rent agreed. My constituent continued: “If the tenant is not happy that the rent is being paid directly to the landlord then the tenant has the right to move to a new property and the whole process starts again. My tenant advised the housing benefit department that she had left my property; they subsequently stopped paying the rent. In fact she stayed at the house for three weeks without paying a penny. When I advised the council that she was still residing at the property and provided them with evidence of this, they said they had to take her word for it”.

Although I welcome the broad measures in the housing benefit reforms initiated by the Government, I believe that significant savings could be achieved if the local housing allowance were paid direct to landlords instead of to tenants. That would remove a significant disincentive for landlords to provide accommodation to LHA claimants. Research by the British Property Federation has shown that as a consequence, 60% of the landlords surveyed do not offer tenancies to those receiving LHA, mainly for fear of rent arrears. At the very least, claimants ought to have the right to choose how their housing benefit is paid, and be able to choose that their payments should go directly to the landlord. I reiterate that I wholly support the Government’s measures, not only because they mark a move away from dependency towards independence, but because under the Labour Government housing benefit was allowed to spiral out of control. However, it would be wise to revisit the issue of direct payment to landlords to prevent public money from being wasted, and to encourage landlords to continue to let property to those receiving housing benefit. All of us would agree that the welfare system should provide an effective safety net, but it should not pay workless families far more than most working families earn. As has been said, the 2010 Labour party manifesto stated: “Our goal is to make responsibility the cornerstone of our welfare state.”

I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State still stands by those words. I appreciate the acknowledgement in today’s Opposition motion that “housing benefit is in need of reform”,

but they mean “at a slower pace”, which in essence seems to apply to almost all the debates that we have. Government Members have decided to address the problems that face our country, and, although Opposition Members now talk of reform, under their stewardship housing benefit increased by more than 50% in one decade.

209

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Paul Uppal] This debate is not just about reform; it is essentially about responsibility—and Government Members have taken on that responsibility for the good of the country and its financial future. 7.10 pm Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab): I make no apologies for saying that as a Member of Parliament, before that as the leader of Camden council, before that as an individual councillor for Holborn ward, and before that as a human being, I suppose, campaigning locally, I have always been obsessed with trying to ensure that the beleaguered ordinary residents of the area be allowed to stay there. However, that does not mean that I believe that spending £20 billion on housing benefit is a sensible use of public funds. Not a penny of that £20 billion goes on building flats or homes, it is just used to subsidise rents that ordinary people cannot afford, and I remind Government Members from both parties that 100 years ago, Winston Churchill rightly said that rent is a preliminary tax on all economic activity. That was true 100 years ago, and it is true now. In my constituency there is a gross shortage of housing for ordinary people at rents that they can afford. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con) rose— Frank Dobson: No, I shall not give way. I do not have time. When I say ordinary people, I mean nurses, street cleaners, bus drivers, shop assistants, people who clean the hospital, ambulance drivers, kitchen staff, waiters who serve Government Members, butchers, bakers, plumbers, electricians and builders. Those are the ordinary people who I want to be able to stay in my constituency, in decent housing and at rents that they can afford. That is not the case at the moment, and the Government now propose not just to cap housing benefit, but to slash the funding to build decent homes and flats that people can afford. The Government are cutting housing investment. In Camden, certainly, private rents are very high, and in the south of my constituency they are very, very high. However, the ordinary people living there did not set those extortionate rents; grasping landlords did, and then they gave some of it to fund the Tory party’s election campaigns, election in, election out—[Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members jeering; they know that the landlords help to fund their party. Those profiteering landlords have set the rents, yet the Government claim that if they cap housing benefit the landlords will cut the rents. In my area, nine out of 10 private lettings are nothing to do with housing benefit, so if there is to be a reduction in housing benefit for one flat in 10, it is clearly not going to have an impact on the rest of the sector. There is unlikely to be very much impact at all. Let us look at the cap. All hon. Members who live outside London rightly receive an allowance for a onebedroom flat so that they can live in London. The going rate, according to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is £340 for a one-bedroom flat. According to this generous Government, the going rate for a threebedroom flat if one is on housing benefit is also £340.

Housing Benefit

210

Well, if it is the going rate for a one-bedroom flat, it cannot be the going rate for a three-bedroom flat, and that just shows how unfair the system is. All the talk about the unemployed getting housing benefit is significantly misleading, because at least one third of the people on housing benefit in my constituency are in work. They struggle to make ends meet, they send their children to local schools, and they frequently rely on support, both financial and practical, from family and friends. Many were homeless, but then the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition council in Camden urged them to rent in the private sector. They were told that that would be okay. It did not matter what the rents were, because housing benefit would cope with them—or, as the current Leader of the House of Commons said some years ago, housing benefit would “take the strain”. All those people were told that housing benefit would take the strain, but the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government are now going to take away the money that would have helped them, and I believe that that is wrong. Many people from my constituency will be pushed out to outer London where they do not want to be, and among neighbours who do not want them to be there, which does not seem a very good formula for establishing decent communities in outer London. It is also worth bearing in mind that some of those areas already have higher mortgage and landlord repossessions than inner London. The situation will affect not just people in work, but those out of work. Three such cases were brought to my advice surgery last weekend, all by well-spoken middle-class people who had hit a bad patch. One had lost a well-paid job, another was suffering from a serious illness, and another was experiencing a family breakdown. They all faced being pushed out of their homes, because the housing benefit that helps out middle-class people going through a bad patch is to be taken away from them just to suit the Treasury. Money will be taken away from those in the greatest difficulty. We have heard of the highland clearances. There are no highlands in my constituency, but what we face is the lowland clearances—a combination of grasping landlords and a malignant Government, as existed at the time of the highland clearances. We do not want those in London, and I hope that we never will have them. 7.17 pm Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Many Government Members have said that at the heart of this debate about housing benefit is fairness—fairness for those on average incomes who face higher tax bills because of the size of our welfare budget. I remind the House that when £1 in every £3 spent by the Government is spent on welfare, the need for reform is acute and unavoidable. The need to control housing benefit is an important component of that. The way in which housing benefit operates causes a major distortion in the way in which our housing market operates generally. As any A-level economics student will tell you, subsidies lead to higher prices, and the result is that as taxpayers we all subsidise the rents that even above-average earners would not be able to afford.

211

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Neil Carmichael: In my constituency one of the biggest problems is that people cannot access houses. It is one of the biggest distortions of which we should be aware, and it is grossly unfair. My hon. Friend makes a good point, because we have to free up the situation so that people who really need a house have access to a house. Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is easy for Opposition Members to say, “It’s all about those evil Tory reforms to housing benefit,” but the housing market is much more complicated than that. It involves a lack of supply and, under the failed regulatory system, the over-provision of credit by our banks. All of us together have a big job to do in tackling it, but I am glad that we have seen fit to grasp the nettle and do exactly that. Mr Lammy: On that point about grasping the nettle, will the hon. Lady and the leader of her local council join me and the leader of mine in making provision to house in her constituency some of the overcrowded tenants in Tottenham? Jackie Doyle-Price: Tottenham is not in my constituency, I am afraid. Mr Lammy: “Not in my back yard.” Jackie Doyle-Price: Let me address some of the specifics. We are talking about putting a cap of £250 a week on the proposed maximum for a one-bedroom flat. That would amount to £12,000 a year to be spent on rent. I am afraid that not many people who are working can afford to spend £12,000 on rent. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): In the event that the problem is as the hon. Lady describes it, can she explain to my constituents why they are having their housing benefit reduced when the cap has no relevance whatsoever to people in Edinburgh because all the rents are well below it? Despite that, they will have their LHA reduced to the 30th percentile. Others, who are not necessarily in the private rented sector, will have nondependants deductions from their housing benefit increased substantially, which is a serious problem for many lowincome households. Why is that justifiable to solve the problem of high rents in London? Why not deal with London on its own? Jackie Doyle-Price: It is justifiable because this country simply cannot afford the level of welfare benefits that we are paying out. It is all very well to say that this is all about London, but it is not; it is about the fact that people who are working hard are having to pay higher taxes to pay the bills that Labour left for us to sort out. We have a system of housing support that is no longer fit for purpose. Housing benefit should act as a safety net to support people who need it—I think we would all agree with that—but it should not provide a subsidy for people to live beyond their means, by which I mean beyond the scope of what they could potentially earn. For those who are jobless, it is clear that this level of subsidy encourages benefits claimants to become trapped in dependency. If we are really going to reform benefits so that work is rewarded rather than penalised, we have to build in incentives that do not encourage people just to sit back and collect their benefits.

Housing Benefit

212

Mr Umunna: The hon. Lady talked about fairness, and she has mentioned the jobless. What does she think of the proposal to reduce housing benefit by 10% for JSA claimants who have been out of work for more than 12 months and have been doing absolutely everything they can to get work? I come across many people in that position in my constituency, and this measure is unduly punitive, in my view. What does she think? Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are increasing the discretionary allowances that can be used to tackle exactly that problem. My concern is for the people in part-time work who find that increasing their hours is punitive, because their housing benefits will be clawed back. This measure is not an attack on the vulnerable, nor is it based on an assumption that all benefits claimants are workshy. It is my firm belief that most people do not want to be reliant on state benefits—that they want the pride and self-respect that comes with providing for themselves and for their families. However, we have allowed a benefits system to emerge that sucks the self-reliance out of them by preventing work from paying. It is all too easy for self-respecting people to find themselves trapped in worklessness because the amount of support they get from the taxpayer exceeds what they could expect to earn. If we are going to get our economy back on track, that has to change. Members in all parts of the House will have received many representations on this issue and its impact on vulnerable people. The National Housing Federation claims that those who rely on housing benefit to cover part of their housing costs will be forced to move away from higher-rent areas, and may as a result have to commute and have difficulty finding family care. Well, that is the day-to-day reality for many of my constituents. I consider it unfair that my constituents are having to pay higher taxes for people to live in places where they would like to live but cannot afford to. Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con): My hon. Friend is talking plain common sense. Does she agree that there is a total lack of reality on the Labour Benches, because a YouGov poll in July on the Government’s changes to housing benefit found that 68% of the public supported them, including 57% of Labour voters? Jackie Doyle-Price: I would say that Labour Members are in denial about how we are going to tackle the issues that will get the economy moving again. Many of my constituents say, when I go knocking on their doors, “Good for you—it’s about time people did this,” because they are heartily sick of having to keep putting their hands in their pockets. Dr Whiteford: On the DWP’s own figures, nearly 27% of the people who currently receive housing benefit are pensioners. How are those people, who are mostly on a fixed income that has been squeezed hard during the financial crisis, supposed to be able to pick up the tab for welfare reform? That makes no sense, and it puts unbearable pressure on household incomes that are already very pressured. Jackie Doyle-Price: I think that the hon. Lady needs to see that issue against our broader package of welfare reform. When we introduce the welfare credit reforms,

213

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Jackie Doyle-Price] that will be tackled. The Government have recognised that such fundamental reforms will generate difficult cases, and to that end they have increased the money available for discretionary payments. I wholeheartedly endorse that. Let me reiterate what has been said about the impact that these changes will have on landlords. Removing subsidies means that landlords will change their behaviour. They are charging rents that they know the market will bear, and if we reduce the amount of support available they will have to stay in the market by reducing their rents, or get out of it. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) said, those are exactly the kind of people we want to leave this marketplace. I shall finish where I started, with the concept of fairness. Government Members want a fair deal for the taxpayer. We also want a welfare system that acts as a safety net and rewards work. Doing nothing, and allowing the current system to continue, would not be treating taxpayers or benefit claimants fairly.

Housing Benefit

214

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) rightly reminded us of the role of Lord Beveridge in dealing with these matters, followed, as he said, by Clement Attlee, who built the welfare state—and whose record on housing was outstanding—and who did so after the war, having dealt with one of the biggest deficits in history. So when it comes to deficits, do not blame it on my people—the people with whom I have grown up. People have been complaining about the media. I am sick and tired of the media expression, “workshy”. We have already been told by the TUC—I prefer its figures to the ones that we have heard from Conservative Members—that only one in eight people who make applications are unemployed. We are not talking about the workshy; we are talking about the work-starved. Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): Like you, I am sick and tired of the Tories blaming the need to make cuts on the ordinary working person, when we know that it was the bankers who caused the crisis. What do you think— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Members are using the word “you”, but I am not responsible. I call Tom Clarke.

7.26 pm Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): I have to disappoint not only the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) but one or two others on the Government Benches who called for us to be passive and calm. To be perfectly frank, my constituents would be extremely disappointed, and rightly so, if I were anything other than angry as this debate proceeds. The plain and simple fact is that this debate is about cuts to the most vulnerable—and it is not new. We saw it in the ’80s, and in earlier days when the Conservatives had control. This time, we are telling them that enough is enough. In my constituency, the response to people who talk about fairness is that this has nothing to do with being fair—that it is unbelievably unfair and unjust. There was an air of unreality in the speeches by Government Members, including, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats. I hope to have time to deal with that in a moment or two. In my constituency, as against what we have been hearing, 7,965 households are in receipt of housing benefit, and probably more than 2,000 will lose £9 a week, with many losing more if they are in the private sector. What is beyond doubt is that the overwhelming majority will lose out: how can that be fair? Neil Carmichael: There is one big unfairness, and that is the level of debt that you have left us to deal with. You are talking about cuts, but we are giving people opportunities as well, and that is what fundamentally underpins the changes to housing benefit. What do you say about that? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): We are not going to use the word “you” in future, are we, because I am not responsible? Mr Clarke: I was about to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will do so with the respect that it deserves— frankly, that is very briefly.

Mr Clarke: I repeat that we are dealing with people, including those with disabilities. They are going to be dragged along for tests, sometimes lasting 10 minutes, and then be told that their payments will be cut off. That happened in my constituency in the 1980s, when person after person told me about such experiences. The Government tell us that there are hard choices, but there are no harder choices than those that have to be made by people living in high-rise flats who cannot afford electricity or gas given the increased energy charges that we are experiencing. They have to choose whether to eat or have heating, and whether to have any leisure activities at all or to stay at home. On top of that, something that is at the very heart of their income is to be attacked—housing subsidies, as they have been called. Nobody said anything about subsidies given to the bankers. Ms Bagshawe: The right hon. Gentleman must be massively disappointed that an overwhelming 57% of Labour voters agree with the Government’s changes to housing benefit. How does he explain that to his supporters? Mr Clarke: I am speaking for my constituents, and I have not found a single person in my constituency who supports what the coalition proposes. We will go into the voting Lobby at the end of the debate, and afterwards my constituents will look at how we voted. In particular, they will look at how the Liberal Democrats voted, because they know that the Liberals are propping up a Government in whom they simply do not believe, particularly in this field. Nor do my constituents. No wonder the Liberal Democrat Benches are practically empty, although I pay due respect to the two Liberal Members who have stayed. We have not been without advice from other quarters. What Shelter has said is important, as is what Brendan Barber of the TUC has said. He has stated: “Ministers want us to believe that housing benefit is going to what they would call work-shy scroungers, yet in reality only one

215

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

claimant in eight is unemployed. The rest are mainly low-income working households, pensioners or the disabled.”

The homeless charity Crisis has said that the Government are “peddling myths” about housing benefit claimants. Its chief executive Leslie Morphy said: “We are concerned to hear those who are reliant on housing benefit being described as making a ‘lifestyle choice’. Nearly half of those on LHA already face a shortfall between their benefit and their rent of an average of £23 per week, meaning tough choices between rent, food, heating or falling into a vicious spiral of debt.”

I could go on. My local associations, such as the citizens advice bureau and disability organisations, agree. We had an excellent meeting in one of the Committee Rooms of the House of Lords just a few weeks ago, with representatives of organisations of and for disabled people. Lord Rix made an outstanding speech, and the overwhelming view was that those people were representing those who are already disadvantaged and not fully recognised by society, and who are being asked to bear the brunt of what the coalition Government are imposing on them. How can that be fair? How can it be fair to say that we have an economic problem, so we will ask the poor to pay for it? Are all the people who criticise the coalition—Shelter, landlords who have made it clear that they will not reduce their rents, the TUC, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of Scotland and so on—wrong, and coalition Members right? I believe not. The result of tonight’s Division will be extremely important. We have a choice about priorities and our commitment to people. It is a choice between what is decent, right and reasonable and what I believe is the arrogance of intellect and the exploitation of power. Jenny Willott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should just like to correct the record. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) quoted my website, suggesting that I had criticised the current Government for hitting the poorest hardest. I am sure it was a simple oversight, but in fact the quote that he referred to was from 2009 and referred to my criticisms of the previous Labour Administration. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): I have to say that that is not quite a point of order, but you have certainly got the clarification on the record. 7.36 pm Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) on her clarification. I am very glad that she has made it. I heard so much that I disagreed with from the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) that I do not quite know where to start. I should probably take the opportunity to point out to Opposition Members, as I always do, that last year, of the £700 billion that the Government spent in total, only £40 billion went on propping up the banks, which is 6%. They can hardly go around blaming the bankers for the £170 billion deficit that they left us. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Burley: No, I want to make some progress.

Housing Benefit

216

I wish to take head-on the accusation made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that this is all about the cuts. Of course, a lot of the changes that we are making to housing benefit, and others matters that we are debating at the moment, are a result of having to make public spending reductions. It is broadly agreed by Members of all parties that we need to reduce public expenditure to pay off the deficit and start paying off the £1.4 trillion debt. Mr Tom Clarke: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of one single television debate in which his leader referred to housing benefit cuts? Mr Burley: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit expenditure ballooned from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion 10 years later, and is forecast to reach £25 billion by 2015. The Prime Minister would agree with me that the country simply can no longer afford that. We cannot go on like this, spending £25 billion a year on housing benefit. I wish to leave for a moment the necessity argument and the fact that we have to make these changes. Even if we were in the boom years, they would be necessary purely on the grounds of fairness. They are all about fairness, but the problem with the word “fairness” in political debate is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single agreed definition of what is fair. Everybody in the House defines it in their own way. For Opposition Members—I respect them for it—it is about redistribution of income. It is about taxing the rich more and throwing more money at the poor. For us, it might be about fairer taxes or rewarding hard work and playing by the rules. Fairness is about being able to keep more of what one earns. What I wish to add to the debate is what we believe is fair when it comes to housing benefit. I will start with a few basic questions of principle. Is it fair that hard-working individuals and families in this country should subsidise people living in properties that they have no realistic chance of ever affording to live in? Is it fair that when the average salary in this country is £22,000 a year, some people, as we have heard, can claim more than £100,000 a year just for their rent? Is it fair that even under the proposed cap of £20,000 a year, a person would still need to earn about £80,000 just to have that disposable income for their rent. Is it fair that the cap is being set so high? If the average salary in this country is £22,000, the cap should actually be about £7,000 a year. Sheila Gilmore: If the real aim is to reduce the housing benefit bill, will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government propose to change the way in which houses, for both councils and housing associations, are built? The tenants will be paying for the cost of building houses and rents will rise to 80% of market rents, which will put up the housing benefit bill. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s key objective, how does that help us to reduce the housing benefit bill? Mr Burley: The hon. Lady should have listened to what I said. Our point is that it is not just about reducing the housing benefit bill, but the issue of fairness. We need to go back to the first principles in this debate and decide what is a fair amount for the working majority to pay towards those who do not, cannot or

217

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Burley] will not work. What is fair? The average annual earnings in my constituency is £25,279 a year. Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): On the subject of fairness, is it not right that Opposition Members persistently forget one of the first principles of fairness, which is the juxtaposition between low-paid hard-working families and those who on housing benefit? Housing benefit claimants should not be better off than those who are hard-working and low paid. Is that not a principle of fairness? Mr Burley: That is precisely my point. People in Cannock Chase who earn £25,279 a year would frankly love to have £20,000 to spend on housing from an equivalent annual salary of £80,000, because that is what it equates to. That is dreamland for them. They have never earned £80,000 a year, so why should they be paying out of their hard-earned taxes for some people to have the equivalent of a salary of a quarter of a million pounds so that they can live in parts of London that have some of the most expensive postcodes on Earth. Sheila Gilmore: If the problem is about households with very high rents, why not tackle that problem? Perhaps we could build more affordable houses in London. Why not solve the problem in a phased way? Housing benefit changes will be made all over the country and 30% of housing benefit recipients in my city are at work. Why are they being punished because there is a problem? Why not just solve the problem? The hon. Gentleman has spoken very eloquently on it. Mr Burley: I agree with the hon. Lady on the need for a regional cap. Funnily enough, some of the work that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has done on regional caps for MPs should be considered. In my constituency, the IPSA cap to claim is £700 a month. That is what IPSA thinks is a reasonable rent for an MP and his family to claim to live in Cannock Chase. Yet under the housing benefit rules, a person can claim £1,600 a month, which is more than double what IPSA thinks is fair for an MP. How is that fair? The charity Shelter, which has been guilty of some terrible scaremongering, has claimed that up to 80,000 people will be made homeless by the plans. It falls to it to redefine its ludicrous definition of homelessness, which includes two teenage children living in the same bedroom. That is hardly the definition of homelessness that most people in this country would understand. For most, homelessness is about someone not having a roof over their head. Even according to Shelter’s own briefing, the average loss in my constituency will be £30 a month— £7.50 a week. The total number of claimants in Cannock Chase is 10,278. Therefore, one eighth of my constituency—it is a very poor working-class constituency that used to have 52 coal mines—will have to adjust their weekly outgoings by less than a tenner. Is that really a reason to speak of weeping children, social cleansing, Highland clearances, or, worst of all, as Polly Toynbee said, a “final solution” for the poor? She somehow compared capping housing benefit to £20,000

Housing Benefit

218

a year to the extermination of 6 million Jews. The left has engaged in disgusting language and it should be thoroughly ashamed. If anything, these reforms do not go far enough for me. Let me finish by saying that as a country we must start to live within our means. We need to even up the benefit that a person gets from working with the benefit that a person gets from the Government. Yes, the changes are about saving money, but they are also about fairness. It is simply not fair that people on low incomes in my constituency, in which the average income is 25 grand a year, should pay their taxes to subsidise those who want to live in some of the richest postcodes in this country, where a person would need a salary of £250,000 to afford them. That is not fair and neither is the Opposition’s amendment. 7.45 pm Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Let me begin by commenting on how the coalition parties seek to frame this debate, which was exemplified in the speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). They are trying to suggest that housing benefit claimants are workless, wasteful and feckless. They are using the most extreme examples of housing benefit claims to try to suggest to the public at large that that is the norm. They are trying to dress up cuts to benefits for some of the most disadvantaged people in this country as fair. If the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) were still in the Chamber, I would say to her that the only sensationalising of this issue that is going on is in the right-wing press. The press is trying to lead the whole country to believe that everybody on housing benefit is getting £26,000 a year. That is absolutely scandalous and outrageous. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State, who has a social policy background, is presiding over such changes. Shelter suggests that the change to the JSA will mean that many claimant households will be shifted from around or below the 60% median income, which is the poverty line, into severe poverty. That will force an additional 84,000 households to live on less than £100 a week. Those are the sums that will apply to most people on housing benefit, which includes 54,000 children. We need to have a more balanced debate on the issue and to have some of the real facts talked about in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made an interesting contribution. I accept that when we were in government, we did not build enough social houses. In my constituency, the Liberal Democrat council never implemented a housing policy that ensured that all developments contained 30% social housing. Such a measure was not implemented year on year, which is why we have such a shortfall in social housing. Tory and Liberal Democrat councils all over the country stopped, through the planning process, delivering houses. I am talking about not just social houses, but houses right across the whole spectrum. That is why we have a real problem with supply, and those councils should take responsibility for the situation. Let me go on to explode some of the myths that have been put around about housing benefit claimants. Let us take the first myth that all claimants are workshy. Only one in eight of all housing benefit claimants is unemployed. Taking just those in receipt of local housing allowances across the country, 26% are in employment

219

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

and only 19% claim jobseeker’s allowance. The rest include pensioners, carers, disabled people and others unable to work. In the north-east, 18% of people in receipt of local housing allowance are in employment, and that includes a number of people in my constituency. A lot of people in receipt of housing benefit have very complex needs. I have an example from my local housing authority. A 21-year-old woman secured a tenancy through working with a family intervention worker, who helped her to move on from an overcrowded and difficult family situation. She has multiple social issues, so subsequently, in addition to her weekly rent, she had a tenancy sustainment officer working with her. Also due to her circumstances, she had no furniture and had to access a furnished tenancy. With the changes to long-term jobseeker’s allowance after 12 months, she will lose 10% of her housing benefit entitlement. With the additional services, that means £10.75 a week. Her JSA is only £51.85, which means that her income will drop by 20%, leaving her with just £21 to buy food and clothes, to pay for transport, and to get to job interviews and so on. That is the sort of change we are talking about, and that is the type of person who will affected. I want to address issues applying specifically to my constituency. The risk analysis by the Department for Work and Pensions states that 99% of LHA claimants will, on average, lose £12 a week. With regional variations in the economy, some areas will bear disproportionate impacts, and Durham has been identified as one of those areas. It will take a bigger hit than many other authorities, which is made much worse by the fact that constituencies such as mine have artificially inflated private sector rents because of students. With the reduction in the amount a person can claim from the median to the 30th percentile, most people will be priced out of private renting in Durham. There are always a lot of students willing to come in and take their place, so this will not lead to a reduction in rent levels. Poorer families will be pushed out of areas such as my city centre and will have to move to outer areas, where they will find it much more difficult to access work opportunities. I ask the Minister therefore to think again about the proposals, and certainly to stop trying to suggest that this is part of the fairness agenda. It can be described only as an unfairness agenda. 7.52 pm Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): Any organisation facing an item of expenditure that has increased by 80% over 10 years would consider it a matter for attention, so it is entirely appropriate that the Government have been looking at housing benefit, given that expenditure there has increased from £11 billion, in 1999, to £20 billion, in 2009, and it is predicted that, without the reforms the Government are bringing forward, that figure would rise to £25 billion in 2014. As the Minister reminded us earlier, that is £1,500 per working family. Labour did nothing about the situation during 13 years in government, despite the anxieties of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although it was recognised by Labour in its 2010 Budget and is accepted in this motion. The question, therefore, is not whether we should act, but how we should act.

Housing Benefit

220

The situation today arose from the freeing up of the private rented sector by the Conservative Government in the 1980s. People were freed from the state as the only provider of affordable housing, and new, assured short-hold tenancies massively increased the private rented stock—a stock of property that was barely in existence up until that point. That measure gave greater choice to tenants and increased mobility, but it became clear that if people’s circumstances changed, or they were unable to remain in their homes, a new form of support would be needed. However, that support has got out of control. In addition, the system has introduced unforeseen consequences, because the payment of housing benefit has caused rents to rise higher than they would otherwise have done. There are 3.3 million rented properties in the UK, and 1.2 million tenants receive this benefit. That is more than one third of the total, and has a massive effect in the market for rented properties. Sheila Gilmore: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that according to two recent research reports—the Rugg report in England, and another conducted in Scotland for the Scottish Government—the proportion of those in the private rented sector on housing benefit was less than 20%. In Scotland, it was 17%. That report was published last year—not a long time ago. Of that 17%, only 8% were on full housing benefit, 6% were had half paid, and 3% had less than half paid. Those are the actual figures from research. It is important that we have this published research, and that Government Members are aware of it. Mark Pawsey: I am referring to the UK as a whole, and I will go on to show how the current system has driven rents up. When councils make their rates available, landlords use them as a benchmark for the rents they charge, knowing that a proportion of tenants will be able to pay and will not contest the level. The recipients of housing benefit are happy to accept whatever a landlord asks for, because they know that the state will pay. That contrasts with the position of private tenants, paying rent out of their earned income, who will be keen to negotiate the best rent they can. These higher rents might be good for landlords, but that does nothing to help people who are not in work to find work. In fact, the reverse can apply, because it can discourage claimants from taking low-paid employment or from working longer hours, because if they do so, their benefit entitlement might be lost, and the mobility introduced by the sector might be reduced. It is worthwhile remembering—sometimes the Labour party seems to forget—that the benefits paid to recipients come out of the taxes paid by hardworking families. A number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to that. Often, they are the kind of people who look with envy at the kind of housing enjoyed by some recipients of housing benefit. The new system will make things fairer. We have heard a great deal today about the effect on people living in London, and some Government Members could be excused for thinking that this is a London-only issue. In my constituency, however, a terraced house costs £550 per month to rent, so some of the sums spoken about, such as the family cap of £26,000—more than many people in my constituency earn in a year—are out of this world to the average resident in my constituency. They fail to understand why such sums should be made available.

221

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mark Pawsey] Concern has also been expressed about the effect of the new rules on availability of properties for people in receipt of housing benefits. I believe that landlords will have to become more realistic in the rents they accept. They will have to accept a lower return than they enjoy now. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) spoke about landlords enjoying a return of 12%. There is no reason residential landlords should receive a disproportionately higher rate of return at the expense of the state. In order to improve returns, those who are committed to this sector for the long term and who continue to acquire properties in the future will not be willing to pay capital prices at the level they have done previously. That will exert downward pressure on the price of housing, making housing more generally more affordable, and, as a side effect, benefitting many people struggling to make a start on the housing ladder. Increasing the supply of housing more broadly will be another important factor as the coalition deals with the Labour party’s failure to build enough homes. Last year, fewer homes were completed than in any time for a generation, and today’s housing reforms need not be seen in isolation when it comes to providing support for those in need of housing. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): My hon. Friend should be aware that last year saw the lowest number of houses built since 1924. Mark Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I spoke about a generation, but it is clearly two or three generations. Either way, we need to deliver more houses, as I think has been recognised by the Labour party, and the changes that the Government are introducing in the localism Bill will enable more houses to be built. It is that additional supply that will bring down prices for both rental and sale, giving occupiers a better deal. Progressive authorities, such as my local authority in Rugby, recognise the benefits of housing growth both for their local economies, by introducing new consumers into the area, and for the community as a whole, through the new homes bonus, which will enable the local authority to retain more council tax to develop new infrastructure. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion because I know that other Members wish to speak. In my view, the housing benefit reform that the coalition is introducing is a necessary step in controlling the cost of the system of housing support to taxpayers, a saving that will yield £1.6 billion a year. In addition to that saving, the system being introduced will bring long-term benefits in the operation of the housing market. 8 pm Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): As a new member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I have a keen interest in this topic. The Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the impact of the changes to housing benefit. We had an insightful evidence session the other day with the Minister for Welfare Reform. Conclusions will follow soon. It is worth repeating that the statistics show that 4.7 million people receive housing benefit in the UK, two million of whom are pensioners, 500,000 are on jobseeker’s allowance and 700,000 work in low-paid

Housing Benefit

222

jobs. The housing benefit total is clearly a huge sum, and I, too, am in favour of reforming housing benefit if the changes are fair and well thought through. We all agree that the deficit must be cut somehow, even if we do not agree about the pace at which the cuts should happen. However, the coalition is seeking to push through the changes to housing benefit on the basis of quick fixes and cheap headlines. I reject the approach of targeting and punishing people—that is what it is: punishing people—who cannot find work. Someone who is trying their best to get a job should not have 10% of the money that they need to pay their rent taken from them, thereby only adding to their miserable situation, imposing even greater stress, both financial and emotional, and doing nothing to improve their job prospects. Indeed, quite the contrary: doing so reduces their meagre resources still further, cutting the funds available to them to apply for jobs and attend interviews. Dr Whiteford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those cuts will affect local authorities, which will have a statutory duty to pick up the pieces when people are evicted from their homes or forced on to the streets? Alex Cunningham: I do agree. Indeed, my local authority has told me of its anguish in wondering how it will cope with the problem at a time when it is also facing 25% cuts in its budgets. The cut to housing benefit is not the only disincentive to work. Those 700,000 people claiming housing benefit who are in low-paid work will incur greater travel costs to get to work if they are forced to move further from their places of employment. Indeed, they might not even be able to afford to do so, thereby losing their jobs. For those who are already working for the minimum wage or close to it, the change could make the difference between balancing the books each week and being unable to pay the bills and put food on the table. Certain sections of the media would have us believe that the vast majority of people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more are lazy layabouts who do not want to work—not so: in reality, very few people have that attitude. Most people who are unemployed want to work and provide for their families. The Government’s crude measure, however, will target all those people, regardless of their attitude. Despite reductions in the number of people unemployed in recent years, in the Stockton borough there are still nine people unemployed for every job available. With 500,000 public sector and 500,000 private sector jobs set to go as a result of the coalition’s cuts, things will only get worse on Teesside. People should not be punished because of a lack of jobs. A few weeks ago, Connaught, a major building company, went into administration, and it was followed by another this week, Rok. Both were big employers in my area, and I doubt whether either will provide the private sector jobs that the Government seem to think will be magicked out of thin air. If people had those jobs, they would not have to access housing benefit. As a result of the changes, people who claim housing benefit will lose £9 a week on average, or £468 a year, which is a lot of money to a lot of people. It is a big drop in income for people struggling to make ends meet. Much of the focus has been on the impact of the changes on London and the south-east, and understandably

223

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

so, given the high cost of housing in those areas. However, Shelter estimates that some 45,000 people in the north-east will also be affected by cuts to housing benefit. In Stockton-on-Tees, the local authority has told me that from April 2011, 30 families will lose out by £36 a week on average, thanks to the removal of the five-bedroom local housing allowance rate. From April 2012, 400 claimants will be hit by the extension of the shared room rate, which in future will apply to people up to the age of 35. Another 1,800 households will also lose out in hard-cash terms. Clearly the impact of the changes will be felt by people across the country, and not just in London and the south-east. We must also look at the associated costs of the changes for local authorities. The wider impact of the changes on families and communities will be significant, particularly in areas expected to see an influx of people who have been forced to move out of areas in which they can no longer afford to live. For example, some schools may see an influx of pupils, as families are forced to move to areas where accommodation is cheaper. I worry that uprooting families in that way will cause chaos and might end up costing more than it saves. Others Members have talked about the shortage of affordable homes. A key reason for the increase in the housing benefit bill in recent years is the lack of affordable housing. I am passionate about the need to build more homes and ensure that young people in particular can get on the property ladder. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, more than eight out of 10 first-time buyers get on the housing ladder only because they receive cash from the bank of mum and dad. First-time buyers today typically require a deposit of 21%, compared with 10% three years ago. The problem will surely only get worse for those young people due to start university in 2012, who will graduate with huge debts, of £30,000-plus, making it even more difficult for them to save for a deposit for a house. Thirty-five years ago, 85% of the housing budget went on bricks and mortar, building new homes. Today, more than 85% of the housing budget goes on helping people with their housing costs, because the lack of affordable housing has driven up rents and house prices so much. Under the previous Labour Government, many new homes were built, including 500,000 more affordable homes, but that was not enough. In addition, the right to buy gave millions the chance to own their own homes, but it meant that the nation’s social housing stock dwindled. Surely the long-term solution to the problem is to invest in our housing stock, to ensure that rents and house prices are sustainable, and that ordinary, hard-working people can afford housing without assistance from the state. Since the coalition came to power, I am told that local councils have ditched plans for new homes at a rate of 1,300 every day. That is not the direction that we as a nation should be travelling in. I will be interested to hear just what the Government plan to do to reverse that decline and help us build the affordable homes that will help negate the need for such vast sums of public money in the benefits system. 8.8 pm Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): As an outer-London MP with the 13th highest proportion of LHA claimants, I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to

Housing Benefit

224

this debate, in preparation for which I met representatives from Shelter and other interested parties. I had looked forward to this debate, but I must say that as the afternoon has grown longer and I have grown a little wearier, I have been disappointed that, apart from some notable contributions, we seem to have heard a lot of cant, hyperbole and soundbites from many Opposition Members, which has done little to improve the quality of the debate. I have sat here for so long that I started looking for some fresh ideas, and at one point the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that there was no strategy. Well, strategy there is, and strategy is the point that has been missed by Opposition Members, because it is a mistake to look at housing reform in isolation. That is a mistake that we have seen all afternoon. To do so is to miss the point of what the Government are trying to do. This Government’s strategy is to try to lift people out of poverty, taking them from dependency to independence—something that the Opposition have neither embraced nor understood, but even at this late hour I hope that they might just reflect on it. They are missing the point of what the Government are doing, but by understanding my constituency they will see what we can do for our constituents. Enfield North has 7% unemployment, higher than average youth unemployment, and pockets of poverty, mainly in the eastern area. Those are issues that I want to conquer, and that requires reform. Doing nothing is not an option, but constructive suggestions have been notably lacking from the Opposition. Of course the decisions are difficult—[Interruption.] I welcomed the conversion of the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) to the cap for London, which was seriously missing from everything that the Opposition had said previously. Of course the changes are difficult, but that does not mean that they are wrong. They will drive out poverty by the most reliable means of helping people and contributing to getting them back into paid employment. The Secretary of State is sensitive to many of the demands. He was quick to point out the discretionary funds that are available and to which due acknowledgment has not been given today. Is it right to have a system— Dr Whiteford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Nick de Bois: I will not give way until I have made some progress. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I have been here for many hours, and I am not sure whether there is anything new coming from the Opposition Benches. Is it right to sustain a scheme that works against employment? No. What do I say to the employer who came to my surgery only last week and told me that people are queuing up for jobs, but they want to work for only a limited number of hours for fear of losing their house? How absurd is that? Whatever the Labour party’s good intentions when it was in government, its reforms produced a grotesque situation. What do I say to the people who come to my office and want to work, but are caught in the poverty trap—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members do not want to listen, but week after week in my constituency I see the evidence of a failed policy on my doorstep, and it is absolutely right to represent my constituents’ interests not only of where

225

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Nick de Bois] there has been failure, but where there is an opportunity for success. That is what this Government are trying to do, and rightly so. What will the changes mean? We are talking about the LHA, not social housing. Rents are high. There has been a 25% increase over seven years in the LHA sector compared with 15% in the private sector. It was interesting when an Opposition Member—forgive me, I cannot remember his constituency—said that the 40% share of the LHA market that the Government are driving is not influencing rents. It is utter nonsense to think that such a massive contribution can have no impact on the level of rents. Opposition Members may deceive themselves if they wish, but I assure them that in the real world that is definitely the case. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Nick de Bois: I will not give way at the moment. I want to finish my speech, but if there is time I will happily take a further intervention later. A four-bedroom house will allow almost £20,000 of LHA, which is equivalent to a substantial amount of gross income. We talk about fairness, but it must work both ways. Hon. Members should come with me down the Hertford road in my constituency to meet those who are working hard to pay their rent and trying to look after their family on a low income. They should try to understand the frustration of living next door to people who may be living in a bigger house, subsidised by the state. We must bear that in mind when making judgments. We are all in this together, and we must reform and change. The Labour Government believed that the answer to defeating poverty was to use targets and money—some £20 billion of our money in housing benefit. They rationalised that that was how to fix the problem, but it failed. It did not help; it hindered. Instead of releasing those in poverty and suffering inequality, it imprisoned many in a spiral of unwelcome state dependency. The time has come to change. Our proposals are part of a holistic, joined-up programme. Caroline Flint: My understanding is that nearly 7,000 people will lose out as a result of the cuts in Enfield. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to them? Nick de Bois: The hon. Lady should change the end of the telescope she is looking down. She should look at what she can do to encourage employment and encourage people back to work, and start to take people out of real poverty. That is the contribution that she could make, and I hope that I can welcome her to such a conversion later this evening. Our proposals are part of a holistic, joined-up programme to reform the Labour party’s policy of surrender to dependency to a future of independence free from poverty. I understand that hon. Members do not want to hear that, but they have heard and perhaps they will learn. Hon. Members: Follow that!

Housing Benefit

226

8.15 pm Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): Follow that indeed. I want to pick up on some comments made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). They referred to the tenor of the national debate on this issue, which I have found deeply worrying, and how our newspapers in particular show unemployed people being divided from employed people, benefit recipients being divided from those who are not claiming benefits. We saw that division of rich and poor at the weekend with the headlines in some newspapers reflecting announcements from the Department for Work and Pensions. The Mail on Sunday said “New IDS blitz on the workshy”; the News of the World said “Work gangs for shirkers”; and The Sunday Telegraph said “Workshy will have to take unpaid jobs”. Michael Ellis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Umunna: I want to make some progress, but I may give way later. Today, we read that the Department has released figures showing that every family will have to pay more than £1,500 a year in taxes to fund the housing benefit system. As ever, it seems that a particular section of society has become a target. Has the Treasury released figures to show how much each family in this country loses as a result of tax evasion and avoidance by wealthy individuals and companies? It is extremely important that we do not allow the tactic of divide and rule to succeed. This is particularly pertinent to my community. The constituency that I represent is diverse not only ethnically but in regard to the socio-economic demographic of the people who live there. I spoke to one of my constituents about these issues last weekend. He and his wife live in one of the more leafy parts of Clapham common, an area known as Abbeville village, and he works for a private equity company. He is undoubtedly in the top 1% of earners. I asked him what he thought about the Government’s changes to the housing benefits regime. Given that they will not have a direct impact on him, I was surprised to find that he had strong views about them, and that he was horrified at their likely impact on his community. One of the reasons that he likes living in my constituency is the diverse nature of the streets and the different parts of the area. He said that he did not want to live in a street where all the people were like him. He liked the fact that there were different people living there. I mention this because it is important to understand that these changes will be an issue not only for people claiming housing benefit but for the community as a whole. Given the impact that the changes will have on my constituents, I do not feel that I am whipping up hysteria or unduly disturbing my community. I am simply looking at the facts. There are 5,470 households in Lambeth that will face huge cuts in housing benefit next year. For example, 1,520 households in two-bed properties in Lambeth will see the contribution to their rent reduced by an average of £25 a week. That is £1,300 a year, and those people simply cannot afford it. The

227

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

changes will undoubtedly cause an increase in poverty in my constituency. Shelter is predicting that they will affect many of the claimants who live just above the poverty line, and they will undoubtedly lead to deep anxiety and stress among people who are already struggling to get by. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an unintended consequence of the measures will be that, if people have to spend more of their income on rent, they will have less to spend in local shops and on local services? Mr Umunna: Absolutely; I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have outlined some of the effects on my community that we are able to discern, but there will be others that it is difficult to quantify at the moment. We are going to be faced with people moving from inner London to our part of Lambeth, seeking private rented accommodation. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): We know that this is what the Tories do: they attack the poor and the vulnerable. But what about Labour? I could not make out from what the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) said whether Labour were for or against the cap. Does the hon. Gentleman know? Mr Umunna: If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion, he will see no denial of the need for some degree of housing benefit reform. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will give further details in her speech, in addition to the many details that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave the House earlier. I was talking about the effects of the measures that we are not yet able to discern. We have 22,000 people on social housing waiting lists in Lambeth, but we have no idea of the number who will seek social private rented housing in our area as a result of the changes. I mention that figure to demonstrate that we are already under huge pressure. There has been a lot of talk about introducing these measures to reduce the benefits bill, but we are told that rents will inevitably fall as well. London Councils, a cross-party organisation, has carried out a survey of landlords in London. I make no apology for talking about London, by the way; it is my area, and it is where my constituency is based. The survey found that 60% of landlords letting properties to housing benefit tenants in London said that they would not reduce their rents, even by a small amount, to accommodate the changes, and Shelter has found that 43% of such landlords will simply scale back their operations in this sector. I want to finish by mentioning a matter that I have already raised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the proposal to reduce by 10% the housing benefit of jobseeker’s allowance recipients who have been receiving JSA for more than 12 months. I challenged the Chancellor about this at a Treasury Committee hearing in July and asked him to provide me with evidence that that measure would produce increased work incentives, given that he said that that was why he was introducing it. Funnily enough, he quoted the Institute for Fiscal Studies back at me. It is funny how the coalition Government choose

Housing Benefit

228

to ignore the IFS when it tells them things they do not want to hear, only to quote it back at me when they find it helpful. The Chancellor quoted an IFS report that found that “welfare benefits can have substantial effects on the work behaviour of unskilled and even for men with high school education”.

Be that as it may, I do not see how there can be an incentive for people to work when there are no jobs for them to go into. In the past few weeks, information from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown that 1.6 million people are going to be out of work as a result of the measures being introduced by the Government. We already know that there are five people chasing every vacancy in the economy, and research shows that that figure is not going to fall. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are seeking to punish people who are doing everything they can to find work? I have asked this question in the Chamber before, but I have not received a reply. There are many people in my constituency who have been on JSA for more than a year—the number generally hovers between 700 and 800—and who are struggling to find work. Why are the Government punishing them when they are already down on their luck? We must resist the divisions that the headlines are seeking to create in our communities. This is an issue for everyone, whether they are on housing benefit or not, and I plead with the Government to reconsider the measure on JSA recipients. As I have said, they are already down on their luck. Why kick them when they are down? 8.24 pm Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): I am a firm believer—I always have been—that people should be rewarded for hard work. I am also a firm believer that we need housing and other benefits, but that they should be there as safety nets. The willingness of the Labour Government to pay more than £100,000 a year to someone on benefits is not, to me, a safety net. It has to be said that £100,000 is an enormous amount of money, which is sufficient to fund a lifestyle beyond the budget of many hard-working families in my constituency of High Peak. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that has to be wrong; it cannot be right. Labour Members claim that this is fair. Do they think it fair that, under current arrangements, someone paying rent below the local housing allowance level will be able to receive the local housing allowance and keep the change? People can make a profit on housing benefit. Does that seem fair? Is that fair to someone working hard to pay their way? Labour Members look askance, but it is true. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Andrew Bingham: Briefly, yes. Glenda Jackson: In my constituency, private landlords are increasingly reluctant to accept tenants who can pay only through housing benefit. For an increasing number of people, there is a shortfall between what the local rent office deems a property to be worth and what the landlord actually charges. Not one single claimant of housing benefit in my constituency—and they number thousands—has money to take home from the local housing allowance. In many instances, they have to make up the shortfall themselves.

229

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Andrew Bingham: That may be the case in the hon. Lady’s constituency, but there are examples where people are keeping the money as change. I will pay slight tribute to Labour Members, as they were going to stop that in April next year. Fair do’s there. However, that needs to be compared with what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) said, as he spoke about taking money away. I gather that £15 of weekly excess was taken away last year. How do they square that one? The £20,000 to £21,000 cap on housing benefit is fair. Some people have claimed that that amount is too much, but I think it is about right. I also think that setting the local housing allowance at the 30th percentile point is fair. It means that people on housing benefit can afford three out of 10 rental properties. From experience, however, I would like to sound out a small note of caution about broad market rental areas. The determination and review of BMRAs must be done with great care. The Rent Service looked at the BMRA in my constituency. Glossop was covered as well, but because of the determination and conditions, there was a detrimental impact on some residents in my constituency. This issue was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald), and it is a slight concern of mine. One thing that came out of the Rent Service review was the Heffernan case, which went to the House of Lords—some Members may be aware of it, some not. It caused a long delay—hence my note of caution. The increase in the discretionary housing allowance has not been much mentioned. It is increasing by £10 million next year, £40 million a year from 2012 to 2015, and £60 million a year from 2013-14. This is a huge amount. The DHA was used to deal with the difficulties of the BMRA in High Peak a couple of years ago. The reform of housing benefit is long overdue. At present, we spend more on it than on the Army and Navy combined. It is right to offer people support when they need it, and it is right that the extra money is available through the discretionary housing allowance. Caroline Flint rose— Andrew Bridgen rose— Andrew Bingham: I will not give way, as I have nearly finished and many others are waiting to speak. [Interruption.] I can talk as long as anyone wants, but I am conscious that some Members have been in their places a long time and are waiting to speak. It is wrong that hard-working families in my constituency and others who are living within tight budgets— Caroline Flint rose— Andrew Bingham: Oh, go on. I will let the right hon. Lady have a go. Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman welcomes the announcement of a rise in the amount provided for the discretionary housing allowance. How would he feel if those payments were paid to the landlords of the very occupiers of homes that the coalition Government have demonised by letting them stay in houses that cost so much money? What does he feel about that?

Housing Benefit

230

Andrew Bingham: Excuse me, but I do not like the word “demonised” any more than I like “punished” or “cleansing”. I do not like the language used by Opposition Members. Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend give way? Andrew Bingham: Yes, for the last time. Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend believe that the increase in the housing benefit budget from £14 billion to £20 billion in the past five years is a sign of the success or the failure of the last Government’s policies? Andrew Bingham: I think that “abject failure”is probably a better phrase. I end by saying that it is wrong for families who work hard to see families on benefit living in houses that are beyond their wildest dreams. 8.30 pm Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): I was interested by what the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said. I think that it had something to do with hard-working families and the impact of the present housing benefit system on people who wish to work hard. I was reminded of the first Thatcherite regime, when the hon. Gentleman’s party deemed a living wage to be 75p an hour. I also remember that during our term in government, his party voted against every single move to take people out of poverty, including the national minimum wage. The most interesting thing to emerge from today’s debate is the fact that Government Members have swallowed hook, line and sinker the myths that were originally used in the proselytising of their Prime Minister, who stood on the Floor of the House and castigated housing benefit for paying people £1,000 and £2,000 a week. He attempted to present that as the median for people claiming the benefit, and I was so intrigued that I tabled a question on the issue. There are, in fact, no claimants receiving £2,000 a week, and there are precisely 90 families, in London exclusively, whose housing benefit pays them rent of £1,000 a week, because those are extremely large families. The myth with which the Government have been successful in their proselytising is that most people on housing benefit live in four-bedroom properties. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people on housing benefit live in shared accommodation or in one or two-bedroom properties. In my constituency, the amounts that those claimants will lose range from £21 a week for those in shared rooms to £246 a week for those who are fortunate enough to live in four-bedroom properties. Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): The 10 families in my constituency who live in five-bedroom properties do so not because they have dressing rooms or extra en suites, but because of the nature of families nowadays. A mother and a father may bring in children from previous relationships. Government Members do not seem to be able to grasp that. Glenda Jackson: That is a salient point, which can be replicated in my constituency. I know of a family with two children who are severely disabled and in wheelchairs,

231

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

and two who are not so severely disabled. There are also a mother, a father and a grandmother, and they are all attempting to live in a four-bedroom property. The other myth that has been propounded by Government Members today is that these changes are essentially fair. I distinctly remember the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—who has proved himself to be the Maréchal Pétain of his generation—saying that the changes were not only fair, but made at a time when the Government were having to make extremely difficult choices to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Throughout the afternoon, it has been clear that Government Members do not regard pensioners as vulnerable. Nor, apparently, do they regard them as being taxpayers. They do not regard people with disabilities as being vulnerable, and they do not regard people on low pay as actually working. What I say about my constituency and my city of London is not scaremongering. We have been here before. As I said, some of us remember the Thatcherite regime, when people were forced out of their homes and some were sleeping on the streets because they could not afford to find anywhere to live. The bills for bed-andbreakfast accommodation were astronomical. I am sure that Government Members are smiling at that memory, because that, essentially, is what they wish to do. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way? Glenda Jackson: Let me finish the point. Government Members wish to get rid of social housing completely. Anas Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I promise not to annoy her again. I just want to highlight the fact that Government Members are finding much of this funny. They like to portray this issue as being about workshy or unemployed people taking benefit from hard-working taxpayers across the country. Is it not true that only one in eight people who receive housing benefit are unemployed? Government Members should take this debate more seriously. Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend is wishing for the moon. Government Members are not interested in facts; they discount absolutely everything that emanates from this side of the House. Andrew Bingham: Will the hon. Lady give way? Glenda Jackson: No. Government Members also discount the briefings that we have all received, from organisations such as Shelter, Crisis, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Citizens Advice and the National Housing Federation, about the real danger and damage that these ill-thought-out plans are going to inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We have been here before. We have seen all this before. An earlier submission by Crisis pointed out that it will cost £60 a day for a room in a bed and breakfast. Let us look back to the earlier history of bed and breakfasts. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to the history of 1945; I was somewhat surprised that he did not take us back to the much more recent history of what happened to people in this country under the first Thatcherite regime. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about children then—

Housing Benefit

232

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Lady give way? Glenda Jackson: No. I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Colchester is not concerned about children this time. As he knows, the greatest damage inflicted on children was when they were stuck in those abominable bed-andbreakfast set-ups. Not infrequently, families were turned out on to the street at 9 o’clock in the morning and not allowed to return until 5 o’clock in the evening. This, apparently, is the coalition Government’s way of taking people out of poverty. I find it totally incongruous that they should believe that they will take people out of poverty by making them homeless. That, essentially, is what they are going to do. Kwasi Kwarteng: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way. We have sat through her speech with varying degrees of incredulity. While we admire her histrionic performance, we are still at a loss as to what her position is on the cap. Does she think it is right that in her—[Interruption.] I am fully entitled to ask the hon. Lady a specific question about her view on the cap. There are people in her constituency who are receiving far more than £20,000 a year on housing benefit. Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the beginning of this debate, he would not have been as ill informed as he is ill mannered. There are not people in my constituency claiming housing benefit at that rate, as I have had occasion to say to him. The majority of housing benefit claimants live in one and two-bedroom properties. We have already said that we would certainly introduce a cap, but not by the method that his Government propose. There should be a regional element. Steve Webb indicated dissent. Glenda Jackson: From a sedentary position, the Minister is waving his hands in disbelief. This afternoon he was leaping to the Dispatch Box asking questions about what my party would have done if we had been in government. He knows, and I know, that if my party had been in government and his party had still been in opposition, and we had introduced the policies that he is supporting now, he would have fought them tooth and nail. The Minister has absolutely no cover any more. As I have had occasion to say before in the House, his party has become the “30 pieces of silver” party, and nowhere is that more marked than in what it is proposing to do to some of the most vulnerable people in all our constituencies. I say to Government Members that the problem is not exclusively London’s; this will affect the whole country. When the second tranche of the Government’s approach to social housing comes in—the increase of rents to at least 80% and the removal of secure tenancies—the impact will run and run. Michael Ellis: Are not hard-working people on low incomes also vulnerable, and do they not also need to be treated fairly by our society, as opposed to those on whom so many of the hon. Lady’s Opposition colleagues focus—people on housing benefit who are receiving more from the taxpayer than many of the working poor could dream of paying for themselves?

233

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Glenda Jackson: I am intrigued to know how the hon. Gentleman thinks it will benefit low-paid hard-working families who are not claiming housing benefit if we make low-paid hard-working families who are on housing benefit both unemployed and homeless. They will then have to move from where they are currently living—and, I hasten to add, where they provide services that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would never dream of providing for themselves. We are all dependent on those services, and on the people who provide them. I know the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not like it, but when that happens in the centre of London we are going to see— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. Time is up. I call Bob Blackman. 8.41 pm Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I think I am right in also wishing you a happy birthday for tomorrow. I also wish to say that it is a privilege and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We cannot divorce housing benefit from the plethora of other benefits that have been allowed to build up over the last 13 years: jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, and also council tax benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit. Contributory benefits and universal benefits will all play a part in resolving this country’s benefits problem. These benefits are a bureaucratic nightmare. They are mainly paper based, and enormous amounts of evidence are required to justify their application. As a consequence, many individuals who claim benefits have to go to Jobcentre Plus, the pensions authority, the disability and carers service, their local authority and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If they are on jobseeker’s allowance they may have to swap between that and incapacity benefit, claiming the money from the same agency yet having to claim again. Clearly therefore, what we have inherited will be a nightmare to resolve. Housing benefits impinge on all those other benefits, and I have said before that housing benefit is a very bad benefit, because it is so complicated to administer. Let us look at what has happened over the last 10 years. I will not repeat the figures for the increase in the total budget, but we should note that it costs £1 billion to administer that budget. For most local authorities in the country it is the biggest single item of expenditure going through their books. We are using it as a form of housing subsidy. That is right and justified, but the extent to which the costs have built up and been allowed to spiral is completely wrong. The one thing I agree with the Opposition about is the need to reform housing benefit, yet for 13 years they ran this country but did not reform it. Instead they made it worse. Now we have inherited that situation and we, as the new Government, must deal with it. What must we do to reform it? First, we must look at the costs involved in housing benefits. As we have said, this is the first stage in simplifying the country’s benefit system, making it more effective, reasonable and transparent, and changing it into a system that encourages people to go to work. In my constituency people frequently

Housing Benefit

234

say to me, “I can’t get a house for love nor money.” The advice given to them by the local authority is, “We can’t provide you with a council house, but what we can do is this: you go into private sector rental accommodation, and housing benefit will pay for it.” If people in that situation follow that advice but then have the temerity to get a job, they lose housing benefit pound for pound, which is, of course, an immediate disincentive to getting a job. What we have to do is make sure that any reform of the whole housing benefit regime transforms it so that work always pays. Ms Buck: I am asking this for about the fourth time this evening. Does the hon. Gentleman concede that half of all local housing allowance claimants of working age in private rented accommodation are either in work or connected to the labour market through jobseeker’s allowance? Bob Blackman: I will repeat the mantra that my hon. Friends have repeated, which is that 13% are in work and the rest are on JSA. The LHA has distorted the market even more, as my hon. Friends have said, by making it more beneficial in certain instances for people to be on housing benefit and pocket the difference. What nonsense! Rent levels have been distorted in many parts of the country. The Opposition are claiming that the modest reforms being introduced will mean people being thrown out of their houses and suddenly being cleansed out of all proportion, but what will happen is exactly what is happening in the borough of which my constituency is a part. Its housing director has said that 3,040 families will be affected by the change, and the borough will seek to ensure that the rents fall and adjust to the levels of housing benefit that are applicable—although that still distorts the housing market. Some 3,000 properties out of more than 100,000 in the borough will be affected, so this involves a small percentage of people. When I challenged the housing director to tell me what he would do about the families who might, sadly, lose their houses as a result of this change, the figure came down from 3,040 to 80. I have great sympathy for the 80 families who could be in that position, so I then challenged the housing director to tell me what he would do about it. My authority will do what every local authority in this country should do, which is challenge the landlords to reduce their rents so that those people are not made homeless. Phil Wilson: How can the hon. Gentleman expect private landlords to reduce their rents when for every one person on LHA wanting a property, five to 10 people in work are looking for the same property? Who are private landlords going to go for? They are going to go for the person in work. Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which leads on to the other key issue in this debate: the supply of housing in this country. That point is not really being answered by the Opposition. The Labour party had every opportunity to build houses over the past 13 years, but it failed to do so. At the same time, it failed to take account of the fact that this country’s population is increasing, so the need for housing increases all the time. We have a market for housing and

235

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Housing Benefit

236

housing benefit distorts it directly, which is why it is a bad benefit in desperate need of reform. One of the reforms that must take place is changing the way in which housing benefit is withdrawn from people as they get work. At the moment that is a direct disincentive for people at a certain level to work, because they lose benefit pound for pound. Why should someone work if that is the position?

is clearly embedded in the motion. There is no use anyone’s shaking their head—it is there and it is on the Order Paper.

Fiona O’Donnell: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that what this means for housing associations, on which we are going to rely to build homes, is that their cash flow will be interrupted, they will have debts and there will be an adverse impact on their ability to borrow to build those homes?

Nic Dakin: The previous Government made changes to housing benefit. As recently as a few months ago, the former Chancellor moved to change how rent entitlements were calculated so that big increases in house prices at the very top of the market no longer skewed spending on housing benefit. Things were in train, but they continue to need to be addressed. We could have a cross-party reform process that engages with all those who have expertise in this area, from Shelter to the National Landlords Association. Instead, there is a danger that the headlong rush into this basket of illthought-out proposals will threaten the fabric of our communities. A key reason that the housing benefit bill has gone up is the lack of affordable housing in certain parts of the country, particularly London and the south-east, which has been exacerbated by the economic downturn, as people lost their jobs or reduced their working hours and needed the support available from housing benefit to prevent them from becoming homeless. The Rugg review of the private rented sector points out a possible way of addressing those issues. Those proposals, combined with real investment in more affordable housing, offer an alternative way forward. Unfortunately, the Government’s cuts to the housing budget and their squeeze on local authorities mean that it is unlikely that much new social housing will be built before 2015 other than that already commissioned by the outgoing Labour Government. Comments by the Deputy Prime Minister and other Government Members show that they signally fail to understand how housing benefit helps people to stay in work. Only one in eight of all housing benefit claimants are unemployed, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) pointed out. If we take just those in receipt of LHA across the country, 26% are in employment and only 19% claim jobseeker’s allowance. The rest include pensioners, carers and disabled people who are unable to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) excellently exploded the various myths about housing benefit and housing benefit claimants. The proposal to use the 30th percentile of local rents, rather than the median, to calculate LHA will have a wide-ranging and negative impact. More than 750,000 people will lose out as a result. They are people on low incomes who, the Government will say, can live on lower incomes. According to Shelter, Crisis, the Chartered Institute of Housing and Citizens Advice, the most brutal of all the housing benefit changes is the proposal to uprate LHA according to the consumer prices index, rather than local rents, as currently happens. If this change goes ahead, it will cause great distress. Independent research by the university of Cambridge suggests that the cuts will push an additional 84,000 households below £100 per week per couple for all expenses after housing costs. Those households include 54,000 children. I recognise the concerns of the hon.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The housing associations throughout this country seek changes of tenure, changes of regime and an encouragement to develop the housing that this country desperately needs in every local authority area. I trust that that is what will happen. The coalition Government have set out their stall: we will build 150,000 new homes during the life of this Government. We agree that that is not enough, and we would like to see more. What we want to see is young people getting a foot on the housing ladder, moving out of rented accommodation and purchasing their own property. What has to change is that the applicable lending regimes of the banks, building societies and suchlike must enable people to get on the property ladder. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman comment on my local authority, West Lancashire borough council? It wanted to build a new civic centre, and in so doing said that it would build affordable houses and in the process knock down four good homes. While he is speaking about that— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. I call Bob Blackman, who has four seconds left. Bob Blackman: Very simply, I welcome its proposition— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. 8.50 pm Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and his “Just a Minute” remarks at the end—well done. This is a Government in a hurry. We can all understand their sense of urgency and their desire to get on with the job. In many ways, that is creditable and commendable. However, the reality is that the plans for reforming housing benefit are ill thought out and ill considered. Only fools rush in—they rush in and make matters worse, and they gamble recklessly with people’s lives and livelihoods. In the Secretary of State’s speech at the beginning of the debate, it was unfortunate that he was unable to give any confidence to people who are worried and concerned about these issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) said, he did not allay the fears of constituents up and down the country. As those of us who have sat through the whole debate have heard this afternoon, there has been cross-party consensus in favour of reforming housing benefit. That

Kwasi Kwarteng: If there is the consensus that the hon. Gentleman talks about, does he have any idea why the previous Government did not address the problem in the 13 years that they were in government?

237

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Nic Dakin] Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that the proposals may well end up increasing the number of children living in poverty. None of us in the House would want that to happen, I am sure. The proposal in the universal credit idea to unify benefit tapers and make the system simpler have much merit, but the proposed changes to housing benefit in advance of the introduction of the universal credit will severely undermine the goal within it. Some will be forced to give up employment because they can no longer live within commutable distance. Some will be forced to move away from friends or family who provide child care or support. The proposal to cut housing benefit by 10% for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months seems dreadfully punitive. If the claimant has striven ceaselessly for 12 months to get a job but been unsuccessful, they are penalised for their misfortune. That is the world of Gradgrind and has no place in a modern civilised economy. Shelter, Crisis, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Citizens Advice and Mencap are just some of the range of organisations warning of the dire consequences that might occur if the proposals go ahead unamended. The Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed serious concerns that “People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are . . . driven further into a sort of downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in this way.”

This Government are proud to say that they are listening to people’s concerns and will govern according to the new politics. The proposals represent a challenge to them to listen to those who know what they are talking about, and to those who make things happen on the ground and work with people day in, day out on such issues. The Government should step back from helter-skelter decision making and from a reckless gamble with people’s lives and livelihoods. 8.57 pm Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I shall raise three quick structural points, which I hope the Minister will consider in his response and in his proposals going forward. I come from rural Somerset, where house prices are high. There has been a great rise in house prices over the past 10 years, but people still have low incomes. The average income is £18,500 and many of the workers are part-time workers, with many jobs which they tack together, and seasonal workers. I have three questions. First, once the existing housing is rented out, will the Government give housing associations the flexibility to build brand-new homes and let them out at the traditional social rents, or will all the new homes have to be charged at 80% of the market rent, which is high? The problem for tenants in my constituency is that they have very little capacity to save money towards their own housing, as such a large proportion of their income goes on housing costs. The next two points are similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). Can the Minister clarify the situation for tenants who have mental health issues? There are two gentlemen in my constituency who use private rented

Housing Benefit

238

accommodation. Because of their age—they are in their early 30s—they may be asked to move into shared accommodation. Will they be able to access that discretionary housing allowance? Those payments would ensure that they were able to remain in their existing housing, rather than having to move out for a year, two years or three years and into shared accommodation, such as a flat. I want to ensure that they are protected in some way against the disruption of a move, particularly when that might be extremely detrimental to their mental health. My third point is about the alarming and increasing practice in one district council area of my constituency, where homes that have a dining room are classified as having an extra bedroom. Therefore, a three-bedroom house with a dining room becomes a four-bedroom house, a four-bedroom house becomes a five, a five-bedroom becomes a six, and so on. As a result, families, who are the only ones able to obtain such housing, end up with no living space. People normally retreat to their bedroom if that is the only space that they have in the house, but such a loss of family space is extremely detrimental. That of course has a subsequent impact on the private rented market, because the example that the local authority sets becomes custom and practice throughout the housing sector in my area. 9.1 pm John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): This debate has been enlightening in many respects thanks to Members on both sides of the House. I shall not be repetitious; I shall just concentrate on putting on the record the plight of my constituents and the implications of the policy for them. It will at least give me some peace of mind that someone has spoken up for them. Like every other Member, I have a weekly advice surgery—about twice a week at the moment. We have an open-door policy at the office, and we are swamped with casework, as many Members are. Half my casework is housing-related, and my surgery is the most distressing part of my week, as I am sure the surgery is for many Members are. It is heart-rending. Families, who come with their children, are living in appalling housing conditions: overcrowded, sleeping three or four to a room and often, as the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said, using their living rooms and other parts of the accommodation as bedrooms. They live in unsanitary conditions, lacking heat and hot water, and often their premises are damp. They live a nomadic life in my constituency, with 12 to 18-month accommodation licences, and their children move from school to school, disrupting their education. We have not seen a housing crisis on this scale since the second world war. In the borough, I have 1,500 to 2,000 families and more who are homeless at any point in time. The reason for that has been mentioned—the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to it—and it is that the bulk of our council housing stock has been sold off. Little council housing has been built in 30 years, under both Governments, and the buy-to-let landlords have moved in to provide the accommodation. They fail in many instances to maintain the properties, and we also have Rachmanite landlords who abuse their tenants. They are profiteering from the housing shortage with high rents and, of course, through housing benefit,

239

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

but I find it ironic that in this debate Members on one side of the House seem to be blaming the tenants and housing benefit for high rents, not the landlords themselves, who charge those high rents and exploit the benefits system. Many families in my area already struggle to pay the rent, and many already make up the gap between benefits and rents. They receive some discretionary payments from the council, but they are few and far between, and the families get into debt and fall back on loan sharks. As a result, they often fall into rent arrears, get evicted and then become classified as intentionally homeless. We can see how people can get caught in a cycle of deprivation. The new proposals will exacerbate the nightmare that many of my constituents already face. Some 3,000 families will lose out on anything between £6 and £27 a week. The London Councils survey, which has been quoted extensively, demonstrates that a large number of landlords have stated that they will evict families if the gap in rent is more than £20. Many families in my constituency will be evicted, and they are already rushed through eviction as it is. That means that there will be an increase in homelessness in my area and it will be extremely difficult to find accommodation. I already have families moving out of the area on different schemes who find it very difficult to find work elsewhere and then desperately seek to come back to be close to their family members. The results of these proposals—I want to put this on record for my constituents—will be an increase in poverty, immense stress, and immense distress for many people, particularly at a time when unemployment is rising in my constituency, as it is across the country. I do not believe that cuts in benefits are the answer, or that people are incentivised to find work by poverty or by homelessness—in fact, it pushes them back into further depths of despair. There is an alternative proposal for which many in this House have argued for a number of years. First, it is about building council homes again, and getting back to investing on a scale that meets the needs of our population. That means an element of redistribution of wealth and ensuring that people pay their taxes, particularly the corporations, so we must tackle tax avoidance and evasion. I believe that we need an emergency programme of house building to tackle the homelessness that we now have, particularly in London and the south-east. Secondly, there should be rent controls. If benefits are high because rents are high, there is a simple solution that applies in many parts of Europe, where people have controlled the rents and thereby stopped the exploitation by landlords. Thirdly, in areas such as mine we need a more radical solution to the level of homelessness. We should allow councils compulsorily to purchase empty properties so that we can put families into them. I find it a disgrace that a house will stand empty for a long period. Some 300,000 properties are empty for more than six months, while people are on the streets or living in housing deprivation. We have a housing crisis on our hands, and we need an emergency programme to tackle it. I certainly do not believe that cuts in benefits will go any way towards tackling this problem—in fact, that approach will cause more homelessness, put more people

Housing Benefit

240

into deprivation, and cause immense human suffering in our society. That is why I support the motion, and why I will do everything I possibly can in this House, in demonstrations, and in direct action on the streets to oppose these housing benefit proposals. 9.7 pm Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to support my party’s motion on the housing benefit cuts. We have heard contributions from many Members. I concur with everything that Opposition Members said, and there have been notable exceptions among Government Members. I will not try to repeat everything that has been said, but I would like to flag up three issues that have arisen regarding the Government’s reasons for wishing to introduce these housing benefit cuts. First, there is the fallacy that the cuts need to be made because of the deficit. Yes, everybody agrees that cuts need to be made in different areas of Government activity and public services to balance the books. However, it is always said that because a Labour Government were in power, we somehow caused the deficit and the financial crisis, when everyone knows that that is not true. Up until 2008, the Government parties supported the public expenditure projects that we brought about in the past 13 years, such as the beautiful hospitals, the schools, and all the building work that had carried on to improve the country’s infrastructure. Most of the money was spent on that. We created jobs and regenerated the economy. In 1997, when we came into government, we inherited a complete mess, with unemployment and interest rates at record levels, so let us not have any lectures from the Conservatives about financial mismanagement. Secondly, it has been said that Labour was in power for 13 years and did not do enough about housing. I accept that my party could have done a bit more on building new houses. However, we tried to help vulnerable people by bringing 1.5 million social homes up to a decent standard. Those were homes that were substandard when the Conservatives were in power. We fitted 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000 new bathrooms and more than 1 million new central heating systems. Yes, it cost billions, and I remember the then Opposition begrudging it, but it made life better for the people who had lived in substandard houses. At the same time, it regenerated the economy and provided jobs. We will not take any lectures from Conservative Members who tell us that we did not do enough. Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend think it is a disgrace that the Conservative mayor of North Tyneside, when she was leader of the council, wrote to the then Housing Minister to oppose £104 million being given to North Tyneside for homes for older people? When she came to power, she also resisted money for building 800 council houses in the area. How can we trust the Tories on council housing? Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Even in the face of recession, my party supported home owners to stay in their homes. Because of our actions, the current repossession rate is half that of the

241

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Yasmin Qureshi] last recession of the early 1990s, preventing about 300,000 families from losing their homes. In 2004, local authorities met Labour’s target that no family should be in bed-andbreakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. When we prepared to tackle the issue in 2002, up to 4,000 families were housed in such accommodation. Conservative Members say, “Well, you didn’t do enough”, but we did a great deal for people who were in substandard housing. About 55,000 affordable houses were also built. I turn to the cuts themselves. The Government say that they have to be made to reduce costs, but contrary to the Secretary of State’s assertion that Labour Members are scaremongering and coming up with facts and figures that are not borne out, it is Shelter that has stated that £120 million more will have to be spent on families who are made homeless as a result of the cuts. It is not Labour party members or MPs who have said that. The cuts will cause big cities such as London to become like Paris. I know that the Secretary of State said that that was another piece of scaremongering, but it is not. There will be dispersal—we all now accept that word, as we know that people do not want to use the word “cleansing”. It will inevitably follow the cuts that if someone lives in what is considered to be an expensive part of town, where rents and rates are higher, after the cuts they will have to move out of their accommodation. That will effect social engineering, because only well-off people will be able to live in good areas of big cities. It will basically get rid of poorer people to the outer margins of the big cities and towns, into the poorer areas. Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that she is against any cap on housing benefit. I am with her on that one, but can she persuade her Front Benchers to come with us? I still do not know what the Labour party policy is on a housing benefit cap. Does she have any clearer understanding of that? Yasmin Qureshi: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am talking only about how the change will affect my constituents. Of course, the increase in rents and rates is not the result of people choosing to live in expensive areas. We have to remember that many people have been living in their areas for the past 20, 30 or 40 years. It is not their fault that over the years house prices and rents have gone up. That does not mean that they should be sent 60 or 100 miles away where they have no family, relatives or friends and be completely disconnected from their community. Shelter has stated that the Government have not examined the impact of the proposals on many claimant households that will be shifted from around or just below the 60% median income line into severe poverty. The proposals will push an additional 84,000 households below £100 a week per couple, and those households include 54,000 children. Cutting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile means that 700,000 of the poorest people, who are both in work and out of work, will be at least £9 a week worse off.

Housing Benefit

242

Kwasi Kwarteng rose— Yasmin Qureshi: I promise to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a moment. On average, the impact of the local housing allowance on my constituency of Bolton South East will be £52 per month for a two-bedroom flat, with an average loss of £39 on properties that have more than two bedrooms. That may not seem like a vast amount of money to some hon. Members here— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. 9.15 pm Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I hope that all of us across the House can agree that the best kind of community is a mixed community—a community of young people, old people, people on middle incomes and people on large incomes; a community that is ethnically diverse. That is why, when we think about the proposals in relation to London, hon. Members have described them as something akin to what we have seen in Paris. Most London MPs will recognise that those claiming housing benefit in London largely come from the ethnic minorities. They are families from Somalia, Turkey and Africa. I am deeply concerned that the Secretary of State has not yet produced an equality impact assessment of how the proposals will affect those families. He should be able to tell us that the effects of his proposals are not discriminatory, but he cannot do that. He should also be able to tell us how they impact on women and disabled people, but he is not able to do that. There is a real concern that the proposals will drive people from central London to outer London. My constituency has some of the highest homelessness figures in London. We have 19,000 people on the housing register and 5,000 people in temporary accommodation. Members on both sides of the House agree that we have not built enough affordable housing. In the past year in London, under the leadership of Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, many local authorities failed in that regard, and overwhelmingly they were Conservative. I have the list: 83 affordable homes built in the London borough of Kingston-upon-Thames; 100 built in Kensington and Chelsea; and 200 in Westminster. Given such a backdrop, an exodus from inner London to outer London will exacerbate the problem. My father arrived in this country in 1956. Like most other West Indian immigrants at the time, he lived in a doss house. This was a London that was still experiencing the effects of the war; there was a shortage of houses and money. Many immigrants huddled together in bedsits. My father lived with four others in a small bedsit in Finsbury Park. He often talked about how he had to huddle around a paraffin heater because of the cold. I am concerned that these proposals will lead to even more excessive overcrowding in London. I warn the Minister that what we saw in Paris was serious social unrest as a consequence of overcrowding. That is why it is unacceptable to hear the rhetoric about social cleansing, but not to produce an assessment of the effect of the Government’s proposals, which is now a statutory duty as a result of the previous Labour Government.

243

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

There is a caricature of the fecklessness that leads people into this situation. Londoners will find themselves in this situation largely for two reasons. The first is that house prices have gone up. For my constituents, they have gone up by over half in the past 10 years. A person needs to be earning £60,000 a year to afford a house in the London borough of Haringey, which is way beyond the reach of most people. Secondly, it is not to say that people are on welfare and that welfare is bad, as was said by one Government Member. Welfare is a safety net for people on low incomes. These are the people who will clean the Chamber long after we have left tonight, and these are the people whom we are letting down as a result of these proposals. So of course we stand against this motion—[HON. MEMBERS: “For!”] I mean we stand for the motion because of the paucity of evidence backing up the Government’s proposals. Given that the Minister has aligned against him senior members of the Church in this country and given the deep concerns in the city of London and, as we have heard, elsewhere in the country among ordinary, hard-working people, including the 2 million pensioners who rely on housing benefit, he should think again. 9.21 pm Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I want to make some constructive comments, and I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the issues I raise. I will ask some questions from a Northern Ireland perspective, because the housing benefit changes will affect us as well—we cannot divorce ourselves or walk away from them. I should set the scene, because Northern Ireland has some very particular circumstances: the Department for Social Development has responsibility for social security benefits, and the Department for Employment and Learning has responsibility for training and employment programmes, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Department for Work and Pensions. DEL has significant differences with its steps to work programme, as against the job guarantee fund here. There are issues to be clarified, therefore, and I want to ensure that the changes in benefits will not impact adversely on the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has had the local housing allowance since 2008, but it has not been formally assessed. I had hoped that it would be, because it would have given us an idea of how successful it has been. I am concerned, however, that the proposed changes to the allowance lack a firm evidential base. Will the Minister comment on that? I think that the proposals will adversely affect recipients in Northern Ireland. I am gravely concerned about the Budget plans to reduce the initial award of the benefit by 10% in April 2013 to those claimants who have been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for longer than 12 months. I make that comment because the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland between April and June was 6.6%. Worse still, the working-age employment rate remained well below the UK average, and was the lowest of all the 12 UK regions. The changes put forward tonight will adversely affect the people of Northern Ireland because of our position in relation to benefits.

Housing Benefit

244

I have concerns about the introduction of a measure that utilises sanctions that are neither helpful nor beneficial. The proposal appears to be based on the assumption that a reduction in housing benefit will motivate working-age claimants to find work, but it is clear that even if every working-age claimant was so motivated, there would still be significant numbers of long-term unemployed people in Northern Ireland beyond 2013. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. We have to find a balance. How do we distinguish between those who are genuinely seeking employment and those who perhaps are not? I mentioned earlier that the focus of housing benefit has to be on providing low-income families with access to good-quality housing. The housing benefit cap rates may have a knock-on effect on the social housing sector, as private rented accommodation becomes harder to access for those on low incomes and the demand for social housing increases. A great many people are in a Catch-22 situation: they do not have enough money to rent a house privately, yet there is not enough social housing for them. Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does he accept that in the absence of cap rates—or, sometimes, where the rates are fairly generous—private sector rents become inflated? Landlords simply look at what the rate is, and if it goes up they put their rents up. It is almost like a perpetual cycle: the rates go up, so rents go up, and then the rates are pushed up again, and the only people who gain are the landlords. Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for his information, which is helpful in focusing attention on what we are trying to aim for. Members have mentioned fuel poverty. One of the spin-offs of losing housing benefit will be fuel poverty. In my former position, I sat as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of the inquiries that we undertook was on child poverty. Fuel poverty and housing benefit both came up in that inquiry into child poverty, but all those things were part of the jigsaw of how people survive. Take away one part of it and we have a problem. I have some concern about that. One Member mentioned the discretionary housing payment, and I would certainly be keen to find out from the Minister what he intends to do if the pool of funding that is set aside runs out. He said that it was impossible to separate housing benefit from housing and social development policy in general, and there are some examples of that in Northern Ireland where housing has been designed to bring mixed communities together, such as in Loughbrickland in County Down and Ballynafeigh in south Belfast, which are also examples of how we have moved forward. I would like to express some concern over the removal of housing benefit from people where it will drive them towards poorer areas. For some people who are already in poorer areas, they will not move beyond them, and I have concerns about that. I am conscious of the time, but another concern of mine relates to applications by carers for disabled people—I do not think that the issue has been mentioned fully yet, although some Members may have partially touched on it. A carer for a disabled person might want to apply, but the only person who can do so is the claimant’s

245

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Jim Shannon] spouse or partner. Would it not be more beneficial to ensure that the rest of the family members, who are perhaps those who are more affected, may also apply? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. I also believe that some consideration needs to be given to single parents who have shared custody of children. I am not sure whether that issue has been addressed, so I would ask the Minister to look at that, too. Where custody is established, benefit entitlements should be granted to the parent to support the family unit. I do not believe that the proposals do that. Again, I ask the Minister to consider that point. Other Members have touched on the issue of large families. It would not apply so much in the area that I represent, but I believe that it none the less applies right across the United Kingdom. Has particular consideration been given to ethnic families in other parts of the United Kingdom, where larger, multi-generational household are perhaps more common? I ask the Minister to consider that as well. There should be more innovative and positive incentives, which are far more preferable in making housing benefit entitlement reflect family size in the social rented sector from 2013. The Government position is bereft of detail, and I ask the Minister to consider my points. 9.30 pm Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): We have had a good debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), my right hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) and for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Streatham (Mr Umunna), for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on their measured contributions to the debate. They focused on facts and their constituents, and they raised concern about the impact of the policies and the lack of evidence to clarify them. They asked the coalition Government to consider how their policies may lead to unfortunate consequences for their constituents in many ways. They came forward with ideas for reform. They raised concern about ending up with more polarised communities, and they talked about equality. Most importantly, they tried to address the issue. The hon. Members for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), for Colchester (Bob Russell), for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made meaningful contributions. They, too, raised their concerns about the effect of the policies on their constituents. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would have made a similar point about the people she represents.

Housing Benefit

246

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Lady promised to say whether the Labour party is planning to introduce a cap. How much would that be, and how would a nice new Labour cap differ from a nasty Tory cap? Caroline Flint: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come to that. Those colleagues—I call them colleagues because the substance of their speeches suggest that they may join us in the Lobby tonight—may be interested to know that the Minister for Housing referred to the Hull city council leader, Carl Minns, who is a Liberal Democrat, as a “motormouth” when he raised concerns about the impact of some of the Government’s policies on people in Hull. Lord Shipley, a former leader of Newcastle city council, said that the private rented sector had been a “cornerstone” in stopping the use of bed and breakfast in Newcastle and that he did “not wish to return to the days when we did…My concern is that the local housing allowance changes may restrict access to private rented accommodation and therefore limit the capacity of councils generally to resolve future housing need.”

Those thoughts echo many of the comments that have been made. It is a shame that not one Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government is on the Benches at the end of these proceedings. Clearly, the Minister for Housing does not believe that it is worth while sitting alongside his colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions to consider how to address reform of housing benefit and housing supply, which many of my hon. Friends and a few hon. Members raised. That is a great shame. We are not opposed to reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) made that very clear. We are not against caps in the housing benefit system, as long as they do not make people homeless or cost us more in the long run. We do not have an objection to asking younger single adults on housing benefit to live in a shared house or flat, but we must be sure that there is enough supply to accommodate everyone, and to recognise that some single people may have particular needs that require them to be accommodated in a different way. We will look at how non-dependant deductions can be made, provided they do not result in people suddenly finding themselves unable to live in their homes with an elderly relative, for example. We are willing to consider some temporary changes to the uprating of benefits so long as that does not permanently break the link between the rent that people pay and the help that they receive. We also believe that cutting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile will have a huge impact, which is not to be desired. About 700,000 of the poorest people, in work and out of work, will be on average at least £9 a week worse off. We recognise the need for reform but, as in other areas, such reform should be staged over a number of years and be more limited. Bob Russell: During the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, I put forward various proposals to them in more than 50 parliamentary questions. Does the right hon. Lady accept that, had the Government in which she served listened to and acted on those proposals, we would not be in this situation now?

247

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Caroline Flint: I am closing this debate on behalf of the Opposition and we want to consider some points that hon. Members have made. We also believe that housing should be looked at in the round, in regard not only to benefit reform but to housing supply. Let us look at some of the other points that have been raised. We heard from the Government that housing benefit was out of control, but it was not. The housing benefit bill did go up as a result of the economic downturn because, as people lost their jobs or were forced to work reduced hours, they needed more help to prevent them from becoming homeless. In the past two years, there have been 250,000 new cases of people in work claiming local housing allowance. Overall, however, as a proportion of total Government spending on benefits and tax credits, housing benefit has stayed stable at 14% for the past 20 years. Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the right hon. Lady give way? Caroline Flint: No, I am going to make some progress. We have also heard from the Government that their plans will save money. However, if they do not think their policies through and consider their impact on people, they could end up costing more than they save. The Government say that the cap will save £65 million. Others say that its consequences—uprooting families, forcing them out of their homes and into temporary accommodation—could cost nearly twice that. We have heard that the Government intend to increase the amount for discretionary housing payments, but I seemed to hear them say that they would use that money to pay the people who they say should not be in those homes to stay in them. Instead of using housing benefit for that purpose, they are going to use discretionary housing payments. That is a smokescreen too far. The Government like to say that these reforms will help people into work, but pricing hundreds of thousands of working people out of whole swaths of the country, often where most of the jobs are, will make it more difficult, not less, for people to find work and keep their jobs. Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Will the right hon. Lady give way? Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate, so I will not give way. Reducing people’s housing benefit when they have been out of work for a year does not help them to get a job. It punishes them for not having one, and we reject that entirely. The Government say that reducing housing benefit will bring rents down. Landlords themselves tell us otherwise, however, with 90% saying that they will be less likely to take on people on housing benefit. That means that there will be more people chasing fewer homes, which will drive rents up, not bring them down. Mr Duncan Smith: They would say that. Caroline Flint: The Secretary of State might say that, but I find it difficult to understand, given the question marks over the impact on rents of the Government’s plans, why they are not doing a more thorough job of getting the evidence to prove that their policies are right. I have heard the Minister for Housing—who is

Housing Benefit

248

not here tonight; he obviously does not think it worth while—say on a number of occasions that he has evidence to back up his idea that rents will go down, but he has refused to provide that evidence. We have seen no sign of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made strong points about the rented sector. They said that the Government’s policies on housing benefit reform and their lack of a plan for housing supply would do nothing to tackle the issue of rents. Let us be honest about this: the Government have completely rejected the findings of the Rugg review, which we initiated to tackle some of the problems in the private rented sector. Much has been said about our record on housing, so let me say something about that. Two million more homes were built, there are now 500,000 more affordable homes and 1 million more homeowners, and 1.5 million homes have been brought up to a decent standard. Homelessness was cut by 75%, and no family spends longer than six weeks in a bed and breakfast. In the face of the global financial crisis, the worst of its kind for 70 years, Labour did not walk by on the other side. We took action and supported families to stay in their homes. We prevented 300,000 families who might otherwise have lost their homes—and who would have lost their homes had the Tories been in power—from doing so. That is the reality. That is our record, and it stands in contrast to the mess the Tories left us. Many thought that bringing so many homes up to a decent standard in such a short space of time would prove impossible. It did not. However, it did come at the cost of not building as many homes as we would have wanted. I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester and some of my hon. Friends who have referenced that tonight. Let us not forget that the reason why we had to focus on decent homes and bring them up to standard was the desperate situation we inherited from the last Conservative Government in 1997. Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the right hon. Lady give way? Caroline Flint: The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is not in his place, helpfully points out on his website that there were 400,000 fewer homes after the Tories’ 18 years in power. Of the stock that did remain, the last Conservative Government knowingly, wilfully and shamefully allowed so much of it to get into such a state of disrepair that when we came to office in 1997, we faced a maintenance backlog of £19 billion, with 2.3 million homes below a decent standard. Pensioners were unable to heat their homes, and children were made ill because of the damp, mouldy and overcrowded homes they were forced to live in. That is the Tories’ record, and we are not going to let them forget it. Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the right hon. Lady give way? Caroline Flint: Conservative plans today are no better. The Minister for Housing likes to say that his Government will build more affordable homes every year than we built in 13 years. [HON. MEMBERS: “Give way.”] I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng).

249

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Housing Benefit

250

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I have asked this question six times in the course of this debate. What is your view on the cap? Would you have one?

Liberal Democrat Members and perhaps a few on the Tory Benches to join us in the Lobby and speak up for their constituents.

Mr Speaker: Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to get it right the seventh time. The Chair has no view on the cap.

9.44 pm

Kwasi Kwarteng rose— Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has finished. That is the end of it. Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman should look at Hansard. I said quite clearly that we are not against looking at caps, and we are prepared to look at regional variations as well, but that would have to be planned and done properly over time. Let me tell the Housing Minister that last year, in the teeth of recession, we built more homes in one year than the Government will build in any of the next five years. Since this Government came to power, local councils have ditched plans for new homes at the rate of 1,300 every single day. In the comprehensive spending review, the housing budget was demolished by devastating cuts of more than 50%. As a result, according to the independent National Housing Federation, once the homes Labour started building are completed, no new social homes at all will be built in the next five years. Mr Duncan Smith: In response to the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), she has said for the first time in this debate—her right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has also said it—that Labour Members are in favour of a cap. Will they please explain something to us? We have put our proposals forward. What level of cap do they now favour? Caroline Flint: We have said quite clearly—not just today, but in a speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made last Friday and in an article that I wrote last week—that we will look at the issue of caps. What we have said is that whatever cap is chosen on whatever basis, it must be planned, phased in and must ensure that people are not turfed out of their homes, put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation or made homeless. The Tories have not been able to answer any of those questions. The fact is that one part of Government is working on one track for housing benefit reform, but there is no joined-up thinking with the Department for Communities and Local Government on housing supply. That is not a plan of action for housing, but a recipe for chaos and it does nothing to help cut the housing benefit bill. It is not only Labour Members who say that; dozens of Tory MPs have been to see the Secretary of State to tell him why these plans will not work. We have heard about the Conservative Mayor of London and we know that Tory council leaders across the south-east have warned that the dispersal of people that these policies will create will place an unbearable burden on services that are already stretched to breaking point. There is a better way of doing this. We want to reform housing benefit, but in a way that is fair and that does not end up costing us more than it saves. I urge

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb): This has been a worthwhile debate. We have learned a number of things. Most of all, we have learned that no Labour MP actually read the manifesto on which they stood. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are in a state of almost uncontrolled excitement. I want to hear the Minister talking about his position, and about manifestos. Steve Webb: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Housing benefit will be reformed so that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford. When we do that, Labour Members are against it. When we propose a cap, they are in favour of it —until we set a figure, and then they are against it. When we propose to cut non-dependant deductions they are in favour of that—unless it actually affects anyone. The shadow Secretary of State said that he wanted regional caps, when the cap would principally affect central London, because he does not want a cap that actually caps anyone. What we need are credible Opposition propositions, not opportunism. Three main themes have emerged from the debate. The first is that the impact of these changes has been grossly exaggerated. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning, talk of highland clearances and the final solution is a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) pointed out how offensive such language is to people, but even in this debate we have heard talk of highland clearances, and of Paris. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) does not seem to appreciate that in substantial parts of central London—in the borough of Southwark, for example—48% of properties are in the social rented sector, and will not be affected by either the cuts or the percentiles. The suggestion that central London will be devoid of people on low incomes is complete nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to correct himself, he is welcome to do so. Mr Lammy: The Minister proposes to increase social rents to 80% of private rents, which will lead to a removal of poor people from central London. The Minister knows that. Steve Webb: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has followed the proposition. It involves new houses and new build. People in existing tenancies do not face that change. We have heard talk of the impact of these changes. I appreciate that it is a shame to introduce facts at 9.45 pm, but I shall give it a try. As was pointed out by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), this is not just a London issue, but obviously the impact of the cap will be felt particularly in London. There are 400,000 people on housing benefit in inner London, which ought to be

251

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

where the impact will be greatest. Of those, 313,000, or 77%, will be unaffected because they are in social tenancies, and a further 30,000, or 7%, will be unaffected because they are in the non-local housing allowance sector. That adds up to 84%. A further 6% receive local housing allowance, but will not be affected. That means that 90% of people on housing benefit in central London will not be affected at all, while another 3% will be affected by less than £10 a week. The mistake made during the debate is that people have assumed that any shortfall is equivalent to homelessness. That is a ludicrous leap. We know that people experience shortfalls in a number of ways. Of all the people on housing benefit in central London, 7% will experience shortfalls of more than £10 if there is no change in rents. Mr Raynsford: Will the Minister confirm that he has just misled the House? Tenants in social housing will be subject to increased non-dependant deductions. The housing benefit of those who have received jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months will be terminated or reduced by 10%, and the benefit of those who are deemed to be occupying accommodation larger than they need will be reduced as well. All those social tenants will be affected by the Minister’s changes. Will he now admit that? Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman intended to include the word “inadvertently” in his intervention. Steve Webb: I am sure that he inadvertently forgot, Mr Speaker. The impact of the cap, the impact of the 30th percentile and the impact of the removal of the £15 excess have been elided in the debate. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned the figure of 20,000 pensioners in her constituency—most of whom will not be affected by any of the changes. As I was explaining, less than 10% of people receiving housing benefit in the area most likely to be affected—inner London—will experience shortfalls of more than 10%. The exaggerated impact has been made clear. However, one point has not been made clear. It has been suggested that the private rented sector is somehow an oasis of stability and settled communities, but there is massive churn in that sector. I want to give an example of that. The people affected by the caps and the 30th percentile are on local housing allowance. Local housing allowance was introduced in April 2008, so pretty much all those people did not even move into their current properties until April 2008; in the vast majority of cases they have lived in them for less than three years. The idea that we are suddenly churning up some settled permanent community is complete nonsense. Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman is saying that a huge proportion of people will not be affected, but let us say, for example, that we are doing our best to move a woman in Islington from a three-bedroom house into a smaller flat. Would she lose her secure tenancy if she moved? Steve Webb: When there are specific instances of vulnerable people about whom local authorities have concerns, those local authorities have discretion to do something about the situation. But when people might

Housing Benefit

252

reasonably be expected to move, that, of course, is part of the equation. If everybody went on staying exactly where they were at the same rent, there would have been no point to the policy. On the basis of the debate so far, Mr Speaker, you would imagine that this year’s £21.5 billion housing benefit budget was about to be slashed. [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers are saying that it is. Mr Douglas Alexander indicated dissent. Steve Webb: Sorry; the shadow Secretary of State is disowning the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who got it wrong. In 2014-15 the housing benefit budget will have been “slashed” from £21.5 billion to £22 billion. We are not slashing. We are making changes. It has been said that we are being too hasty. The Labour party has decided that after 13 years of making the problem worse, doing something about it is “hasty”. Labour was so unhasty that it never got round to doing anything about the problem before it lost office. We are getting a grip. First, we have established that the impact of the changes has been grossly exaggerated. Secondly, we have established that rents will not stay as they are. During the debate it has been suggested that the fact that the British taxpayer is putting more than £20 billion a year into housing benefit has no impact on the market. We, the taxpayers, pay housing benefit towards 40% of private rented tenancies. It is a long time since I studied economics, but I reckon if we pay for 40% of the tenancies and we put £20 billion a year into the market, we might just be having some impact. Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman is using the figure of 40%. Recent research done both in Scotland and England is completely different. It produces a figure of 20%. In fact, in Scotland it was 17%; the report was produced for the Scottish Government. Only 8% of that was for housing benefit. We need to see the evidence that differs from the research that the Government themselves commissioned. Steve Webb: I am not sure what the hon. Lady is questioning. Some 40% of private rented sector tenancies have housing benefit. That is a fact. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, people have said in this debate that rents will not fall. There is an assumption that rents have to go up. I have news for those people: since November 2008 private sector rents have fallen by 5%, while LHA rents have risen by 3%. So there is a void. That is further evidence. Opposition Members have asked for evidence, and here is clear evidence that LHA is driving up rents. Mr Slaughter: Will the Minister give way? Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I want to respond to 35 different contributions; I hope that he will forgive me for responding to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) pointed out how LHA is inflating the market. LHA rents are on average 10% higher than the housing benefit rents that have carried on from the previous system—more and more evidence that we,

253

Housing Benefit

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Steve Webb] through our taxes, including taxes on hard-working families, are inflating rents. That is not benefiting tenants. During the debate it has been suggested that we are against the tenants, but we are actually against our taxes being spent on inflated rents, because that is not what the money should be for. We have established that if we can get a grip on the rents, that will benefit tenants and help people in lower-paid work to pay those rents. There have been exaggerated stories about the impact, an assumption that rents will not fall, although we believe that our changes will have an impact, and thirdly— Mr Slaughter: When the local housing allowance was introduced, the hon. Gentleman wrote on his website: “Proposals of this sort risk creating ‘ghettos’ where low-income tenants are forced to move to accommodation in lower rent parts of town, whilst those who are better off continue to rent the best properties.”

When did he change his mind and stop worrying about that problem? Steve Webb: That is interesting. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman still supports the housing benefit cut taking away the £15 excess that the Labour party was going to introduce before the general election. If I remember rightly, Labour delayed that cut by one year— until after the election. Does the hon. Gentleman still support that Labour cut in housing benefit? I suspect not. It is important that we have a discussion about fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) raised the situation of vulnerable people, particularly families with children. We are clear, first, that the impact of the changes as a whole is much narrower than has been assumed; secondly, that they will have an impact on rents, which will reduce the shortfalls and the number of people who will have to move; and thirdly, that there will be individual vulnerable cases. My hon. Friend is right to say that the position of families with children is very important. That is why we have trebled the money available to local authorities for discretionary housing payments specifically to help the most vulnerable. I recently had a conversation about a London authority that estimated that it would need to double its discretionary housing payments to cover these costs. We are trebling them, which we believe will enable local authorities to address the situation of the vulnerable households about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned. I am grateful to him for raising that point. The issue of fairness was raised by other Members too. My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) rightly pointed out that many low-paid workers cannot begin to afford the sorts of rents we are paying for housing benefit recipients. The Labour party used to agree with us on that. Since they became the Opposition, however, they have stopped agreeing with themselves. There is a fairness issue therefore, and as we bring down rents we will improve the fairness of the system. One of the key issues is housing supply, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and others also raised. The shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline

Housing Benefit

254

Flint), rightly raised that issue as well. However, the housing shortage was caused by the Labour party, which failed to build sufficient numbers of houses when in office. Many Labour Members said that they wished the situation was different. Well, they had 13 years to make it different. It is no good their wishing in opposition that houses had been built. As they held the levers of power and they did not pull them, they have to accept and live with the consequences. That is why I welcome what my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government are doing to generate new social house building so that there will be diversity in the social housing sector, with the most subsidised rents and also near-market rents—80% of market rents— which will provide the resources needed for the significant increase of 150,000 new social homes. We desperately need that increase during the course of this Parliament. Many Members raised issues about the disincentive effects of the housing benefit system, and I want to draw attention in particular to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). He made some powerful points about the fact that once people are in work and on housing benefit—I do accept that there are people in work and on housing benefit—the benefits systems then traps them, because if they want to do extra work they face very high marginal withdrawal rates. My hon. Friend highlighted the situation of people who are in work and do not want to do more hours because they will just find that their housing benefit is withdrawn. That is a crazy system: we, the taxpayers, pay £21 billion a year to subsidise rents, and put inflation into rents, and then we expect people to do low-paid work, and as soon as they do more work we claw the money back. That is going to change. This Government are doing to do something about it. On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce plans to take forward the proposition of a universal credit, whereby for the first time people will be guaranteed to be better off in work. Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab) claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Main Question accordingly put. The House proceeded to a Division. Mr Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby. The House having divided: Ayes 258, Noes 319. Division No. 113] [9.59 pm AYES Abbott, Ms Diane Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Alexander, Heidi Ali, Rushanara Austin, Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian Bain, Mr William Balls, rh Ed Banks, Gordon Barron, rh Mr Kevin

Bayley, Hugh Beckett, rh Margaret Begg, Miss Anne Bell, Sir Stuart Benn, rh Hilary Benton, Mr Joe Berger, Luciana Betts, Mr Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Blears, rh Hazel Blenkinsop, Tom

255

Housing Benefit

Blomfield, Paul Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Brennan, Kevin Brown, Lyn Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Russell Bryant, Chris Buck, Ms Karen Burden, Richard Burnham, rh Andy Byrne, rh Mr Liam Cairns, David Campbell, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Gregory Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Chapman, Mrs Jenny Clark, Katy Clarke, rh Mr Tom Coaker, Vernon Coffey, Ann Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Cooper, rh Yvette Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, Mr David Creagh, Mary Creasy, Stella Cruddas, Jon Cryer, John Cunningham, Alex Cunningham, Mr Jim Cunningham, Tony Curran, Margaret Dakin, Nic Danczuk, Simon Darling, rh Mr Alistair David, Mr Wayne Davidson, Mr Ian Davies, Geraint De Piero, Gloria Denham, rh Mr John Dobbin, Jim Dobson, rh Frank Docherty, Thomas Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M. Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Doran, Mr Frank Dowd, Jim Doyle, Gemma Dromey, Jack Dugher, Michael Durkan, Mark Eagle, Ms Angela Eagle, Maria Edwards, Jonathan Efford, Clive Elliott, Julie Engel, Natascha Esterson, Bill Evans, Chris Field, rh Mr Frank Fitzpatrick, Jim Flello, Robert Flint, rh Caroline Flynn, Paul Fovargue, Yvonne Francis, Dr Hywel Gapes, Mike Gardiner, Barry Gilmore, Sheila

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Glass, Pat Glindon, Mrs Mary Godsiff, Mr Roger Goggins, rh Paul Goodman, Helen Greatrex, Tom Green, Kate Greenwood, Lilian Griffith, Nia Gwynne, Andrew Hain, rh Mr Peter Hamilton, Mr Fabian Hanson, rh Mr David Harman, rh Ms Harriet Harris, Mr Tom Havard, Mr Dai Healey, rh John Hendrick, Mark Hermon, Lady Heyes, David Hillier, Meg Hilling, Julie Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Hoey, Kate Hood, Mr Jim Hopkins, Kelvin Hosie, Stewart Howarth, rh Mr George Hunt, Tristram Illsley, Mr Eric Irranca-Davies, Huw Jackson, Glenda James, Mrs Siân C. Jamieson, Cathy Johnson, rh Alan Johnson, Diana Jones, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Jones, Susan Elan Jowell, rh Tessa Joyce, Eric Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Keeley, Barbara Keen, Alan Kendall, Liz Khan, rh Sadiq Lammy, rh Mr David Lavery, Ian Lazarowicz, Mark Leslie, Chris Lewis, Mr Ivan Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Mr Elfyn Long, Naomi Love, Mr Andrew Lucas, Caroline Lucas, Ian MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan MacShane, rh Mr Denis Mactaggart, Fiona Mahmood, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Marsden, Mr Gordon McCabe, Steve McCann, Mr Michael McCarthy, Kerry McClymont, Gregg McDonagh, Siobhain McDonnell, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, John McFadden, rh Mr Pat

Housing Benefit

McGovern, Alison McGovern, Jim McGuire, rh Mrs Anne McKechin, Ann McKinnell, Catherine Meacher, rh Mr Michael Mearns, Ian Michael, rh Alun Miliband, rh David Miller, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Moon, Mrs Madeleine Morden, Jessica Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Mudie, Mr George Munn, Meg Murphy, rh Mr Jim Murphy, rh Paul Murray, Ian Nandy, Lisa Nash, Pamela O’Donnell, Fiona Onwurah, Chi Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Paisley, Ian Pearce, Teresa Perkins, Toby Phillipson, Bridget Qureshi, Yasmin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Reed, Mr Jamie Reeves, Rachel Reynolds, Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Riordan, Mrs Linda Ritchie, Ms Margaret Rotheram, Steve Roy, Mr Frank Roy, Lindsay Ruane, Chris Ruddock, rh Joan Russell, Bob Sarwar, Anas Seabeck, Alison Shannon, Jim Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry Sheridan, Jim Shuker, Gavin Simpson, David Skinner, Mr Dennis Slaughter, Mr Andy Smith, rh Mr Andrew Smith, Angela Smith, Nick Smith, Owen Soulsby, Sir Peter Spellar, rh Mr John Stringer, Graham Stuart, Ms Gisela Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry Tami, Mark Thomas, Mr Gareth Thornberry, Emily Timms, rh Stephen Trickett, Jon Turner, Karl Twigg, Derek Twigg, Stephen Umunna, Mr Chuka Vaz, rh Keith Vaz, Valerie Walley, Joan Watts, Mr Dave Weir, Mr Mike Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Whitehead, Dr Alan Wicks, rh Malcolm Williams, Hywel Williamson, Chris Wilson, Phil Wilson, Sammy Winnick, Mr David Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Wishart, Pete Wood, Mike Woodcock, John Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Wright, David Wright, Mr Iain

Tellers for the Ayes: Stephen Pound and Mr David Hamilton

NOES Adams, Nigel Afriyie, Adam Aldous, Peter Alexander, rh Danny Amess, Mr David Andrew, Stuart Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Bacon, Mr Richard Bagshawe, Ms Louise Baker, Norman Baker, Steve Baldry, Tony Baldwin, Harriett Barker, Gregory Baron, Mr John Barwell, Gavin Bebb, Guto Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr Henry Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul Berry, Jake Bingham, Andrew Binley, Mr Brian Birtwistle, Gordon Blackman, Bob Blackwood, Nicola Blunt, Mr Crispin Boles, Nick Bone, Mr Peter Bottomley, Peter Bradley, Karen Brady, Mr Graham Brake, Tom Bray, Angie Brazier, Mr Julian Bridgen, Andrew Brine, Mr Steve Brokenshire, James Brooke, Annette

256

257

Housing Benefit

Browne, Mr Jeremy Bruce, Fiona Bruce, rh Malcolm Buckland, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Burns, Conor Burns, Mr Simon Burrowes, Mr David Burstow, Paul Burt, Alistair Burt, Lorely Byles, Dan Cairns, Alun Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Carmichael, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Neil Carswell, Mr Douglas Cash, Mr William Chishti, Rehman Chope, Mr Christopher Clappison, Mr James Clark, rh Greg Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Coffey, Dr Thérèse Collins, Damian Colvile, Oliver Cox, Mr Geoffrey Crockart, Mike Crouch, Tracey Davey, Mr Edward Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) Davies, Glyn Davies, Philip Davis, rh Mr David de Bois, Nick Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Dorries, Nadine Doyle-Price, Jackie Drax, Richard Duddridge, James Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Dunne, Mr Philip Ellis, Michael Ellison, Jane Ellwood, Mr Tobias Elphicke, Charlie Eustice, George Evans, Graham Evans, Jonathan Evennett, Mr David Fabricant, Michael Fallon, Michael Farron, Tim Featherstone, Lynne Field, Mr Mark Foster, Mr Don Francois, rh Mr Mark Freeman, George Freer, Mike Fullbrook, Lorraine Fuller, Richard Gale, Mr Roger Garnier, Mr Edward Garnier, Mark Gauke, Mr David George, Andrew Gibb, Mr Nick Gilbert, Stephen Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Glen, John Goldsmith, Zac Goodwill, Mr Robert Graham, Richard Grayling, rh Chris Green, Damian Greening, Justine Griffiths, Andrew Gummer, Ben Gyimah, Mr Sam Hague, rh Mr William Halfon, Robert Hames, Duncan Hammond, Stephen Hancock, Matthew Hancock, Mr Mike Hands, Greg Harper, Mr Mark Harrington, Richard Harris, Rebecca Hart, Simon Harvey, Nick Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Hayes, Mr John Heald, Mr Oliver Heath, Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Hemming, John Henderson, Gordon Hendry, Charles Herbert, rh Nick Hinds, Damian Hoban, Mr Mark Hollingbery, George Hollobone, Mr Philip Hopkins, Kris Horwood, Martin Howell, John Hughes, Simon Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hunter, Mark Huppert, Dr Julian Hurd, Mr Nick James, Margot Javid, Sajid Jenkin, Mr Bernard Johnson, Gareth Jones, Andrew Jones, Mr David Jones, Mr Marcus Kawczynski, Daniel Kelly, Chris Kennedy, rh Mr Charles Kirby, Simon Kwarteng, Kwasi Laing, Mrs Eleanor Lancaster, Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Latham, Pauline Leadsom, Andrea Lee, Jessica Lee, Dr Phillip Lefroy, Jeremy Leigh, Mr Edward Leslie, Charlotte Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Lewis, Brandon Lewis, Dr Julian Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Lidington, Mr David Lilley, rh Mr Peter Lopresti, Jack

Housing Benefit

Lord, Jonathan Loughton, Tim Luff, Peter Lumley, Karen Macleod, Mary Main, Mrs Anne Maude, rh Mr Francis Maynard, Paul McCartney, Jason McCartney, Karl McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Menzies, Mark Mercer, Patrick Metcalfe, Stephen Miller, Maria Mills, Nigel Milton, Anne Moore, rh Michael Morgan, Nicky Morris, Anne Marie Morris, David Morris, James Mosley, Stephen Mowat, David Mulholland, Greg Mundell, rh David Murray, Sheryll Murrison, Dr Andrew Neill, Robert Newton, Sarah Norman, Jesse Nuttall, Mr David Offord, Mr Matthew Ollerenshaw, Eric Opperman, Guy Paice, Mr James Parish, Neil Patel, Priti Paterson, rh Mr Owen Pawsey, Mark Penning, Mike Penrose, John Percy, Andrew Perry, Claire Phillips, Stephen Pincher, Christopher Poulter, Dr Daniel Prisk, Mr Mark Pugh, Dr John Raab, Mr Dominic Randall, rh Mr John Reckless, Mark Redwood, rh Mr John Rees-Mogg, Jacob Reevell, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Robathan, Mr Andrew Robertson, Hugh Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rudd, Amber Ruffley, Mr David Russell, Bob Rutley, David Sandys, Laura Scott, Mr Lee Selous, Andrew

Sharma, Alok Shelbrooke, Alec Shepherd, Mr Richard Simmonds, Mark Simpson, Mr Keith Skidmore, Chris Smith, Miss Chloe Smith, Henry Smith, Julian Smith, Sir Robert Soames, Nicholas Soubry, Anna Spencer, Mr Mark Stanley, rh Sir John Stephenson, Andrew Stevenson, John Stewart, Bob Stewart, Iain Stewart, Rory Streeter, Mr Gary Stride, Mel Stuart, Mr Graham Stunell, Andrew Sturdy, Julian Swales, Ian Swayne, Mr Desmond Swinson, Jo Swire, Mr Hugo Syms, Mr Robert Tapsell, Sir Peter Thurso, John Timpson, Mr Edward Tomlinson, Justin Tredinnick, David Truss, Elizabeth Turner, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Uppal, Paul Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Vickers, Martin Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Walker, Mr Charles Walker, Mr Robin Ward, Mr David Watkinson, Angela Weatherley, Mike Webb, Steve Wharton, James Wheeler, Heather White, Chris Whittaker, Craig Whittingdale, Mr John Wiggin, Bill Willetts, rh Mr David Williams, Roger Williams, Stephen Williamson, Gavin Willott, Jenny Wilson, Mr Rob Wollaston, Dr Sarah Wright, Jeremy Wright, Simon Yeo, Mr Tim Young, rh Sir George Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes: Norman Lamb and Stephen Crabb

Question accordingly negatived.

258

259

260

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Business without Debate DELEGATED LEGISLATION Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), IMMIGRATION That the draft Asylum (First List of Safe Countries) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), NATIONAL LOTTERY That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Question agreed to.

Clostridium Difficile Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.) 10.18 pm Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): It was in January 2007 that I last secured a debate on clostridium difficile, or C. diff as it is commonly known. It was the first time that the House had debated the subject, and I recall how at the time Mr Speaker’s office questioned what C. diff was. Indeed, many hon. Members had never heard of it. Since that time, however, sadly the impact of this cruel and often unremitting infection has demanded the public’s and, indeed, the Government’s attention. All hon. Members will probably know of someone in their constituency or family who has suffered from C. diff. Indeed, in that regard I welcome the attendance of Mr Deputy Speaker, who has a deep and personal interest in the issue, following the loss of his mother as a result of C. diff. I gladly acknowledge that there has been much progress in the three or so years since I last raised this subject. However, C. diff still leaves thousands of people each year suffering great discomfort, loss of dignity and, sadly, loss of life. The media spotlight comes on to the subject when there is an inquiry into a hospital trust and then moves on but, away from its glare, the terrible and often tragic effects of this infection have not gone away. I know that the Minister will provide me with an answer, which is the primary purpose of this debate— namely, an assurance that the Government take C. diff very seriously and are working hard not only to reduce it but to eradicate it. Much has changed since 2007, not least with the Government’s plans to revolutionise the national health service and empower patients and general practitioners. I hope that this debate will help to identify the challenges and opportunities to tackle C. diff, not only in the hospital setting but in the community. Some things, or rather someone has not changed since the previous Adjournment debate in 2007. I refer to the active involvement and national leadership on the issue of C. diff of my constituent Graziella Kontkowski, who has attended the debate this evening, as she did back in January 2007. Tragically, Graziella’s grandmother died as a result of the C. diff infection. Graziella describes being “helpless, watching my grandmother die a slow and painful death without being able to do anything to help her—it was the worst thing I’ve ever experienced.”

Since then, she has used her experience and remarkable passion and energy to ensure that other families are able to face and fight C. diff and its terrible effects. Alongside her brother Mark, Graziella set up the online C. diff support group, which can be found at www.cdiffsupport.co.uk, to make it possible for people who have been infected by C. diff, or whose loved ones have suffered from its effects, to share their experiences and advice with one another. The C. diff support group has about 1,500 members and continues to make a valuable contribution to the public debate on C. diff and to the lives of many who are struggling in similar circumstances to those that Graziella and her family went through. Graziella also helps to support the work of the Centre for Healthcare Associated Infections, which is based at the university of Nottingham. With the danger of bacteria

261

Clostridium Difficile

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr David Burrowes] mutating to become more resistant to antibiotics, its efforts towards the development of new vaccines and rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of the infection are to be commended. Its research can truly be described as life saving, and I encourage members of this House, and members of the public, to consider supporting its work. Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done on this very difficult subject. I would like him and his constituent to know that there is a device in America called Zimek, which I have observed. It is the most fantastic system that disperses disinfectant and has eradicated C. difficile in hospital wards. It is undergoing clinical tests in Northwick Park hospital, which is just next to my constituency and where many of my constituents are being treated. I urge the Minister to take note of this. I would be delighted to send him details showing the fantastic effects that the device has had in America, very cheaply and in a way that I believe could save millions of lives in this country. Mr Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the case for that proposal very well. Indeed, there are several innovative developments, not only in the hospital setting but in trying to look at prevention. Prebiotics is another area that is worth considering. I ask the Minister to look at supporting the centre I mentioned and at how we can support research in this field. A C. diff infection exacts a great cost from the patient who suffers from it and the family who witness it. It is also financially expensive. In 2008, the Department of Health released a report called “Clean, safe care: reducing infections and saving lives”, which noted that treating one patient with a C. diff infection cost the NHS more than £4,000 per patient. By this estimation, and considering the number of infections reported last year, C. diff cost taxpayers close to £1 billion in the past 12 months. It is true that C. diff has received a far more coherent and concerted response from the NHS in the past three years than it had previously. It is equally clear that this focus has had a positive effect on the quality of care and on survival rates in our hospitals. Last year the infection was noted on fewer than 4,000 death certificates and was considered to be responsible for deaths in 1,712 cases. That is less than half the rate in 2007, when more people died as a result of C. diff than as a result of road accidents. However, as the Secretary of State for Health has said: “There is no tolerable level of preventable infections.”

I am grateful to his Department for making it clear that a zero-tolerance approach to health care-associated infections is a priority for the Government. During the week beginning 26 September, 190 new cases of infection were reported by hospitals in England and Wales—an average of 27 cases a day, or more than one every hour. There is no room at all for complacency. One problem of which we need to be aware is the number of incidents of recurring C. diff symptoms in patients. I am greatly concerned that hospitals are releasing those who have suffered with the symptoms of the infection too early, which leads to many having to

Clostridium Difficile

262

return to hospital with the same problem. I am glad that the Department has recently made it clear that hospitals are responsible for the care of a patient for up to 30 days after they have been discharged. The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns) indicated assent. Mr Burrowes: I am glad that the Minister fully shares my concern. It is good to know that hospitals cannot expect any additional payment for treating those who have suffered a recurrence during those 30 days. However, I ask him whether there could be any sanctions on trusts that sadly fail to reduce the rate of infection. Along with the Department of Health, my constituent Graziella has produced a leaflet, which my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully distributed just before the debate. It is called “C. difficile—now you are going home”, and it sets out the best ways for patients to protect against the infection spreading. It is intended to be given to patients so that they can be aware of the risks and know how to prevent other vulnerable people from catching the infection. However, although both Graziella and I would like to see this leaflet distributed by every hospital and GP, there is no requirement that that happen. Many patients return home without the information in that fantastic leaflet about how best to protect themselves and others. Will the Minister consider requiring—or, in the more localising language that Conservative Members prefer, incentivising—hospitals to provide the leaflet or similar information to all patients leaving their charge who have had the infection? Although improvements have been made in acute trust hospitals such as my local North Middlesex university hospital, it is important that we do not lose sight of the need to pay attention to what is happening in our primary care trusts. In fact, in every month of last year, PCTs reported far more cases of C. diff than acute trusts. Enfield PCT, which is by no means extraordinary in this regard, reported 144 cases in patients aged over two in just the past year. Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about Enfield, as he knows, at our local hospital, Chase Farm, there has been an extraordinary improvement in recent months, particularly since August. That is essentially down to a massive concentration of effort on this one problem, and there, in part, lies the solution. Mr Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I support the work that has happened. It has very much been prompted by Graziella, who has been going from ward to ward to ensure that what people say is being done is, in fact, reflected in their actions. We also need to get to grips with the problem of C. diff in the community. In the past, there has been too little interest in what happens to a patient once they leave the hospital walls, and too little attention to the problem of infection being spread between hospital and home, or worse, between hospital and care home. Sadly, many of my hon. Friends will have witnessed that situation. That two-way corridor of infection must be addressed, as must the associated lack of care that care home residents can sometimes receive, as they are sadly away from the public eye.

263

Clostridium Difficile

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Given the clear danger of allowing infections to spread within an enclosed community of elderly and vulnerable people, I would be interested to know what the Department is doing to monitor cases within the care home setting, and specifically to monitor whether cases are being reported consistently and dealt with promptly and according to the most recent hygiene code. As we move boldly to a health care system that puts the patient and their recovery at the heart of every decision, it is essential that health care-associated infections such as C. diff are on GPs’ radars, especially as they take on responsibility for commissioning in their area. There needs to be an assumption in favour of testing for the infection when patients are suffering from diarrhoea. GPs must also be properly aware of the need to check up on patients, and avoid prescribing them certain drugs that are known to increase the risk of infection and the likelihood of patients suffering from severe symptoms. The C. diff support group has identified a number of worrying cases of GPs prescribing antibiotics. I also ask colleagues to look on its website and check out Imodium, which is known negatively to affect patients suffering from C. diff. In December 2008, the Department of Health’s report on C. diff strongly recommended that “all cases of diarrhoea among people in the community aged two years and above should be investigated for C. diff unless there are good clinical reasons not to.”

Such good practice needs to be extended to all GPs. Does the Minister know what more the Government can do to ensure that GPs are fully briefed on C. diff and that they are responding to this knowledge efficiently and consistently? Perhaps the Minister would consider enabling the NHS computer systems in both hospitals and GP surgeries to tag an alert to Imodium and other drugs that are known to increase the risk of C. diff in vulnerable patients. Doctors intending to prescribe such drugs would be reminded to consider whether the patient might have the infection before doing so. As for the careful monitoring of patients in the community, I would be interested to know what, if any, guidelines GPs follow with regard to the treatment of patients with C. diff. Perhaps the Department would be willing to provide such advice to doctors. Doctors could perform a simple blood test on elderly patients in the community to provide an early warning against the possibility of renal failure. I very much welcome the Health Secretary’s attendance today and his commitment to comprehensive, trustworthy and easy-to-understand information on how to look after patients’ health. The data on C. diff infection rates already exist and can be found online, but they are often inaccessible in their format. They can be sketchy and incomplete at best. Yesterday, NHS Choices listed 12 hospitals within five miles of one of the postcode areas in my constituency. Of those 12 hospitals, data on the prevalence of C. diff cases within the last 12 weeks were available for only two of those hospitals—North Middlesex University hospital and St Ann’s hospital. On the same day, the Department published business plans with a focus on transparency. To ensure that we see even more marked improvements in the next three years, will the Minister

Clostridium Difficile

264

tell us what he intends to do to ensure that “easy to understand” information is available, especially on those websites that patients are most likely to use and at those locations that they are most likely to frequent? Finally, I look forward to the time when the Minister can declare to the House that preventable health-careassociated infections such as C. diff can be eradicated. However, I am conscious, as the Minister will be, of George Bush’s regret when he prematurely declared “mission accomplished” and there is much to be done before we can get near to such a declaration. I hope that this debate, which supports the great work of campaigners such as my constituent Graziella Kontkowski, can move us closer to a time when we have no need to raise this important issue in the House again. 10.32 pm The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate on C. difficile. He has shown a strong interest in this issue for a very long period. Let me make it clear that the NHS should aim for a zero-tolerance approach to all health care-associated infections. I hope that what I say in my speech tonight will reassure my hon. Friend that we as a Government regard C. difficile as a priority and we will use all the levers at our disposal to support further significant progress in reducing this problem in our hospitals, care homes and other health facilities. For most of the last decade, we saw unchecked increases in the number of MRSA and C. difficile infections, causing misery for thousands of patients and their families. However, in more recent years, the NHS has improved its infection prevention and control practices, which has led to a significant reduction in both C. difficile and MRSA bloodstream infections. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all NHS staff who were involved in turning the tide for their hard work in achieving that. From a high of around 56,000 infections in 2006, C. difficile infection has fallen to just over 25,000 in 2009-10. From almost 8,000 infections in 2004, numbers of MRSA have also fallen substantially to fewer than 2,000 in 2009-10. However, despite the progress that we have made, we can go further. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Burns: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend allowed me not to, because I have very little time in which to say a lot in answer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. Despite the progress made, we can go a lot further to reduce infections, particularly of C. difficile. The previous Government’s approach was to introduce a rather crude national target for reducing infection rates that placed no specific obligation on individual organisations to improve their prevention and control systems or to reduce their own infection rates. We therefore find ourselves in a situation where, despite significant reductions at a national level, many organisations have made little or no improvement on their position years ago. The job of controlling C. difficile infections in the NHS is far from complete, and the NHS, in both secondary and primary care, must continue to prioritise reducing these infections.

265

Clostridium Difficile

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Simon Burns] We will expose those poor-performing organisations that were able to ride on the coat tails of others, and force them to put their house in order. My hon. Friend asked about monitoring care homes. I can assure him that, as part of our commitment to a whole-health economy approach to infection prevention and control, last month the adult social care sector became subject to the code of practice on the prevention and control of infections. Adherence to the code is a statutory requirement, and we expect to see improvements in infection prevention and control practice in the social care sector as a result of its introduction, in the same way as has happened in hospital settings. In addition, we have strengthened Care Quality Commission powers to ensure that, where required, appropriate action can be taken to address poor practice. Care homes should report single cases of suspected C. difficile to the resident’s general practitioner, and a suspected outbreak should be reported to the local health protection unit. I am confident that this additional strengthening of the measures will go some way to help reduce the problem in care homes. The Government expect the NHS and social care organisations to take a zero tolerance approach to health care-associated infections, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. When patients have the relevant information, they can be the most powerful agents for change. In line with this, one of the first things we did was to publish weekly MRSA and C. difficile infection numbers by hospital, and the data are now available within weeks rather than months, giving a far more accurate picture of what is happening at a particular hospital. Patients can now clearly see and take account of this when choosing where to have their treatment. My hon. Friend asked about making more information available. I can reassure him that one of the key parts of the White Paper on health reform in the NHS is on empowering patients by providing even more information relevant to them from independent sources. That means it will be reliable and accurate. It will also be provided in a way that is easily understandable, so that patients can see the areas of health care—in whatever shape or form—that are of particular interest to them. I would encourage anyone to respond to the consultation on the information revolution document that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published recently, so that we can consider all views on how to get this right and empower patients with information. We also made it clear in the coalition agreement that we will use quality outcome measures, including HCAIs, to drive improvements in the areas that really matter to patients. In the near future, I want all organisations to be operating at the level of the best today. The challenge, therefore, will be greatest for those who have so far made the least progress. We have also decided to extend mandatory surveillance beyond MRSA and C. difficile, to provide a fuller picture of HCAIs within the NHS, which the previous Government resisted. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last month, we will extend mandatory surveillance to include MSSA— meticillin-sensitive staphylococcus aureus—with infections such as E. coli to follow in due course, based on expert advice.

Clostridium Difficile

266

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has a strong interest in the different settings where C. difficile infections occur. For some years, such infections were essentially seen as a hospital problem, with hospitals being the focus for both central and local efforts to tackle them. However, that focus is not sufficient, as he mentioned. An unfortunate outcome of the previous focus on hospital-acquired C. difficile infections is a lack of awareness of the risks in primary care. Although we have seen substantial decreases in C. difficile infections in acute trusts, those occurring in primary care trusts— referred to as community-associated infections—have decreased at a far slower rate. The origin of community-associated cases is not clear and needs further investigation. A significant proportion may be due to previous contact with previous health care facilities. In other cases there may have no known links to health care, while others may be associated with antibiotic treatment in the community by GPs. GPs have a vital role to play in reducing the inappropriate use of broad spectrum antibiotics—those that attack a wide range of bacteria, but which can increase the risk of contracting C. difficile. GPs need to consider C. difficile when prescribing antibiotics, particularly to at-risk groups such as those who have recently been discharged from hospital or the elderly, as my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. Because such antibiotics can increase the risk of contracting C. difficile, prudent antibiotic prescribing is key. Although only a small number of C. difficile infections emanate from general practice, this is not an excuse to do nothing—not when the impact on individuals can be so great. We will increase GPs’ awareness of the impact of antibiotic prescribing on contracting C. difficile infections and increasing antibiotic resistance. As part of that, we will use antibiotic awareness day on 18 November to focus attention on the need to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics. As my hon. Friend showed in his speech, we have produced leaflets and other materials that GPs, pharmacists and other professionals can use to raise the issue with patients and the public. Those materials make it clear that everyone has a role in improving prescribing and patient outcomes. To improve the evidence base, we are considering how to improve the monitoring of community associated cases. That links into our concern about the large number of readmissions to hospital within 30 days of discharge, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. The action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took in the summer to alleviate the problem will, I believe, go a long way towards helping to find a solution to it. Let me now turn to some of the questions that my hon. Friends have asked in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for drawing to my attention the equipment, which came from America, that is currently being tested in Northwick Park hospital. As they may be aware, the Department has established a mechanism, known as the rapid review panel, by which new products can be evaluated for their effectiveness against infections. As they said, the equipment is currently being tested at Northwick Park hospital. We await with interest the results of those tests, to see whether the equipment would be useful in the constant battle against such infections.

267

Clostridium Difficile

9 NOVEMBER 2010

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also asked what more the Government could do to ensure that GPs are fully briefed on C. difficile and respond to such knowledge efficiently and consistently. As I mentioned with social care, the forthcoming application of the code of practice to primary care will give a significant boost to improving GPs’ awareness and knowledge of infection prevention and control. We will publish the code shortly, and although primary care will not be subject to the requirements of the legislation until April 2012, the registration process with the Care Quality Commission will start much earlier, with all the benefits that this will secure, through increased focus and awareness. I trust that that will go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend also spoke about requiring hospitals to provide information to patients leaving their care. As he said, Graziella, with the Department of Health, has produced a leaflet on C. difficile, which he has seen. The best way to protect patients against the infection spreading is to provide them with information. The intention is to give the document to patients so that they are aware of the risks, and know how to prevent other vulnerable people from catching the infection. However, although both she and I would like the leaflet to be distributed by every hospital and GP, there is no requirement for that, and many patients are sent home without the information that they need to protect themselves. We believe, as does my hon. Friend, that it is important for patients to have access to information. I certainly expect hospitals to provide that information to all relevant patients on their discharge. It is important to ensure that such leaflets are available for the NHS to use, and copies are available on the Department’s Clean, Safe Care website, but we must be careful not to be prescriptive

Clostridium Difficile

268

on decisions about patients’ care that are best made at local level. I trust that many practitioners and hospitals at local level will recognise the importance of the leaflets and ensure that patients have them drawn to their attention. Time is running out, and on the questions that I have not had the opportunity of replying I will write to my hon. Friend so that he receives answers. I say again that we treat the matter seriously, and in the short time remaining I shall answer the final question about careful monitoring of patients in the community. Guidance, entitled “Clostridium difficile infection: how to deal with the problem”, has been published by the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency, and provides evidence-based advice on how to treat C. difficile. We will take the opportunity in the forthcoming publication of the code to reiterate the value of that to GPs in their decision making, and I hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring and helpful. When patients enter a health care setting, they expect to be taken care of and to be made better, not to contract a potentially fatal infection. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government share his deep concern and are determined to see significant progress in reducing C. difficile infections further. Question put and agreed to. 10.47 pm House adjourned.

CORRECTION Official Report, 2 November 2010: In column 224WH, the contribution attributed to John Stevenson should be attributed to Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con):

1WH

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Westminster Hall Tuesday 9 November 2010 [MR DAVID CRAUSBY in the Chair]

Vulnerable People (CSR) Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Newmark.) 9.30 am Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I am particularly pleased to have secured an opportunity to debate the effects of the comprehensive spending review on vulnerable people. Some of the issues that I raise may well be raised in the more specific debate on housing benefit in the main Chamber this afternoon. For the purpose of this debate, I want to define the terms to which I have referred. The debate is, in effect, about the impact on vulnerable people of not just the CSR, but the Budget and the various departmental announcements that have been made and which underpin the context in which the CSR was announced on 20 October. By “vulnerable people”, I mean not just those in need of specific state support who are unable, through a learning disability or other forms of disability, to manage alone, but those who may become vulnerable or find themselves in significant need, housing stress, homelessness, hardship or debt. The effects to which I refer cover a wide range of policy areas. Of course, I do not intend to cover all areas of government, although vulnerable people are likely to be affected by a wide range of policies, but I am keen to cover access to housing and housing benefit; welfare, including the support and benefits for unemployed and disabled people; care for adults and children; and public transport and access to it. By way of background, it is worth noting that no self-respecting political party would have undertaken, in the lead-up to the last general election, the kind of measures that have been proposed since, because of how our political system works. However, we all knew as we went into the general election that Britain had the largest deficit in peacetime history, the largest structural deficit in Europe, that £120 million a day was needed to service the interest on that debt and that £1 in every £4 that the Government spent was borrowed money. We entirely understand the need to put right the public finances, which is the background to this debate and the CSR. I would like to acknowledge a number of achievements. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, it is worth acknowledging that, despite the rather austere circumstances, we have secured outcomes from coalition agreements of which I believe the coalition can be proud. I am referring to the policies of taking the lowest earners out of tax altogether, which I know will be ratcheted up over the coming years until the figure is £10,000 before tax applies; restoring the earnings link for pensioners and a guarantee of uprating with a triple lock; the pupil premium and the early years premium,

Vulnerable People (CSR)

2WH

particularly for vulnerable children; the pay protection for low-paid public sector workers; capital gains tax for top earners; and the banking levy to help to pay for many of these measures. I was also pleased to hear of the Treasury’s intention to make a concerted effort to tackle tax evasion and fraud, which is essential to ensure that we get the balance right in where the finances are found. Also by way of background, it is worth acknowledging that the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated a theme throughout the CSR statement on 20 October—one that I entirely applaud. For example, he said at column 951 that “those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden”.

Equally, he said at column 956: “A civilised country… protects the most vulnerable”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951-56.]

Protecting vulnerable people was a theme repeated throughout the statement, and I loudly applaud both those objectives. The purpose of this debate is to ask whether that laudable and agreeable objective is achieved by the combined efforts of Government policy. If not, will the Government review their policies and make the necessary adjustments to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders do bear the greatest burden and that the vulnerable genuinely are protected? I doubt that, in the tribal warfare that often masquerades as debate in the House, we will do anything other than divide on pre-determined lines on the assessment behind those questions, but we can call on other commentators to contribute to the debate. As we know, the Institute for Fiscal Studies disagreed with the Treasury’s claim. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to her response to the debate. I am sure that she will respond to the IFS assessment of the combined impacts of the CSR and the Budget. The IFS disagreed that the overall package of tax and benefit changes was progressive. Carl Emmerson, acting director of the IFS, said that “our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way.”

The IFS emphasised the problems involved in estimating the distributional effect of changes in public services. It welcomed the Treasury’s attempts to model those, but noted its finding that the public service spending cuts announced in the spending review were regressive. Equally, the Financial Times described the spending review as “a gamble given the continuing weakness of the recovery”,

but supported the decision to cut spending, provided that growth in the economy returns. The Times said that, broadly speaking, the priorities chosen by the Chancellor were correct but that the changes could be “very painful” for the poor. The Guardian also commented that the spending review was “a major gamble”—I shall return to that concept—at a time when economic conditions have deteriorated. It said that, furthermore, the cuts would be focused on the sick, the poor and working parents. The IFS commented that the cuts in overall public spending over the spending review period would be the deepest in real terms since the second world war and that cuts in spending on services would be the largest since the four years beginning in 1975.

3WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Andrew George] As I said, housing benefit measures will be debated this afternoon in the main Chamber. Two primary changes are being made next year. The first is the capping of local housing allowance for each property, which will be implemented in April 2011. That has been a primary focus of political debate and comment in the House and elsewhere, although it will impinge on a relatively small number of properties and households. For example, just 139, all in London, receive in excess of £50,000 per annum; 11,233 are in receipt of more than £20,000 per annum, some 10,000 of which are in the London area. In Cornwall, which, as hon. Members might expect, I will discuss in a moment, 40 households are in that category. The measure would save £65 million. What concerns me most particularly is the impact on rural areas such as Cornwall—but not just Cornwall. A focus of my comments will be the reduction in the percentile market rates used to calculate local housing allowance rates from the 50th percentile—the median—to the 30th percentile of local rents, which will be implemented in October next year. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that that will secure annual savings of £425 million. The nature of the debate in the media gives the impression that housing benefit is paid mainly to people who are unemployed. Because of the “tabloidisation” of the debate, the implication is that the work-shy are in receipt of housing benefit and need to be encouraged by stick rather than carrot to find work. In fact, only one housing benefit claimant in eight is unemployed. I should add that, in future, the effect of the uprating of housing benefit according to the consumer prices index rather than local rents will place further significant downward pressure on housing benefit and may well result in shortfalls between rent and the housing allowance that people are given. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the intention of the Department is to use housing benefit to force rents down, and I can understand the logic behind that, which is that housing benefit, because of the sheer volume of those who receive it, has an inflationary impact on the rental market, particularly the private rented market. However, not all areas will necessarily respond uniformly. The changes may well work in some rental market areas, but I am not convinced that they will work in them all. For example, according to figures published in The Guardian on 30 October, outside London, Cornwall will be the hardest hit by the changes. Indeed, 11,180 households —one third of all households with employed people in receipt of the benefit—will be affected. There will be a significant shortfall between their housing benefit and the rent that they will pay. In Cornwall, there is a significant shortfall right now between the median rent as assessed previously by the rent office—now by the Valuation Office Agency—and what housing benefit should be in Cornwall, and therefore between the housing allowance that will be available to tenants and what is available in the market on a weekby-week basis. It is very rare indeed that a new property comes on to the market that is actually within—either on or below—the median rent as assessed by the valuation

Vulnerable People (CSR)

4WH

office. Most rents fall above it, and therefore the shortfall has to be made up by the tenant, who may be on a low income or on benefits. In Cornwall, 57,109 people claim housing benefit; 12,972 are of working age but not working—they include those in receipt of income support or jobseeker’s allowance—and about 12,000 are of working age and are working, or are on a non-passported benefit or employment support allowance, previously incapacity benefit, or contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance. A similar picture is painted by one of the larger social landlords. Penwith Housing Association tells me that about 60% of its tenants are on housing benefit. More than half of those who are of working age are indeed working, and are in receipt of either partial or full housing benefit support to cover their rent. Yesterday, Cornwall council published some information on the likely impacts on the local community of the various changes to housing benefit. Its assessment is that the reduction of the market rental from the 50th percentile—the median—to the 30th percentile is likely to have the biggest impact. It says that 10,500 households are experiencing a shortfall between housing benefit and the rental, and it is unknown what the likely impact will be on them. The council has not yet made a calculation, but it believes that a larger number of households will experience a significant shortfall between the rent and the housing benefit available. It anticipates that tenants who will ultimately be evicted because they can no longer meet their rent payments as a result of the shortfall will be found to be intentionally homeless, according to statutory interpretations, and therefore not eligible for assistance from the local authority. There will be an increase in demand for social housing in some areas, and the impacts on local people will be significant indeed. We are very lucky in Cornwall to have the Cornwall Residential Landlords Association, which is a responsible and well-organised band of private landlords who, collectively and individually, provide an excellent service to the local population. They look for clear signals from the Government. I believe that the Government are looking at increasing the availability of direct payments to landlords in certain circumstances. Where that is done, preferably on a voluntary basis with the agreement of the tenant, it may help to lever rents down because the landlord will have a cushion of reassurance that the payments will come to them. However, the pressures and difficulties that will be experienced between landlords and tenants will intensify as a result of the cuts. The problem in a market such as Cornwall’s—this applies to many other areas where there is also a vibrant tourism economy—is that landlords have alternatives that, frankly, on many occasions, will give them a far better income and greater certainty that they can recover the property. Many take up those alternatives. Many landlords will leave the marketplace and go for the much easier option of gleaning their income from the tourism sector. The situation in Cornwall is not quite like the urban or suburban situation that I believe the Government have envisaged, whereby the alteration in the housing benefit arrangements and assessments will result in a levering down—a crow-barring—of the rentals in the private rented sector. It is not anticipated that that will

5WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

happen in a place such as Cornwall, so I hope that the Government will look overall at this measure and consider that having a roof over one’s head is absolutely vital for many families. We are talking about working families who are simply seeking security in life from which to get to work, school their children and establish some kind of family security. This is about penalising people not because they are unwilling to work but simply because they are poorly paid, and I am sure the Government have no intention of doing that. I think they would like to ensure that work does pay. Looking at the situation in Cornwall, which is, I understand, the same as in North Norfolk and other such rural settings, most analysts consider that there will be few new properties coming on to the market in the 30th percentile or below. Opportunities will be restricted, landlords will be given other options, and there will be instability, overcrowding and a possible cutting of corners, with families having to move and working families under greater stress. The problem with the proposal in the housing benefit reforms to extend the single room rent to people under the age of 35 is that there is little of that type of accommodation available in many rural areas, and planning policies seek to restrict what is often referred to as “bedsit land” in some smaller towns. On the one hand we have the Government, through their planning policies, giving local authorities the right to restrict the extent to which parts of small market towns are, as they see it, ghettoised by these bedsit arrangements, and on the other hand they have a policy that seeks to encourage that, through the housing benefit system. Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when there has been a partnership break-up, the option of only a single room allowance up to the age of 35 might prevent good quality contact with children? Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about one of the great difficulties that occur when there is family break-up. I fear that as a result of these kinds of measures we might get more family break-ups, because of the stress and pressure under which families might be placed. In our constituency surgeries, we all see families in that very sad situation. We see single parents “without care”, as they are sometimes rather unfairly described, who find themselves wanting to have contact with their child or children but being unable to do so because of their very constrained circumstances. This policy will only make that situation worse. Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could look at levels of pay. In Cornwall, and similarly on the Isle of Wight, there is a higher level of pay in the summer and a lower level in the winter. Is that catered for in his understanding? Andrew George: Other than with people who live in uncertain accommodation—winter lets during the winter and very uncertain accommodation in the summer—I am not aware of any circumstance in which people have variations in their rents, with a landlord varying the rate of rent on the basis of the tenant’s income. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am afraid that the system does not allow or cater at all for seasonality in working families’ employment and income.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

6WH

A further incongruous circumstance is the potential conflict between this policy and what the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government appear to be doing regarding the registered social landlord sector. The intention is to allow, and even encourage, registered social landlords to increase the rent on their properties up to a notional 80% of the market rate for a particular location. The net effect of that—it will apply, I understand, to future new dwellings and to re-lets—is to create a rather strange circumstance: on the one hand the Government appearing to want to get the housing benefit bill down, but on the other hand one of their Departments appearing to ratchet it up. Of course, a large proportion of people in social rented accommodation—60% of those living in the accommodation of one of my RSLs—are in receipt of housing benefit, and ratcheting up the benefit in those properties would result in an increase in the housing benefit bill. There will be other strange circumstances. People who seek to downsize their properties—for example, an older person living alone who wants to move into a single-person bungalow to release a family house for a local family—will be discouraged from doing so because the re-letting situation will mean that their rent could go up significantly if they were to pursue that otherwise relatively selfless act. By pursuing a re-let—a transfer—their rental might go up and their housing benefit might not cover it. Because of the time, I shall quickly canter through a few other issues. First, on the wider issues of welfare reform, many of us will have read in the newspapers and heard in the media over the weekend the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the Child Poverty Action Group and Action for Children, all warning about the unintended consequences. I certainly exonerate the Minister and her colleagues from wishing to pursue an intentional policy of impoverishing vulnerable people; I think that it is entirely unintended. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to this point, but will he talk a little about the impact on vulnerable people now and in the future of not dealing with the deficit? Will he also refer to the positive measures in the Budget for businesses in his constituency? There is the scrapping of the jobs tax, the national insurance holiday, tens of thousands taken out of tax altogether, the pupil premium and other initiatives. Surely, in any speech on this subject, all those factors have to be taken into account. Andrew George: I am grateful for that intervention; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman arrived late and therefore missed the part of my speech when I congratulated the Government on precisely those measures. Clearly, we need to deal with the deficit, but the question of the speed and the extent is a debating point. I am not necessarily saying that the current speed and extent are wrong, but that judgment needs to be kept under review. Also, where do we find the money from? The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) talked about the point that I am coming to; I will certainly come to a conclusion, which is that we need to question whether we have the balance right, so that

7WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Andrew George] those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. I am not certain we do have it right, which is why we should be taking a measured judgment on the impact of the proposals across all income ranges. All the groups I mentioned, and many others, have been warning about the unintended consequences of some of the welfare reforms. The Chartered Institute of Housing anticipates that by 2025 most two-bedroom properties will be unaffordable to those claiming housing benefit, whether or not they are working. That will force people into areas with less employment—in other words, an unintended consequence of not making work pay will be to force people into areas where they will find it much more difficult to get a job. It will also steepen the tapers, for example, by increasing the rents on social rented accommodation. As we all know, if someone takes a job or accepts higher pay, housing benefit is often withdrawn at a rate of sometimes 80p in the pound earned, and that is on top of other benefits that may be lost, such as council tax benefit. That places people in a poverty trap that discourages them from taking the very work they are keen to take up. All those factors will lead to social impacts on stability, family security, children’s education and other matters. Other sanctions are proposed that have been mooted in the press over the weekend and will no doubt be part of the Secretary of State’s statement on Thursday. We have been presented with the prospect of unemployed people wearing tabards, picking up litter from our streets as a result of some kind of compulsion. Having worked in the voluntary sector, among others, for a while before coming to Parliament, I know that the one thing we do not need is to apply compulsion or humiliation to this matter. It is clear that the many people I speak to in my constituency who are seeking a job are extremely keen to secure not only a job but work experience. The Government’s proposal to set up voluntary arrangements that enable people to undertake worthwhile voluntary work in their communities can only be a good thing. Unemployed people want well organised work and voluntary opportunities, and the voluntary sector want the willing, not the unwilling. At the weekend, the Disability Alliance argued that many people will be pushed into poverty by the changes to the employment and support allowance, previously called incapacity benefit. We await the outcome of that proposed change on Thursday. Within the care sector, pressure on local authority budgets—26% cuts over three years—means that councils are routinely removing the discretion to give care support to those in moderate need. As costs, and no doubt charges, go up, the definition of “higher” and “severe” need could become more stringent. Budget pressures are likely to reduce early intervention for children, as Action for Children identified over the weekend, and the services available to the most vulnerable. There is a 20% cut in the bus operators’ grant and local authorities are already looking at cutting some services. The young and the old will be most affected by that—those without a car, and, therefore, the most vulnerable. Other cuts, such as in the education maintenance allowance, will also affect young people.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

8WH

The questions remain: will those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, and will the vulnerable be protected? It is important not to forget that the gambling of the rich busted the banks, which did most to drop us in this situation. We must not allow them to get away with that while the poorest and public servants are made to pay the price; that is hardly justice. On the question of measures to get the balance right between cuts in services and benefits, and of where to obtain resources to maintain services, the banking levy, although welcome, is a relatively infinitesimal gnat bite on the banking sector, given the rate at which it is set. Julian Smith: I am glad my hon. Friend has spoken about the banking levy, because the previous Government did not do that, and I presume he will give credit to the coalition for taking aggressive action on the banks, and for the three reviews on banking reform taking place over the coming year. Andrew George: I again remind the hon. Gentleman that, had he been here earlier, he would have heard me mention that. I welcome the banking levy and have congratulated the coalition on it; it is a move in the right direction. However, I fear that some of the most vulnerable in society may be pushed further to the margins, and we need to keep that situation under review. Equally, we need to keep under review the question of whether the banking levy has been set at a level that retrieves from the banks the resources that we believe they should be putting back into the economy, having dropped us “in it” in the first place. The Minister is an excellent Minister and I know she is listening to these concerns. I fear that the reforms, although well intentioned, may well miss the target: they may not necessarily push rents down in the way anticipated or protect the vulnerable, and they may fail to meet the Chancellor’s stated objective as given in his 20 October statement. A strong and self-confident Government can listen, reconsider, gracefully accept the situation, adjust and move on when things are not going quite according to their plan. In her winding-up speech, I hope the Minister will address those issues and reassure me that the Government are listening to these concerns. 10.8 am Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): As ever, Mr Crausby, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on raising this important strand of an exceptionally complex set of announcements, which have come thick and fast from the Government and are only now beginning to reveal themselves to MPs, never mind to the wider public, as the implications begin to hit home. A lot of implications will not hit home until the next financial year and then into the next few years of this Parliament, at which point I would expect growing discontent and increased shock and surprise at how harsh the Government chose to be on the most vulnerable in society through their spending policies. The hon. Member for St Ives is being exceptionally honourable in this matter, and he genuinely feels strongly about trying to speak up on behalf of vulnerable people, but when he says that certain consequences of the

9WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Government measures are “perhaps unintentional”, I suspect that he is being more than generous. Part and parcel of the political strategy that goes alongside the Government’s supposed economic approach is ensuring that the welfare changes and reductions in expenditure hit the poorest in society who, on balance, tend not to vote for the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman will have greater insight than me into the Liberal Democrats’ approach, although I suspect that even he might not know what is going on with those at senior levels, as they assimilate ever more closely with the leadership of the Conservative party. I still regret the choice that his colleagues made to prop up and provide the scaffolding for this harshly strategic and deliberate set of decisions. Those in the Conservative party have been planning such decisions for many years, and attempts to scale back the role of public investment in our economy have been part and parcel of their approach throughout. They are now able to unwind that approach with a certain degree of alacrity under the guise of deficit reduction. Annette Brooke: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but does he agree that much-needed welfare reform should be tackled? There might be questions about how to tackle it, but does he agree with the general principle? Chris Leslie: Nobody disagrees that we need a level of welfare reform, but the question of how we do that is at the centre of the debate. We could shut down the Department for Work and Pensions tomorrow and not spend an extra penny. That would be a degree of welfare reform, but it would be so ridiculous that it would be off this planet. We could have a level of reform that was too slow and did not really bite. I believe that the trajectory of reforms pursued by the previous Administration sought to strike a fair balance. The extent to which Ministers are reducing what is known as “annually managed expenditure” within the welfare budget has been designed around a political strategy. By taking that amount from the welfare budget, the Chancellor tried to come within spitting distance, as he saw it, of Labour’s plans for deficit reduction within the departmental expenditure limits. That political strategy rapidly fell apart, particularly because the Opposition accepted the need for a certain level of welfare change. Let us look at the points raised by the hon. Member for St Ives. If the welfare changes are not handled sensitively and their implementation is blind to the human costs involved, some of them will affect the real lives of real people. Such people will be increasingly frightened and unable to cope with some of the changes, and that will create great harm. That harm might not have the quantifiable economic or econometric measurements that we traditionally look at when monitoring fiscal and monitory policy, but it is real and will have an indirect effect on our economy. Andrew George: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s narrative, but before he strays too far from his point about the intentionality—or otherwise—of the possible consequences of the reform package, let me make it clear that I do not associate myself with his analysis. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government or the Minister to impoverish people deliberately.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

10WH

The point that I was building towards concerns the balance of risk. Taking a risk with the poor needs to be balanced by taking a risk with the banking sector, which I do not think that we are doing at the moment. If we are to probe policy so as to get the balance right between those with broad shoulders and more vulnerable people, we must put pressure on the top end just as much, if not more. Chris Leslie: As I said, the hon. Gentleman is being more than fair—perhaps a little too fair—in his analysis of the Government’s intentions. I hope that I am wrong in saying that a measure of deliberate choice is involved. However, the weekends at Chequers during which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister pored over the political stratagems that they could devise, having linked some of the measures in the spending review together, suggest that a balancing act was going on in the Government to think about who they could hit and get away with it, rather than the human consequences. That is a difference of opinion that we will have to accept. Julian Smith rose— Chris Leslie: I would like to make progress on the issue of housing benefit, but I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Julian Smith: The comments that the hon. Gentleman made just now and at the beginning of his speech are insulting to Ministers and, certainly, to Back-Bench coalition Members. Chris Leslie: I am sorry if I have hurt the hon. Gentleman’s feelings; that would be a dreadful thing to do. However, it is far worse to hit the poorest and most vulnerable people in society through the measures that he will support by walking through the Lobby. The warm words that he espouses are all very well, although so far he has not said much about vulnerability and the impact of the reforms. He is doing his job and wants to progress through his party—I wish him luck with that—but the measures that he will be supporting will be harmful, and I am sorry if he feels that that is insulting. Let us look at some of the changes to housing benefit. As I said, housing benefit needs to be reformed, but not necessarily at the pace and with the harshness espoused by the Minister. Some of the combined, compounding changes will come in quickly, with some starting on 1 October next year. According to the Government’s own figures, the reduction from the median 50th percentile to the 30th percentile for housing benefit will affect 642,000 people. Many hon. Members, including the Minister, will be getting letters from their constituents about that. Those reforms will leave some people £39 worse off per calendar month. Some landlords might be happy to say, “That’s all right; we will bear the loss”, but others will say, “Sorry, that is unacceptable. Out you go.” What will be the consequences for homelessness? What will the pressures be on the indebtedness of individuals who are already stretched with credit card debts and so on? Will we see even greater pain at that level? The National Housing Federation said in the newspapers today that the reforms were “brutal cutbacks.” Those are not my words, so if the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) feels that such words are

11WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Chris Leslie] insulting, he should speak to the National Housing Federation. It said that the reforms risk the prospect of people “falling into debt or hardship or being forced to move out of their home and away from their local community.”

That sudden drop in income and the rushed nature of reform are what the Labour party fundamentally disagrees with. Of course we accept that the deficit needs to be tackled, but we take a different view of how to do that. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening): You do not know how to do it. Chris Leslie: We have a set of strategies, but we do not have the phalanx of Treasury officials lined up behind the Minister. Justine Greening: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will outline three or four specific measures that his party would propose to tackle the deficit. Chris Leslie: Given that we are talking about vulnerability, let us look at the impact of the spending review. The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned the banking levy but, as we debated last night, that is a puny and pathetic attempt by Ministers to let the banks off the hook while they are hitting families and children hardest of all— [Interruption.] I am sorry that Minister does not like my example, but she has made a choice and we would do things differently. It is important that the record shows that the Government have decided to let the banks off the hook lightly. The Minister may well bleat and moan, but she should realise, for example, that cutting mortgage interest support for the most vulnerable will, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said, help to create a cycle of despair for many people. I do not think that the archbishop is a particularly partisan individual, and it would be a great pity if the remarks of those in civil society were dismissed. I am interested in the Government’s approach to the universal credit, which they are looking to put in place as part of welfare reform. In many respects, it is a reasonable concept. However, I cannot understand why their approach is then to cut council tax benefit by 10% and to localise it, as has been announced. How is that consistent with the universal credit policy? Will the Minister elaborate on how the universal credit arrangement will come into place for the most vulnerable people when the council tax benefit is not part of it? I would like to understand the consistency, because that change will hit the poorest in society, as will many of the disability welfare changes. We accept that disability welfare reforms are needed but, again, we must at least ask questions about the pace and harshness of some of those changes—as the hon. Member for St Ives has done. Taking out £2 billion by limiting the contributory employment and support allowance to the very disabled raises questions about how those who no longer have such support will cope. It is incumbent on those who are proposing the cut to explain where the support for those individuals will come from. Even pensioners will feel the impact of many of the changes, and they will lose out because of the four-year freeze in the savings credit element of the pension credit.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

12WH

Public service reductions will have an indirect effect. This debate is not just about welfare, because the public service reductions announced in the spending review will also have a disproportionate impact on the very poorest in society. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, “modellable cuts to public services are regressive”.

There will also be a cut in health service spending. If we take away the social services element—it is being redefined as NHS spending, which it was not previously— and look at core NHS spending, it will fall by 0.5%. The IFS described that as the “worst settlement since 1951”. Again, those people using the health service are the most vulnerable and they will bear the brunt. There will be local government reductions, in particular for support to the voluntary sector. For example, several welfare advice centres in my constituency will no longer be able to offer help and support to the very poorest in society because of the implementation of legal aid cuts. People will be left to fend for themselves, with far less advice—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering away, but she will get her opportunity to speak in a moment. I hope that she can give those people an explanation of the deficit reduction choices that she is making that deliberately addresses the speed of her measures. I understand that everyone in the House wants to ensure that deficit reduction is carried out sensitively, but I cannot quite understand the voracious speed at which the Minister thinks she has to do that. Her approach seems punitive and potentially risky. There are education changes, too, and we have also talked about policing and crime. Those who tend to need the support of the policing services are those who are the victims of crime, and most of all the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The list goes on: reductions in the working neighbourhoods fund; no more future jobs fund; and, again, some of the welfare advice changes. Those things give rise to more worries and concerns. The IFS was right to point out the regressive nature of the Budget. All the spin and warm words that the Minister will no doubt parrot again have been unravelled by the objective and independent analysis carried out by the institute, which the Conservatives were more than happy to cite in times past, but now seem keen to rubbish. The IFS says that the cuts are the “deepest since the second world war”.

The Government have decided to hit families with children hardest, with the health in pregnancy grant going, the taxing and freezing of child benefit, the cuts to child care help through the working tax credit, and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance. It is not necessarily those individual changes, but the compounding effect of them all happening simultaneously, with the speed of implementation chosen by the Minister, that makes them hit the most vulnerable very hard. It was right that the hon. Member for St Ives raised the question of whether those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden. The Chancellor keeps saying, “We’re all in this together,” but that is completely unbelievable and palpably not the case. The puny nature of the banking levy is such that even the International Monetary Fund has said that it is a third of the size that it suggested. The banks will enjoy the corporation tax cuts, as well as their deferred tax benefits. There is also, of course, complete inaction by

13WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

the Government on banker bonuses, which will be revealed when the bonus season starts in January or February. All in all, the set of changes is exceptionally regressive and will hit the most vulnerable in society most of all. Perhaps the saddest fact is that many of those who will be affected do not yet realise it. The changes have not necessarily been reported in detail. People might well be completely oblivious to the changes that are coming but, for example, when the housing benefit change comes in on 1 October next year, they will be faced with great difficulties. I have urged my local authority in Nottingham to find a way of communicating with recipients of housing benefit so that they can prepare themselves for the changes that are coming. Will the Minister at the very least—even if we disagree about the speed and nature of the policies—tell hon. Members how the Government intend to communicate with people and give them a bit of a heads-up so that they can prepare themselves for some of the changes? With a little preparation, the poorest in society might be able to try their best to brace themselves for what is around the corner. I have set out my genuine concerns. There are political differences between us, but the story is a sad one that will unravel further in the years to come. 10.27 am The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening): It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship of this important Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and pay tribute to him for securing the debate. I remember that during the spending review debate and the emergency Budget debate held earlier this year, his presence in the Chamber was constant, which shows his commitment to and concern about the issues—he is right to point out that we should all be deeply concerned about them. I shall start by setting out the background to some of the measures, and then talk in more detail about the housing benefit measures the hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular. I listened to the response from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). He clearly holds a different view, but I found his speech deeply irresponsible in many ways. As an incoming coalition Government, we have picked up a fiscal deficit without precedent not just in our own country, but across the developed economies of the world. His party handed over that deficit, which we and the Liberal Democrats are working to address. Certainly, the situation we took over was grave. The hon. Member for Nottingham East talked about the speed with which we are tackling the deficit, but that very much underscores just what a serious position our country was in when we came into government earlier this year. In fact, had we not taken the steps we are taking over the coming years, our debt would be £100 billion higher and we would be spending some £5 billion more as a nation on debt interest—money we want to put into supporting our public services. Had we not taken those steps, there would have been the real risk of being unable to have as a good a chance as we now do of keeping interest rates low, which is critical for companies investing and creating jobs and for households across the country with a mortgage.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

14WH

Clearly, therefore, we needed to take action. One of the key pledges that we made as part of the spending review was that fairness would be at the heart of our decision making. The hon. Member for St Ives was right to say that despite the challenging backdrop against which the emergency Budget and the spending review took place, they included important measures such as increasing the personal allowance, which saw 880,000 people taken out of income tax altogether. Interestingly, he also mentioned that the Government’s aspiration was to go further on that, which is important. The distributional analysis and the IFS modelling do not take those aspirations into account, because we have not yet announced how we will carry them forward. Nor do they take into account the benefits of the universal credit or the stimulus and support that it will provide to people who are getting back into work. It is important to bear that in mind. As I said, one of our key pledges in the spending review related to fairness. By fairness, I mean that, across the entire deficit-reduction plan, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. There has been a lot of debate about the IFS, and it is interesting that we have published more distributional analysis alongside our comprehensive spending review than any Government have ever done before. There is, of course, a debate about how to do that analysis in a more refined way, and the TUC, for example, took a view in its own analysis about how to spread defence spending across income deciles. Clearly, therefore, there are methodological questions that it is worth while looking at to see how we can improve things. Hon. Members will be aware that Robert Chote, who was the head of the IFS, now heads the Office for Budget Responsibility. He is the precisely the kind of person who can help us to have a more transparent, independent assessment of our policy. That will help not only the Government, but people who look at our policy to understand what it means for our country and our communities. Fairness has underpinned our approach. Critically, we have to move to a welfare system that helps and supports the vulnerable, but does not trap them in the way the system we have taken over too often did. We need a system that supports people back into work, and that is affordable. That is important because my great concern is that we need a system that people across our country buy into. That means that the system must be fair not only to the people in it, who need the support, but to those outside it, who perhaps work and pay their taxes. Those people might be happy to pay into a system to support the most vulnerable, but they might feel that it needs to be fair to them as well as to those who get the benefit payments. They need to feel that the system improves the lives of those who receive benefit payments and gives them the chance to be independent that, for various reasons, they do not have at the moment. I will say a little more shortly about how we can do that. We have had a test on fairness, and there is no doubt that we have had to make some difficult decisions about how to spend the small amount of money we have following the Labour party’s profligacy in government. Today, in its debate on welfare on the Floor of the House, the Labour party will have another chance to set out how it would approach welfare reform. We have heard an awful lot about the fact that there is a better

15WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Justine Greening] way of doing things, although we have occasionally heard from Labour Members that they do not oppose all our reforms. However, if we are to have a thoughtful and constructive debate about this important issue, it is time for the Opposition to engage more meaningfully, rather than simply setting out what they are against. They owe that to Parliament, which needs a proper debate from elected representatives, and to our country. They should set out exactly how an alternative, if there is one, would look. I want now to look at the welfare state in a little more detail. Under the previous Government, benefit bills soared by 45%. In some cases, the benefit bill for a single out-of-work family amounted to the tax bills of 16 working families put together. To return to my earlier comments, everybody would say that that was not just unfair, but unsustainable. Given the financial position that we inherited, protecting the welfare budget was not an option. If we had done that, it would have forced more drastic front-line cuts on services elsewhere, which so many of us, including those on benefits, rely on so much. We therefore tried to focus our support on the people who need it most—the long-term unemployed, the very young, the very old, the disadvantaged and those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work or find it hard to enter the labour market. The spending review announced reforms to tackle welfare dependency by delivering a simplified system in which it always pays to work. The hon. Member for St Ives rightly mentioned impoverishment, and at its heart is the fact that people do not have a job. We need a welfare system that supports people back into work, and that applies particularly to people who have been on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance. In one of my first roles as a new MP in Parliament, I sat on the Work and Pensions Committee, and I clearly remember that one of our first reports looked at incapacity benefit. It was a real scandal that although jobs had been created over the previous decade, the overwhelming majority of those on incapacity benefit were left wanting to work. On Thursday evening, I met visually impaired people in my constituency who were desperate to find work and to be financially independent. Those are the people we are keen to support back into work, but they were languishing on benefits in way that was bad for not just them, but our country and communities. It was also unaffordable. Andrew George: The Minister is making an extremely important point; in fact, it was one of the many that I made. We need to establish a bridge between dependency and securing work. That applies to the housing benefit system, and I mentioned tapers, or the rate of withdrawal of housing benefit. The previous Government did nothing about the problem, which has been going on for decades. The point also applies to incapacity benefit. There is a cliff-face between benefit dependency and being able to get work. Perhaps the Government need to look a little more at ways of establishing a bridge to help people into work, rather than impoverishing them, putting them at risk or worrying them about making the transition into work. Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman raises one of the key flaws that has existed in the welfare system, which is that it has trapped people. Going back to my

Vulnerable People (CSR)

16WH

time on the Work and Pensions Committee, I remember an inquiry that we did into Jobcentre Plus. The then Government had to introduce a better-off test to prove to people that they were better off going into work, because it was so complicated to work out what benefits people were receiving and what they would lose. It was not clear to people that moving into work would be the best thing for them financially. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to read the White Paper that the Department for Work and Pensions will release in the next few days on the universal credit, which is intended absolutely to make sure that people who are currently on benefits know that they will be better off if they move back into work. We can move away from the situation faced by some of the worst-off people in our country, who have moved into work only to be penalised with some of the highest marginal rates of tax, which are simply eye-watering. We would not dream of putting even the highest earners on such rates, but the marginal rates of tax faced by some of the lowest-income people have been huge, and the universal credit is aimed at starting to tackle that situation. Chris Leslie: For the benefit of hon. Members, will the Minister tell us what the marginal rate of tax will be for families that lose child benefit when they earn more than a certain amount? What will the percentage be? As I understand it, earning £1 could result in £2,000 of lost child benefit. Justine Greening: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to consider those calculations in detail, but that brings us back to my concern about the Opposition’s engagement with the subject, which was typified by his intervention. Unfortunately, it was not at all constructive but deeply negative. At the heart of my concern about the Opposition’s lack of thoughtful strategy is the fact that he argues for a policy that would maintain child benefit for higher rate taxpayers. Chris Leslie: Will the Minister give way? Justine Greening: No; I want to make some progress. The hon. Member for Nottingham East could have set out some better alternatives, but he failed to do so. That is a shame for our democracy. I assure him that we are tackling problems in the welfare system that the previous Government failed to tackle; I had hoped that he would welcome that. I know that the Opposition agree with some of our welfare reforms; it would help if we knew which ones, as we could then have a genuine political debate about areas of disagreement. The universal credit will be a big step forward, and a good one. It will ensure that people are no longer trapped in welfare, as they have been. The hon. Member for St Ives said that one of our achievements as a coalition Government was to re-establish the earnings link. He is right; against the backdrop of a difficult fiscal deficit, we have maintained pensioner benefits on things such as free eye tests, free prescriptions, the free bus pass and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have also increased the cold weather payment award permanently to £25. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned social care. Again, it is symptomatic of what we have in mind that we must protect the most vulnerable. That is why we

17WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

have added £2 billion to the social care bill, with £1 billion from the NHS and £1 billion from the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. That is precisely to ensure that local authorities do not need to restrict access to social care. The fact that the money comes from the NHS and the Department shows that we need them to work more closely together. The reality is that health and social care are inextricably linked. Indeed, good social care can protect the vulnerable and help them maintain a healthy and independent life. As MPs, we have all seen people in our surgeries who are very keen to do that, and we have all worked to help people maintain the independence that so many want. We have therefore been particularly careful to ensure that funding for social care is supported. I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s important comments on housing benefit. In the changes that we made to housing benefit, we tried to ensure that we tackle the underpinning of affordable housing and the lack of new affordable housing. One reason why housing has become so expensive is the gap between demand and supply, and the fact that housing starts over the last 10 years have generally been lower than in the past. That was so particularly for social housing, and especially for affordable homes in places such as London. That is the backdrop and the key reason why rents have risen and housing has generally become more expensive. The previous model of affordable housing did not work. If Government money had been thrown at it during an economic boom, we would have seen the sorts of affordable housing that were needed, but it did not happen. We therefore had to think of different ways to do it. We are working far more effectively with housing associations and other investors that want to create housing, to ensure that we get back to creating the levels of social housing and affordable housing that are needed. That means investment—£4.5 billion for new affordable homes and £2 billion for the decent homes programme. We also need a more flexible system of affordable housing to help those who need to move for work and to protect the most vulnerable, and one that is also fair to the taxpayer. Andrew George: I acknowledged earlier that £4.5 billion will be retained over the next three years for social housing. However, the Government intend funding the shortfall by allowing social landlords to increase their rents by up to 80% of the market value. That will result in more housing benefit. Within the Treasury’s modelling, to what extent does the Economic Secretary anticipate the increase in public-sector contribution resulting from the increase in the housing benefit to be paid to residential social landlords as a result of rent increases? Justine Greening: It is important to say that the change relates to new tenants rather than existing ones. Existing tenancies will not be affected by such measures. On the question of market rates and affordability, we will want to see landlords, the Homes and Communities Agency, and the regulator, in conjunction with local authorities, talking about ensuring affordability. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that housing benefit will still be available to support people. The challenge is to move to a more sustainable footing for housing, and particularly for social housing. That is most important for housing associations, and the need for them to keep reinvesting. We have tried to strike a

Vulnerable People (CSR)

18WH

balance that is broadly fair to those on existing tenancies and to ensure that the new stock that we seek to create—the £4.5 billion will create about 150,000 affordable homes—is used more effectively to support people. At the same time, we want to work with people to ensure that rents are affordable. Nevertheless, housing benefit will still be there. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the cap on the housing allowance and setting the local allowance at the 30th percentile rate. The reality is that people who are working must ensure that they can afford where they live. It will be difficult to ask them to pay into a system in which people on out-of-work benefits are living in areas that they simply cannot afford. The 30th percentile change is about trying to strike the right balance between what is affordable and what is fair and reasonable. Annette Brooke: I thank the Economic Secretary for her earlier comments, which were helpful in setting the scene for reform. However, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about the fact that housing benefit will impact differently in different areas. For instance, in my area I obviously have winter lets, and people seem to be concerned about the smaller one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. I know that the transitional fund has been allocated, but will the Economic Secretary explain how the problems of each individual area, as they relate to vulnerable people, will be dealt with sensitively? Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right: different parts of the country clearly have different housing needs and challenges. The Department for Work and Pensions will be working with local authorities through the transition period, and as she pointed out, we need funding in place for that as well. There will be £140 million of discretionary funding to support local authorities, £10 million of which is for London. It is worth pointing out that that is not the only support available for those affected. For example, we still have many things such as the social fund, which includes budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants that are being maintained. We are considering how the social fund can be more localised, so we are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and local authorities to see how we can best use the money we have to support people, in a way that works for them and at the local level. Interestingly, no London MPs are here, apart from me. Depending on where one represents in the country, there is a different group of constituents, facing a different series of challenges. Therefore, ensuring that the local aspect is fully part of how we work through the transition is vital. That is why the role of the Department for Work and Pensions, working with local authorities and the DCLG, is so critical. That is also why, as Liberal Democrats will recognise, localism is a theme that needs to run more broadly through our policy across Government. That is one reason why in this area it is important. Andrew George: That is central to the point that I was making, and it has been repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I entirely understand that in a London setting, and perhaps in other parts of the country, this is a

19WH

Vulnerable People (CSR)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Andrew George] debate about the understandable sense of injustice among hard-working people, who feel that those who are not working have preferential, and indeed better, living circumstances than they themselves can afford. In my part of the country that does not apply. The key issue is that the rental properties coming on to the market are not getting close to even the median or below, which is the setting for housing benefit in my area. Understanding how the market works in our area, we know that the policy of ratcheting it down to 30% will not lever private rents downward. It will leave a large group of people—working and non-working—significantly impoverished. Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman has set out his concerns for his area. I go back to my earlier comment about the 30th percentile change. That is the right thing to do to ensure that people feel the system is fair. As for rents, interestingly, if one looks at the changes around local housing allowance, about 32% of people affected by the changes will lose money, but will still get enough to cover their rent. Because of the way that local housing allowance worked in the past—it meant that people got more than they needed to pay their rent—a third of people will not be left with a shortfall. We talked about the discretionary fund and working with local authorities. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised are precisely why we want to ensure that as much of that support as possible can be localised. The reason is twofold. Local authorities might feel that the best way they can support people is to keep them in the homes they are already in—that is the decision they take. In other cases, they might feel that the best long-term sustainable situation is to help people to move to something that is more affordable to them.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

20WH

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise those issues, which are precisely why we have set aside £140 million to ensure that the support is there to tackle some of those on-the-ground changes through the transition period, as we move to a housing benefit system that feels fairer and more affordable, and that does not trap people in poverty and out of work, as we have seen in the past. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing today’s debate, which has raised some very important points, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. There is no doubt that the spending review will have an impact across our society—not just for the next four years, but for many to come. The decisions we have made will help to shape Britain’s future. That is something of which I am very conscious. That is why we have put such an emphasis on fairness, protecting the vulnerable and supporting the most needy. That fairness is rooted in not only supporting people today, but giving them the opportunity of a better quality of life tomorrow. We know that cuts to public expenditure have to be made—even the Opposition would agree with that—but that should not come at a cost of a more divided society, where the poorest and the most disadvantaged suffer as a result of mistakes that were never theirs. Our actions in the spending review reflect that: we have delivered a fair settlement, demonstrated that we are a progressive Government and supported the most vulnerable in our society. That was our promise when we came to power, and it is one that we fully intend to keep.

10.55 am Sitting suspended.

21WH

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Consumer Credit Regulation 11 am Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): I have tabled this debate for a simple reason. As a new MP, it seems to me to be the best way to get some answers from the Government about a matter that I know is very important to many of us in Westminster Hall today: how we support the poorest consumers in society. Despite the pressure applied by Compass, the End Legal Loan Sharks campaign, the Better Banking Coalition and myself and others, as yet Ministers have not made any commitment to act on the issue of consumer credit regulation. I hope we can change that today, especially after the show of support by the number of Members here for this debate. I want to show how and why the Government should act, through regulation of consumer credit. I want also to highlight how important it is that that be undertaken in conjunction with a range of other measures to support people who get into debt, and ultimately to help break the cycle of debt that blights the lives of too many people in Britain. I have a lot of detailed evidence on these matters that I want to put on the record and I know that a lot of other Members also want to speak out. Nevertheless, I hope that in 90 minutes we can make progress and have a constructive debate, and I am keen to hear what other people have to say on this issue. At the heart of this debate is a concern about debt and how it defines the financial situation of millions of families in our country. During the past 30 years, households have become more reliant on credit as a means to secure homes, invest in education and skills and smooth out the fluctuations in income and expenditure that everybody experiences. Let me say at the outset that this is not a debate about the wearing of hair shirts or a musing on the nature of contemporary consumer society. The uses of credit that I have just described can be a powerful driver for economic growth. Therefore, ensuring access to credit and confidence in credit markets is vitally important, especially when public spending is so constrained. However, a growing number of people have problems using credit, and the ease of access to credit also makes it much more likely that people can end up using the wrong kind of credit for their needs or taking on more debt than they can service, so that their financial fortunes become far too sensitive to changes in their circumstances. That creates a toxic mix of the wrong kind of banking and credit services, the ups and downs of life, and a small amount of financial comfort with which to cover the difference between income and expenditure. A study by The Observer newspaper earlier this year found that for 26% of men and 34% of women, living beyond their means was the cause of insolvency. However, for many more people—indeed, for 50% of women— insolvency was caused by unplanned changes to their personal circumstances, such as divorce or job loss. So, for many people the problem is being caught suddenly with an additional expense—replacing a broken-down washing machine or a car—that means a cost to their monthly budget that they cannot afford, or being unable to manage a sudden loss of income through redundancy or family breakdown. All these factors then lead to over-indebtedness, default and insolvency.

Consumer Credit Regulation

22WH

Just how bad is the debt problem? The UK now has one of the highest levels of personal debt in the world. In April this year, people in Britain owed more than £1.4 billion in private debt and in recent years personal insolvency has reached record highs, with more than 130,000 individuals entering a formal insolvency process this year alone. These official statistics can tell us about formal insolvency, but it is clear that that is just the tip of an iceberg. Industry estimates are that about 500,000 people are currently in a debt management plan, and independent research by R3—the Association of Business Recovery Professionals—shows that a further 600,000 people say that they have contacted their creditors for help as a result of struggling with their debts. R3 also estimates that another 960,000 people are struggling with debts but do not seek help. Debt has become the norm in our lives in Britain, with most of us owing money on credit cards, loans and overdrafts. However, it is when those debts become unsustainable and overbearing that trouble happens. According to R3, as a result of the recession four in 10 people are now worried about their current level of debt, with 3 million people fearing redundancy and 2 million people having taken on more debt in recent months. One in 10 people frequently struggle to make it to pay day, with money tending to run out around the twentieth day of each month. There is every indication that these problems will only get worse, especially for those who can least afford indebtedness. The Government’s deficit reduction programme will put millions of people who are on low incomes under severe financial pressure, as they face reduced public services, a greater threat of unemployment and public sector pay freezes. Family Action has identified how a total of 21 different cuts, from changes to the working tax credit to the rise in VAT, will hit low-income families hardest. Crucially for those of us who are concerned by these issues, many of those are people for whom debts are a daily fact of life and for whom unemployment and cuts in income will be even more likely in the coming years, with banks and building societies remaining out of reach as a source of credit. So it is welcome news that the Government have announced a review of credit and insolvency, and that they have made firm commitments to considering capping interest rates on credit and store cards. However, this debate is about what is not in the credit review, what the Government have not done and what they have failed to make firm commitments about. It is the millions of the poorest consumers, who end up using the so-called home credit, hire purchase and pay day loan sector, whom I want to talk about today. The Better Banking Coalition estimates that some 6 million people are in that position. Many of them are people for whom the illegal loan sharking industry may once have been an option, and the progress made by the previous Government in addressing loan sharking must be recorded. The work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills itself shows that about 300,000 individuals, representing about 3% of the poorest families in Britain, used to borrow about £120 million a year from illegal moneylenders, on which they ended up paying back £450 million. The work of the taskforce on illegal moneylending should be commended, and I hope

23WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Stella Creasy] it will be supported. Indeed, its work should be protected within the budget of BIS, especially as it has been judged as delivering value for money. Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate and on campaigning so vigorously in this vital area. Does she agree with me that in combating the loan sharks, the work of local trading standards departments has been absolutely critical? Furthermore, does she agree that it would be an absolute tragedy if, as a result of the Lib Dem-Tory cuts that will affect local government, trading standards officers were held back from doing that vital work? Stella Creasy: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. With local authorities facing cuts of 25% or more to their budgets, it is clear that those cuts could affect trading standards and that the action now being taken on illegal loan sharking could therefore be put at risk. We should not free communities from one form of exploitation only to allow another form to grow unchecked. Indeed, as more effort is put into cracking down on the criminal activity of loan sharks, it is all the more vital that there be greater access to affordable credit, an issue I will return to at the end of my comments. We are here today to talk about the growth of the high-interest legal home credit market—a relatively recent phenomenon in the UK, and an industry that originated in America. As a result, many of the companies operating here are “exporters”, either working online or in our town centres. A good example is Dollar Financial, a US-based lender that operates under the trading name of the Money Shop in the UK. The Money Shop has expanded from just one store in the UK in 1992, which dealt primarily with cheque cashing, to 273 stores and 64 franchises across the UK by 2009. Now, in communities such as mine in Walthamstow, these companies litter our high streets. I want to set out the sort of products such companies sell. We are talking about pay-day lenders, organisations such as Oakum or Wonga.com. In August, the Consumer Focus group published research into the use of pay-day lending. It estimated this market to be worth £1.2 billion a year and that it was used by around 1.2 million people. Its report went on to forecast a significant growth in the market. Such loans are often short-term ones with technical interest rates of anything up to 3,500% for a five-day loan—another point I want to return later. The Consumer Finance Association, which represents pay-day lenders in the UK, estimates that these companies’ customers have an annual income of between £12,500 and £30,000, with £18,000 being the approximate average. However, research for the Friends Provident Foundation found that one in 10 UK pay-day customers had incomes of less than £11,000 per year. These are the people who can least afford to borrow at such high rates, even if it is only for a short time. The price of such lending is often as much as £35 in interest for every £100 borrowed, which simply drives these people further into debt, especially as these loans are often rolled over, one after another.

Consumer Credit Regulation

24WH

Furthermore, these companies make a point of targeting those who are unable to access the UK banking market. Indeed, in my own constituency Oakum makes a point of hiring people who can speak two languages, so that they can target their services at communities who are new to Britain and for whom the British banking system is still alien. In the “home credit” market, people are approached on their doorsteps and offered loans. Generally, such loans range from £200 to £500 and have to be paid back over the course of a year. Although the companies involved claim not to charge for missed or late payments, if someone borrows £300 they have to pay back about £10.50 a week, which adds up to some £540 over the course of a year. That means a typical annual percentage of rate of 272%, compared with the 9% or 10% APR that is often offered by mainstream banks. One of these companies, Provident, has 11,500 “agents” who visit some 1.8 million people a week to collect payments and offer credit. Agents work with each person they serve to judge how much credit they can buy. Some 70% of both customers and agents are women. Critically, agents are paid according to how much they collect, not how much they lend, creating even more pressure to keep people borrowing at such rates. Or consider the antics of hire-purchase companies such as BrightHouse. Such organisations target those on low incomes who have been refused credit and offer goods for sale on hire-purchase terms. The goods, which often have a high mark-up already, are leased out at high interest rates, so that a computer costing £800 or £900 ends up costing £2,000 or £3,000. Should someone default on a week’s payments, the company often imposes high penalty charges and requires the following week’s or month’s payments straight away, making it even harder to catch up. Opportunities to expand resulting from the comprehensive spending review have not been lost on many of those who work in the market. Indeed, Provident’s chief executive publicly stated that he expects growth in his target market as a direct result of the CSR. Another factor driving today’s debate is the failure in the credit market for such consumers. The lack of competition to serve them means that it is a seller’s market. Six lenders account for 90% of the home credit market—Provident accounts for 60%—so there is little competition to drive down interest rates. Clearly, credit lent must be repaid. It is therefore inevitable and fair that interest should be charged to cover the cost of providing credit. It is not disputed that many of those on low incomes or with bad credit histories are a higher lending risk, so interest rates on products aimed at them will be higher than those for the mainstream. However, the terms on which such transactions take place are critical. It is right for both parties that credit should be affordable, which means that both sides must judge what is possible. There are concerns on that point, because many companies, however ethical and caring they may profess to be, are not. They operate in ways that undermine that profession. A pawnshop in my constituency rings customers back to offer them unsecured loans. Some lenders make a virtue of the fact that they do not consider previous credit history or assess whether a household can afford repayments. Such lenders take high-risk customers not

25WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

out of the goodness of their hearts but because they know they can hook families on their services, creating a long-term cash cow. High-interest lending also adds to the difficulties faced by the public purse. Lending at high rates to people on low incomes serves only to deepen their poverty. Credit dependency, whereby such debts can never be paid off, results in debts elsewhere, such as on rent, council tax and fuel bills. It results in cold homes and people going without food. I am sure the Minister recognises that the public purse can end up picking up the pieces. Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Some 10 years ago, I raised the crucial point of the capping of interest rates on loans to vulnerable households with the Office of Fair Trading, and my arguments were rebuked. The OFT maintained that, given the risk profile of the individuals involved, if usurious rates could not be charged, no credit would be available to those communities, and that some credit, even at usurious rates, was better than none. I was not completely convinced at the time that those arguments were valid, and I am not convinced at all in post-credit crunch Britain. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is raising the issue. Stella Creasy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I will certainly come to that, as there is concern about how we might intervene in the market, but I am confident that we can and should, and that the Government should be considering it. We are discussing, in particular, the mix of a lack of competition and a rising demand for credit, but it is better to consider the people at the heart of the issue. We can all talk about statistics, but many of us will have seen in our surgeries the people who get into such debts. There are women who get into years of debt at high rates because their next-door neighbour is a Provident home seller who tells them week after week that they need to borrow more. A constituent of mine had loans from Provident, BrightHouse and Oakam, as well as a purse full of store cards. She missed a few payments and her interest rates soared as a result. She tried to juggle all of them but did not have enough money, and ended up running up an expensive overdraft that accrued £10 a day in charges. The costs affect not just individuals but our communities as well. A Centre for Responsible Credit survey of the Meadowell estate in 2001 found that more money was going out of the estate on payments to door-to-door lenders than the Government were putting in via regeneration budgets. Given the nature of the market and the evidence that I have put on record, will the Minister admit that many of the practices involved in high-interest, short-term money lending are exploitative and unacceptable, and that the Government should intervene to protect people vulnerable to loan sharking? Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): Has my hon. Friend heard today’s news that the Government will not be proceeding with the people’s bank planned for the Post Office? Does she not agree that that is further bad news for people trying to access fair and affordable financial services?

Consumer Credit Regulation

26WH

Stella Creasy: I agree absolutely. It is a travesty. This debate is not just about cracking down on loan sharks; it is also about increasing access to affordable credit, as I shall discuss later. That decision will not help the people whom we are discussing. It is one thing to say that we are concerned about the market, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating: what are we doing to ensure that more people can access credit? Given that and the concerns expressed by Members here, will the Minister make a firm commitment to consult on action to cap the total cost of all forms of borrowing—including the high-interest credit industry, rather than just suppliers of credit and store cards—in his Department’s ongoing credit review? I hope he will commit to so expanding the scope of the credit review, because it would make a difference to consumers. Before the Minister makes that commitment, I will address an issue on which many MPs have been lobbied, and which the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) mentioned earlier. It is possible to act on interest rates. I know that some of the companies concerned contacted Members before this debate claiming that such measures, although well-intentioned, would have unintended consequences. They use such arguments to justify the astronomical interest rates that they charge, arguing that any reduction in those rates would be impossible. To tackle that point head-on, yes, concerns have been expressed not just by legal loan sharks but by organisations that work for those in debt, such as Citizens Advice. I am also aware of the work of the Office of Fair Trading and Consumer Focus, which have both expressed reservations about the impact of introducing a uniform cap on interest rates. They fear that it would close down or reduce pay-day lending, pushing people into the illegal loan sharking market. Those difficulties—which, it must be said, are disputed by other organisations with counter-evidence—do not mean that we cannot act. We know from legislation dealing with dangerous driving, the introduction of a minimum wage and fireworks safety that there will always be people who point to those who will not abide by the rules. The arguments against a cap presume perfect consumers of the services in question who can make price-sensitive judgments about what loans they can access and their own credit situation, and competition for their custom. I hope I have shown that that is simply not the case. The problems with a rate cap do not mean that we cannot act. Rather, we must work harder and learn from others how best to act. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend accept that other jurisdictions such as Canada and the American state of Ohio, where similar objections were raised, decided on balance to cap interest rates? Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many examples overseas from which we can learn, and I hope to put some of them on the record. Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Is not my hon. Friend trying to make the point that in communities such as ours—Tottenham is next door to Walthamstow, and it is very similar—people need to know who they can trust? We have heard today’s decision on the people’s

27WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr David Lammy] bank. In years gone by, my mother felt that she could trust the national savings scheme with the Post Office. It is not just about providing poor people with more information; they need the state to step in and take a view on what is excessive and exploitative in that area of the market. Stella Creasy: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that it is possible to intervene effectively in such markets, and I shall come to that next. In the Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill, which is my private Member’s Bill, I suggest not a blunt cap on interest rates, but a cap on the total cost of lending, which is vital. Given the experience in other countries, it seems likely that focusing solely on capping interest rates would lead some companies simply to recoup their profits through administrative and late repayment charges. Also, as I said, the situation in the short-term loan market can be very different from the long-term compound interest that many people face. That creates perpetual rolling debts in which families get stuck. It is worth highlighting exactly what that difference is and what it means for interest rates. Some short-term loans have an annual interest rate of 2,000% or 3,000%. If I were to lend someone £100 and ask for £10 at the end of a week, it would equate over a year to an interest rate of approximately 3,500%. We need more sophisticated tools than a blunt cap on interest rates to get around the maths and also to ensure that emergency loans are not rendered illegal or impossible when they are manageable, and that is why I propose two forms of intervention. The first is powers to intervene on the total cost of borrowing over the lifetime of a loan to set parameters within which any company can be expected to act. Such a process would examine the total lending charge and give the Government the power to stop a single loan from exceeding a certain percentage of the original value through all the costs associated with it. That could be done through the Office of Fair Trading or whatever remnant of consumer focus the Government leave as protection following their decision to disband it. Secondly, within those parameters, the Government should consider caps on the interest rates that firms charge for different forms of loans—whether they are pay-day loans, longer term or for hire purchase. That would avoid inadvertently killing off the short-term emergency loan market and address the impact of compound interest. As hon. Members have pointed out, these are not back-of-the-envelope proposals without any foundation. Just last week in Montana, alongside the mid-term elections, the public voted to cap the interest rate that lenders can charge. That makes Montana the 16th US state in which pay-day lending is effectively banned because of a 36% limit on the annual interest rate that lenders can charge. Indeed, 15 states in America have essentially eliminated pay-day lending altogether by introducing a ban or cap on the maximum amount of credit at a low level, which has driven such lenders out of business. Some 35 US states and eight Canadian provinces have introduced higher caps on the price of pay-day loans, which allows such loans to operate but

Consumer Credit Regulation

28WH

protects consumers from extortionate lending. For example, in a number of Canadian provinces, caps have been set at between $21 and $23 per $100 lent. Such legislative interventions have been put in place not only in America and Canada, as 14 European states have some form of ceiling on interest rates. Countries often have more than one ceiling because they are set according to the different type or size of loan. For example, there is a different loan category in Belgium for those under ¤1,250 and those over. Alternatively, ceiling levels are set according to the terms or nature of the loan, such as depending on whether they are mortgages, credit cards or auto loans. The number of parameters can make some ceiling designs complex and difficult to understand. Indeed, the most straightforward are the absolute ceilings found under the past tradition of usury laws, but their impact is not as effective as some of the more targeted ceilings. There are differences between what has happened in Greece and Malta, and in some of the other countries that have brought in more complicated caps, such as Belgium, Portugal, Poland and the Netherlands. Many of those are based on a reference rate, under which a multiple of average market rates can be used to set the ceiling. In France, the ceilings are set at 133% of the market average—in other words, one third above the average. A report on the effects of rate caps in Europe is due to be published by the European Commission in February 2011. I understand that it will support the case for caps, provided that the form and level of the caps are carefully constructed. Those issues—what form the cap could take and where it could be set—need proper and full discussion. It does not take the debate forward to say that because some caps have not worked, we therefore should never have them. We should be asking where caps have worked well, how we can learn from that, and how we can apply them so that we effectively help people on low incomes in the UK. Frankly, what is the credit review for if it is not to examine how and if such approaches could work here? The Government could learn from other countries about ways of preventing compound interest’s connection to debt dependency. Indeed, that is why it is all the more surprising that the credit review does not consider such matters. America and Canada have experimented with restricting the amount that can be lent—for example, Illinois and Nevada have put in place clear requirements that a loan should not exceed 25% of a borrower’s income. In Arizona, California, Colorado and Florida, the number of loans that can be provided has been limited to just one at a time. In addition, Indiana prohibits more than one loan from a single lender and limits the total number of loans to two. Alabama restricts the total number of times a loan can be rolled over to just one. Alaska allows just two, while Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana prohibit the practice entirely. The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): The hon. Lady makes much play of the evidence from individual American states. Does she accept that one of the consequences of what happens in America is that lenders that are set up in other states are able to sell their services perfectly legally in the states in which such practices are banned? That increases the risk of illegal lending, so I am not sure that the fact that such things happen in some American states particularly strengthens her case.

29WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Stella Creasy: The Minister expresses concern about the nature of federal government in America, but he ignores the evidence from European states with a national system of governance that have introduced interest rate caps effectively. The best possible comparison for the UK is European states, rather than states in America and Canada, although I mentioned those cases as examples of where caps have been introduced and differential rates have been used. Frankly, the Minister should be considering such issues in his credit review, rather than them simply being raised as part of an Adjournment debate. I hope that he will rethink the credit review and expand it to consider such issues and the way in which they might apply in the home context. I mentioned such detail to show that it is possible to legislate to deal with the worst excesses of the markets and that such an approach does not increase the market for illegal loan sharks, as that is not demonstrated in the evidence from other countries. Andrew Bridgen: I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s aims and cause. However, does she agree that some of the previous Government’s policies did not help people get out of debt but, in fact, trapped them in it? In the days of easy credit, the complex working tax credit system allowed people to get into debt. Given the withdrawal of benefits, and with marginal rates of taxation of 60%, 70%, 80% and 90%, people were trapped in debt because they could never work their way out of it. Stella Creasy: I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman could produce evidence for that, as opposed to making a supposition. It is easy to claim that working tax credit put people into such dependency, but let us consider what the loan sharks themselves have said about the comprehensive spending review. They have argued that it will increase the number of people coming to them because those people will not have money to help their families grow. That is where I look for evidence. Considering the evidence on how we tackle legal loan sharking in and of itself is not enough to help these families. We need to stop the exploitation of low-income households in the credit market and legislate on the cost of borrowing. As Labour Members will understand—they know these problems well because they have had to deal with them—we also need to increase access to affordable credit. Those two issues go hand in hand. We cannot expand access to affordable credit while millions of people are trapped in relationships of credit dependency. Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on a powerful and excellent speech. When considering help for such families, we also need to think about credit and money advice. The previous Government provided significant amounts of extra money to deal with the consequences of the recession. Cleary, we must do that if we are to deal with the problems that have arisen as a result of the CSR. An important part of this process is to have more money advice. People need proper advice about how to manage their money, how to avoid getting into debt, and how to make the right decision on loans. Stella Creasy: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly practical and important point on these issues, which I shall come back to at the end of my comments

Consumer Credit Regulation

30WH

when I consider to the third component of the action that we can take to protect the poorest consumers in Britain. I shall quickly return to my point about access to affordable credit. We must learn lessons and consider how to increase affordable credit access through the existing UK market. We know that that can be done, because people are already doing it. Credit unions and social enterprises such as Fair Finance are demonstrating that it is possible to lend as reasonable rates, to provide money advice services, and to help people to make credit work for them. Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and I know that many of my constituents will be watching it closely. Does she agree that credit unions—including the Leeds City credit union, which has been operating for more than 20 years in my city, and the Bramley credit union—offer an excellent alternative to loan sharks? The Government could do more to support credit unions to grow, for example by enabling them to operate at all post offices and at local council facilities such as benefit offices and local libraries. Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes exactly the point I wanted to mention about how important it is to support and promote credit unions. There is certainly scope for British credit unions to grow, and we are behind other nations in that respect. In Ireland, 50% of the population are members of a credit union. In America and Canada, the figure is around 40%. In Australia and New Zealand it is around 25%, but it is closer to 2% in the UK. Despite that, at least 86% of people are eligible to join a credit union in England, Scotland and Wales on the basis of where they live and the working areas that are served by credit unions. That is not just in Bramley—my excellent Waltham Forest community credit union has more than 4,000 customers. There is clearly interest in accessing credit through such bodies. Membership of credit unions in Britain increased by 35% between March 2008 and March 2010. The challenge we face is how to scale up credit unions extremely quickly, given the CSR and the level of debt that we are facing. The question of the future of the post office network provides therefore both an opportunity and a threat to some of the excellent work that can be done in this field, which several hon. Members have mentioned. The previous Government proposed—this is being promoted by the Association of British Credit Unions— connecting up the credit union movement and post offices, which would allow the integration of both services. A one-off investment would be needed to provide the common back-office platform that would allow the technical integration of the two services. In turn, that would allow post offices to offer a wider range of services, including those vital instant small-scale loans, as well as access to a post office card account. Staff at post offices could carry out transactions in real time, checking account details and giving instant pre-approved loans that were affordable and convenient. Credit union customers would be able to access their accounts and make payments through the post office. In turn, a transaction fee would be generated by each transaction

31WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Stella Creasy] that would provide a new stream of revenue for the Post Office. That could open up access to affordable credit and help consumers by breaking down the monopoly on supply. It is no wonder that the Finance and Leasing Association has briefed against that proposal and argued that it could restrict consumer choice and hinder competition, which is something that many legal loan sharks seem to think is okay for their specialist services. Does the Minister stand with the loan sharks or the credit unions? What commitment will his Department make to fund the back-office integration of post offices and credit unions so that the post office network can provide credit union services and increase access to affordable credit for consumers? Those problems require us not only to legislate, but to look at what we can do for the families involved. We must not only clamp down on the exploitation practised by the firms, but extend access to affordable credit through credit unions. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): Has the hon. Lady considered the implications of the Bill of Sale Act 1878, which effectively enables loan sharks to get away with much of their inappropriate behaviour? We all agree that we should not tolerate loan sharks—they are in my constituency as well as in hers and others. Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair comment. The point behind today’s debate is that there is overwhelming evidence that we can and should intervene, and there is certainly concern about the situation among Labour Members. The credit review offers us, if anything, an opportunity to look at how we can intervene and how the law could be amended. The fact that that is not happening is a travesty, so I hope that coalition Members will challenge the Government to expand the scope of the credit review so that it covers these issues. Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Will she join me in asking the Minister to clarify the Government’s intentions on the consumer advocate? There has been some speculation that they are keen to go ahead with that position, which was first suggested in a White Paper by the previous Government, but there is still no actual detail. A consumer advocate could play a crucial role in that area, so it would be good to hear the Government’s intentions on that. Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly fair point. I certainly hope that the Minister will address that, along with the credit review and the role that credit unions could play within post offices. I certainly want more direct financial support for organisations that provide advocacy services and support people who get into debt. The model that we can learn from is that of the drinks industry. In 2007, following public concern about alcopops and the need to address binge drinking, the industry responded by setting up and funding Drinkaware, an independent charity administering grants to tackle alcohol misuse. Each year it raises around £2.6 million from alcoholic drink makers and retailers, which is then used to raise awareness about alcohol and encourage sensible drinking. My Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill proposes that a levy should be imposed on organisations selling

Consumer Credit Regulation

32WH

credit, which would be used to fund a similar grant scheme. That could be accessed by a range of organisations providing debt management counselling or financial literacy services. Counsellors could give one-on-one sessions to families to help them get back on their feet by negotiating with creditors, helping them to navigate the support to which they are entitled and identifying how best they can live within their means. Supporting those whose lives are ruled by debt requires more than informal advice. R3, the insolvency practitioners’ industry body, notes that one in five of their clients did not seek help earlier because they had no idea who to turn to for help. I welcome the Government’s continued support for the previous Administration’s work on a levy on dormant bank accounts for that purpose, but I hope that they will recognise the need for both financial advice services and specific advocacy services, such as the excellent work undertaken by organisations such as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, Citizens Advice and Christians Against Poverty. The Moneymadeclear service, as it is currently set out, will not be the same thing, and we must ensure that both are available if we are to address these challenges. Does the Minister recognise the need to provide specialist financial advice and advocacy services to help people who get into debt, and will he commit to setting up a fund to support those services directly, as I propose in my Bill? We have covered many complicated issues today. Just to be clear, I will end my remarks by repeating the three clear commitments that I want the Government to tell us, on record, whether they will make. First, will the Minister commit to expanding the credit review, to consulting on powers to cap the total lending costs, and to exploring caps on different interest rates for different types of loans? Secondly, will he commit to financing the integration of the post office network with the credit union network to enable them to share back-office technology and thus support each other? Finally, will he commit to a levy on those who sell credit to create a dedicated fund for debt advice and advocacy services? Failure to act on those matters would not come at a worse time for many of Britain’s families. We know that if the Government are intent on pushing their Budget on Britain, they will raise the number of families in our communities living with the daily misery of debt. They therefore must take responsibility for their actions. They must give the same consideration to the needs of those for whom the never-never is a fact of life as they do for those who have Amex cards or a trust fund. I hope that the Minister will give us three yeses today so that we can make progress on those matters. 11.34 am Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the clear, in many ways convincing and impassioned way in which she put her case. She has had quite a double whammy over the past few days, with her ten-minute rule Bill last week and now this important debate. It is particularly timely, given the review of consumer credit and personal insolvency and this morning’s statement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the future of the post office network, which, to be fair, contained rather more of positive interest to people who care about those issues than perhaps some Members have suggested today.

33WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Like the hon. Lady, I will concentrate on instalment credit, rather than revolving credit, although both are relevant. I am sure that the debate will be positive, but I will start with three negative points—three not’s. First, this is not a party political debate. I pay tribute to the previous Government’s work with the credit union sector, for example, which at the time had all-party support. I am also sure that measures to address those problems and help the most vulnerable people will receive support from across the House. I know that that is the case among many of my colleagues in the coalition Government, and it is evidenced to a large extent by the number of Members from both sides of the House who have attended the debate. Secondly, this issue is not new, although, to be fair, it is changing. The leader in doorstep home credit has been around since Victorian times, but every few years the nature of the market changes a little. There are changes over time regarding the importance of priority debt and that of consumer debt, and there might in future be some change back towards priority debt. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the home credit market has been created by the comprehensive spending review, and everyone who has ever worked in communities that have such issues knows that well. It is also a dynamic market, and there is always something new to worry about: whenever we think we have got our heads around the market, something new comes along, be it the increasing problems with fee-paying debt management agencies, inertia selling, payment protection insurance, the growth in pay-day loans, the appearance of pre-paid sub-prime credit cards or the appearance of so-called credit rehab cards. Thirdly, it is not all bad. Every segment of the market plays some sort of role. Even pay-day loans can have a role—for example, in avoiding excessive current account penalty charges. We also have in this country, much more so than in the European markets to which the hon. Lady referred, a pretty competitive and diverse market. The effect is that very few people in this country are totally excluded from the legal and, therefore, regulated—one might argue that it is not regulated well enough—and regulable part of the market. There are always three key aspects to any debate on this subject. The first is the disclosure of information; education, so that people have the wherewithal to do something with that information; and the whole surrounding culture, particularly what we as a society aspire to regarding the balance between savings and debt to help people get through the ups and downs of life, which everyone has. I will not talk about that this morning because there is not much time and many Members wish to speak. The second area, which is the focus of the hon. Lady’s ten-minute rule Bill, is smarter regulation, and the third is alternatives to high-cost credit. I will talk briefly about each of those aspects. When it comes to regulation, we need to understand our objectives, of which there could be one or two. It might be either to reduce the cost of credit to people on very low incomes and who have great difficulties in their lives, or to reduce the prevalence of credit and debt for those people. That is an important distinction, because it might lead to one or two different things. For example, if one just wanted to reduce the costs, one might liberalise the rules on door-to-door canvassing for cash loans,

Consumer Credit Regulation

34WH

because that would allow new entrants into the market more easily, which could undercut the existing players and cut the cost. However, not many of us would want to do that. If we are trying to reduce the prevalence of lending in those sectors, we might do the opposite and ban door-to-door canvassing even for non-cash loans— meaning voucher loans—because they are used, as the hon. Lady will know, as the way in to new customers, who can then be graduated on to higher value cash loans. My assumption is that the objective must always be both to reduce the cost to people who are taking on sub-prime loans, and to reduce the prevalence of such lending. The second key question on objectives is whether we are trying to hammer a particular segment. As I said, each segment, if handled properly and responsibly, has a role. Therefore my assumption is that we are trying to target not a particular segment—for example, pay-day loans or home credit—but the principle of people paying sky-high rates for credit when they need it. There are perennial problems when trying to make smarter regulation in this area. In particular, because it is such a diverse and organic market, as soon as we deal with one problem, another pops up. In fact, in some ways, it is because we deal with one problem that another pops up. Let me give a couple of examples. If we manage to bear down on cash lending, we will see—this is true in some of the American states to which the hon. Lady referred—an increase in rent-to-own, voucher lending and catalogue lending, with grey pricing. That is where the base price of the item is inflated such that at a 29.9% interest rate, to use a random example, the lender is making considerably more than that in terms of margin. If we bear down effectively on interest charges, there is the automatic tendency, it seems, for lenders to rely more heavily instead on behavioural penalties, which, in many types of lending, can end up costing far more than the apparent rate of interest. With any cap that we put on the cost of lending, mathematically we will be disproportionately impacting on the highest-risk customers, which in this market means the lowest-income customers and usually the most vulnerable customers. At the extreme end, when we are talking about excluding those people, there is the danger that we will push them into the arms of illegal and unregulated moneylenders—the sort of people whose idea of a late-payment penalty is a cigarette burn to the forearm. Of course we all want to avoid that. However, despite the perennial problems, there are still possibilities, many of which were outlined by the hon. Lady. APR is a widely misunderstood measure, and there is always the danger that anything we replace it with will also be widely misunderstood, but total cost of credit has more potential than APR to be understood. On caps, I am a free-market Conservative, so in general I am not in favour of price controls. However, the hon. Lady made a good point in that regard. If we look throughout the European tradition world and the Anglo-Saxon tradition world, hardly anywhere has a market as liberal as ours in terms of the interest rate regime. Of course, before 1974—when there was a Conservative Government—there was a usury ceiling in this country. We have to ask the question: if we have got this so brilliantly right, how come other countries are not trying to copy us?

35WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Damian Hinds] I do not think it will work to go after individual markets saying, “We’ll have this restriction on this product and that restriction on that product,” because new products will just be invented. I wonder whether it is possible to come up with a formula that does away with the market’s worst excesses, while not putting any individual segment of it entirely out of business. I would love to hear the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the regulation of rules and supplementary charges on loan roll-over, missed payments, minimum payments and so on. We also need to think about the way in which credit scoring works. By the time that people eventually seek help, many of them have run up eight, nine or 10 separate lines of credit. We have to wonder what the lenders of the eighth, ninth and 10th lines of credit were thinking. This is a matter of responsibility. Of course in terms of the maths, it might be perfectly rational for the lender to issue a lot of loans with relatively low credit-scoring hurdle points, in the knowledge that although they will have to write some off, that is still a more advantageous profit model than rejecting them. Most of all, I would love to hear from the Minister on something the hon. Member for Walthamstow talked about at length—alternatives to high-cost credit, to which there are multiple aspects. For example, the social fund is probably due for a bit of root-and-branch reform. Here I am talking not about priority debts or emergency loans, but the discretionary fund. In addition, mainstream banks can be exhorted to develop bounce protection credit lines more quickly, which will stop so many people being forced into pay-day loans. Above all, however, the opportunity is with credit unions. I welcome this morning’s statement on the post office network, which gives some positive indications. Credit unions have made great strides in the last few years. Historically, they had been very strong in the west of Scotland, Manchester, Merseyside and parts of London, but not in the rest of the country. In recent years, the situation has improved, but we are still not at the point at which everyone can access a credit union. The range of services has also improved dramatically, with the credit union current account, cash ISAs and so on. When the legislative reform order that we all hope will come along very soon is passed, that will make further strides in liberalising the common bond—in being able to pay fixed rates of interest on savings accounts and being able to bank to groups as well as individuals, which fits well with the big society agenda. Mr Thomas: I do not seek to make a partisan point, but will the hon. Gentleman join me nevertheless in asking the Minister to clarify the future of the growth fund, which is due to end in March 2011 and provided significant money to help credit unions and other community finance organisations expand, in order to provide the access-to-credit alternatives he has described? Damian Hinds: I am sure the Minister has heard the question and made a note of it. What I will say about the growth fund is that of course, capitalising credit unions to expand their customer base has many positive aspects. Not all credit unions were fully geared up to make maximum use of some aspects of the growth fund, and particularly the speed of the growth fund.

Consumer Credit Regulation

36WH

I would also like to see other ways of further funds for lending going into credit unions. All of us, if we have not already done so, can open a savings account with a credit union. That is not a flippant point. We need to encourage more people at higher and middle rates of income to use credit unions as their place for savings, because then, of course, those savings become the source of loans to other people. Credit unions do not yet exist on the critical scale at which there is mass awareness of the services available. Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): I particularly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s observation that this is not necessarily a party political issue and that there is support on both sides of the House for many of the elements in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). There is a renewed sense of urgency about the issue, perhaps more so among we newer Members who have come by a community-organising route and have seen at first hand the effects in our communities. One thing that prevents credit unions from expanding is that they are seen as operating in charity offices and church halls and they lack the high-street presence of organisations such as BrightHouse, which can spend a lot of money on marketing and targeting people. Integrating credit unions more with the Post Office would have given them that mainstream appeal and access in all communities. Damian Hinds: I thank the hon. Lady profusely and will remunerate her suitably later for teeing me up for my next sentence. One of the problems for credit unions, apart from lack of awareness of them in some sections of the community, is that they lack a high-street network throughout the country. Marrying them with the Post Office offers amazing synergistic opportunities for both sides. It marries the financial expertise and product base of the credit unions with the presence and trusted brand of the Post Office. We talked earlier about trusted brands. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): The point was made a few moments ago that it is important that middle-income people also join credit unions. I am pleased to have joined my local credit union, as I am sure everyone in the room has joined their local credit union, as a place for savings. The point about a high-street presence is extremely important. My local credit union in Crawley operates out of a community centre, which as we have heard is the norm. I very much support the idea of making credit unions mainstream, and it therefore becoming much more the norm for people to save and transact with them. Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend makes a fine point, which I do not disagree with at all. I should say, for the avoidance of doubt, that my own savings account is with the United Savings & Loans credit union in Bordon. That fantastic institution has a high-street presence, but because of the rents in my part of the world, it is not the most prominent high-street presence. The established network of the Post Office could make a big difference to that. Of course, this is not just a matter of saying, “We’ll work with the Post Office.” It is also about the infrastructure that goes behind that—the electronics and the systems. That is why it is necessary to build a robust back-office system and interface. That takes

37WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

money, but it does not necessarily have to come entirely from the Government, and it would be a mistake to think so. Such activities do of course carry with them a future income stream, and as everyone knows one can borrow against a future income stream. There is certainly a role for the Government in financing such a thing, but not just grant funding is needed. Overall, the provision of alternatives is the surest and most important initiative that can be taken in this area. Whatever the regulation, people will always find ways to get around it, and we must strive to make things better. Stella Creasy: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I understand and recognise his experience in the credit union movement. Does he agree that these are the very issues on which the credit review should be formally consulting? It should be looking not just at store and credit cards but at access to credit, and also the home credit market, pay-day lending and the many other products that may well be expanded, to try to tackle once and for all the needs of the poorest consumers. Damian Hinds: I am supremely relaxed about the names that are given to reviews, discussions and discussion documents. The important thing is that members of the coalition Government take a keen interest in this area and are interested in making progress, and I know that they are. The name or title is of secondary concern. The surest thing we can do is to provide a good, robust alternative, and thereby revolutionise affordable credit. We can also improve the savings culture in this country and provide a real alternative to the doorstep lenders about which we are all so concerned. Several hon. Members rose— Mr David Crausby (in the Chair): Front-Bench speakers will be called at 10 past 12, so it would be appreciated if Members kept their contributions short. 11.51 am Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, but soon to be promoted—for securing this debate. As a new Member, I am struck whenever I speak in Westminster Hall by the quality of the debates that take place here. It is such a shame that we do not have the same quality of debate on the Floor of the House, and I believe that that is recognised by all Members here. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made good points. I know that many people wish to speak, so I intend to keep my remarks brief and largely to restrict them to the north-east and my constituency. This problem arises in constituencies such as mine and many others because of a lack of affordable credit. People who work part-time and live on low incomes or minimum wage often find themselves with few options, which has resulted in an outbreak of high-cost credit. My constituency is large and made up of many small towns. I cannot walk down the high street of any of the small towns in my constituency without seeing an array of pawn shops that buy gold, cash cheques at exorbitant prices and generally prey on the poor in our communities who, like many hon. Members, I see in my surgery.

Consumer Credit Regulation

38WH

In the past seven years, the number of pay-day loan users has increased fourfold and the number of pawnbrokers has trebled. That is happening in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend. This is probably one of the best attended Westminster Hall debates that I have seen, so the problem clearly exists in other constituencies—not just in the north-east or poorer areas, but right across the country. Irresponsible lending serves only to make things worse. Companies such as Oakam, which has been mentioned, and the Money Shop charge annual interest rates of more than 444%, despite a Bank of England base rate of just 0.5%. Borrowing at such rates can tip vulnerable people into a cycle of debt and poverty. High debt repayments are linked to rent, council tax and utility arrears, as well as other poverty indicators such as constraints on job-seeking behaviour, poor diet, cold homes, and mental and physical health problems. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, rightly, that loan sharking has not resulted from the comprehensive spending review, but the review will simply make things worse. The Government’s plans to reduce housing benefit by 10% after a year will make things worse in constituencies such as mine. So far, the arguments in that debate have centred around what will happen in London, but the effects of the cuts will not be restricted to central London. In my constituency, they will mean people who are already struggling and in debt being forced to find another £15 a week that they simply do not have, and being forced to go to loan sharks and disreputable loan companies. The north-east is a hot spot for illegal loan sharking. The North East Illegal Money Lending Team, which was set up by the previous Government in December 2007, has identified 1,083 illegal lenders—92 in the first quarter of this year; convicted 40 loan sharks; and saved borrowers more than £2 million. When loan sharks are convicted, the cases are publicised widely in the local press and on television. Some people have argued that a cap on total lending will simply increase illegal loan sharking, but, coming from an area where it is prolific and is blighting the lives of the poor, I would argue that a cap on total lending, as well as investigating and jailing loan sharks, and publicising the cases widely, would improve the position for the poor in my constituency. This is very much a gender issue. Fair Finance, a social enterprise bank that offers loans and debt advice, has seen clear trends in those seeking its help: 75% are women, 70% are single mothers and 80% are on benefits. The issue disproportionately affects women. In the northeast, there are recorded cases of women being forced into prostitution because of loan sharks. All families—all of us—experience financial emergencies from time to time, but when a financial emergency hits a poorer household, it is often the catalyst that sets it into a downward spiral of debt. Many people in such situations are vulnerable at all kinds of levels. Many live on the margins and are preyed upon routinely. One of my constituents was forced to borrow £200—a relatively small sum—from a loan shark to fund a trip to Wales. His sister had been murdered by her partner, and he needed to make a trip from the north-east to Wales to organise the funeral and to settle her debts and affairs. His neighbours rallied round and paid the off loan, but

39WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Pat Glass] many of them are also poor and vulnerable. If those people can see that there is an issue, surely we can, too, and the Government should act on it. Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Lady speaks with great passion about individuals in her constituency, and I really feel for them. I hate the phrase, “This is not a partisan point,” because we all know what comes next, so I shall not say it. Does she think that the previous Government’s claims to have ended boom and bust encouraged or discouraged vulnerable people to gear up with more debt? Pat Glass: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not think that it is relevant to the debate, or helpful. The current situation of allowing very high interest rates to be charged to the lowest-income households leads to greater wealth inequality and greater child poverty, and it constrains efforts to regenerate deprived communities. We have heard about Provident Personal Credit, a legal loan company that operates widely in the north-east. It controls 60% of the home credit and legal doorstep lending there. It mainly offers small, short-term and unsecured cash loans. The typical annual percentage rate on a Provident loan is 272.2%, and 70% of its customers are women. The Government can address those issues and make the lives of those living in the poorest households easier. Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way? Pat Glass: I was about to say what the Government could do, but I shall give way.

Consumer Credit Regulation

40WH

The Government could also provide alternative sources of affordable credit. Many organisations have called for such action on high-street loan sharking, including Compass, Citizens UK and the “End Legal Loan Sharking” campaign. The Government need to provide local authorities with powers to enable them to restrict the provision of premises for licensed consumer credit agencies within a local area, and to give locals a say over what happens in their high street. When people are asked, they say that they do not want these pawnbrokers and “gold for cash” or high-interest-rate companies on their high streets. I am disappointed by this morning’s announcement that the people’s bank will not be part of the post office network, as it could provide affordable short-term credit. Using the post office network to provide back-office functions that integrated the network’s services with credit unions would help the poorest people to access credit unions, current accounts and savings accounts through post office branches. However, I welcome the announcement about bringing together the synergy of post offices and credit unions. The credit review and a cap on interest on store and credit cards are both welcome, but in themselves will not help the poorest people in my constituency and in many others. A credit review would seem to be the right way to go, but I ask the Minister to look again at the terms of reference and to include some of the very strong arguments that have been made from both sides of the Chamber today. The Government need to do something to stop what is happening. It seems that the only growth on high streets in my constituency and in many others is in charity shops and pawnbrokers. The Government have made a commitment to reducing child poverty and this would be a very good place to start. [MR CHRISTOPHER CHOPE in the Chair]

Richard Graham: On the three recommendations made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), does the hon. Lady agree that the second, which was about the role played by credit unions in the post office network, is the most exciting opportunity for combating loan sharks that we have seen in this country for a long time? The Minister with responsibility for the Post Office has already made it clear that he welcomes a future role for credit unions in the structure and distribution network of Post Office Ltd. In my constituency, the new Gloucestershire Credit Union, which is partly funded by the Department for Work and Pensions, represents an important step forward for us all in our different constituencies. Pat Glass: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I was going to come on to. What I will say now is that this is not either/or, and we can do both. The Government could provide a cap now on the total lending rate that may be charged for providing credit, and on additional interest on late payments and default charges, and that could be targeted on companies that charge excessive interest—and then interest again on that charge—to customers who borrow from them. That would be a popular move. A recent YouGov poll, carried out in April 2010 and highlighted on the “End Legal Loan Sharking” campaign’s website, found that 89% of the people polled would support such a move.

12.2 pm Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I shall be very brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on introducing the debate on those very important issues. She has certainly done her research. The previous Government did some very good work on the regulation of consumer credit, with the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Coming down the line in February 2011 we have the EU directive, and the main thing that that will introduce is the provision that in any credit agreement the customer has to be given standard information. I hope that that, too, will be helpful. The quality of the contributions to the debate illustrates how complex this issue is—there are other sides to the story. I was speaking to the Finance and Leasing Association this morning, and it is concerned that excessive regulation will shrink the market. The market is contracting at the moment, and that might polarise it. Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): We could be in danger of using a blunt instrument here, and as has been said, if we knock an apple down, it will bob up somewhere else as an alternative product that cannot be legislated against, so we will continually be revisiting legislation. As was mentioned, the answer is more in education, so that people get the difference between the costs of credit.

41WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Lorely Burt: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, it is very important to look at the whole cost of a loan rather than necessarily relying on an interest rate. The Finance and Leasing Association is concerned that if we cap the interest rate the market will migrate towards the maximum, with high-risk consumers being cross-subsidised by lowerrisk ones because somewhere or other the risk has to be funded. Stella Creasy: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that listening to the Finance and Leasing Association on how to protect the poorest consumers is a bit like listening to burglars telling us that muggers are not very nice because they take people’s property to their face? Lorely Burt: A burglar might have a lot of expertise in telling us how to keep our homes safe, so it is important to keep an open mind and listen to everybody in the argument. The point is that the association is concerned that if we over-regulate, illegal loan sharks will fill the void left behind when other, more reputable lenders leave the market. The Office of Fair Trading did a review this year of high-cost credit products, pawnbroking, pay-day loans and home collection credit. It concluded that capping price controls was not necessarily the answer: “This is because controls such as interest rate caps can contribute to reducing competition in the sector and lead lenders to recover lost income through increasing charges for late payment and default.”

Were a cap introduced, there would be a risk of all lenders raising their interest rates to match their competitors, thus making access to loans more difficult for borrowers. The cost of loans is twofold—it is a combination of interest rate and length of term of borrowing—so although some interest rates are very high, that can be offset by the length of the loan. The variety of lending options ensures that the specific requirements of all consumers can be met. I shall not go into the pay-day and home credit loans, or indeed store credit cards. The point is that they all have a role to play, provided that they are properly regulated. We have heard reference today to the review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury. I know that they are covering slightly more than credit and store cards; indeed, they are covering an issue that I have raised in my private Member’s Bill—unauthorised overdraft charges. I am very hopeful that we will now get a good resolution on that. I would, however, appreciate clarification from the Minister as to what we will be covering, because my understanding is that we could take the opportunity to consider that important and complex issue. Finally, is not the answer to give deprived communities better access to mainstream debt? We have talked about the Post Office and basic bank accounts. Everyone has a right to a basic bank account, and that should be much better promoted. We have talked about credit unions, and some companies, such as My Home Finance, have reduced their APR to 29.9%. That might sound like a lot of money, but in the context of illegal loan sharks it is quite something. I look forward to the Minister’s problems—sorry, the Minister’s comments [Laughter.] He certainly has enough problems, that’s for sure. In all this, it is important that we take into account the fact that, somewhere, we have to price for risk.

Consumer Credit Regulation

42WH

Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair): Justin Tomlinson, you have two minutes. 12.8 pm Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): I will be exceptionally brief. My huge notes have been cut back dramatically, and I will focus on one point. First, I quickly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for both this crucial debate and the ten-minute rule Bill, the thrust of the arguments of which I support. So, there is cross-party support. I want to concentrate on the important element of financial education. It is essential to provide financial education to equip people to make informed decisions. Working with the national financial education charity, the Personal Finance Education Group, and Martin Lewis of www.moneysavingexpert.com, I am launching an all-party group on financial education, with a focus on securing compulsory financial education in schools. It will launch on January 31. This is a very brief plea to all Members who are still in this important debate to come and join the group, so that we can help future generations to make informed decisions. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): It is really important to get financial education into our schools because one of the big problems with things such as credit unions is that people do not understand what they are. Banks come into schools, but we do not know about the whole range of the market. Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. According to a survey carried out by the Nationwide Building Society, 91% of people who got into financial difficulty said that if they had had better financial education, they might not have made the decisions they did. The number of people who think that a higher APR is better than a lower one is worrying, and reinforces the point that financial education is absolutely essential. 12.9 pm Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): I join others who have spoken in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing the debate and how she introduced it, and for her ten-minute rule Bill of a week or so ago, which others also referenced. She has done a huge amount of research and has made a powerful case for smarter regulation. She and others focused on the impact on some of the most vulnerable in the various communities we represent of access to finance going wrong, and the associated issues. My hon. Friend highlighted three specific issues that she wanted the Minister to include in his Department’s review. The first was to consider regulation of the total cost of borrowing and how much interest different financial products can carry. She pointed to experience across the European Union and north America, where similar measures have been introduced. She referenced the need for a levy on those who sell credit to pay for debt counselling and advice services, and she pushed for increased accessibility of credit union services and their integration with the Post Office.

43WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): I have just watched the “Jeremy Kyle Show”—I do not want to recommend that to anybody and I cannot believe that I have admitted it in a Westminster Hall debate. During the adverts, a company called Wonga was advertising same-day loans with an interest rate of 2,400%. Is it responsible for advertising companies to allow such adverts to run? Mr Thomas: I will not comment on my hon. Friend’s television viewing habits, other than to say that I know he has raised concerns about the activities of Wonga, and I will come on to that. It is an interesting company in the consumer credit field for a slightly different reason, which I shall come to later. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in asking the Government to consider including the issues that she raised within the review of the consumer credit sector, and I do so in a spirit of welcoming their review of consumer credit. Damian Hinds: There seems to have been a tiny bit of confusion earlier about the nature of the review to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think I heard suggestions that it was restricted to credit and store cards only, but the call for evidence was much broader, as he knows. Mr Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a broader call for evidence. I hope the Minister will use the debate to call for further evidence about, and embrace, the areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow championed in the debate and in her ten-minute rule Bill. Stella Creasy: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is one thing to ask the question, but the challenge is to set out that the answers will be listened to. The Government have, so far, only formally committed to looking at the cost of borrowing on credit and store cards in the remit of the credit review. They might be asking for evidence on the broader credit market, but there has been no equivalent firm commitment. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is shaking his head, but I can show him the details on the BIS website; it is outlined clearly. The Government are looking at the interest rate cap on credit and store cards only, and I am specifically asking for the review to be expanded to cover all forms of lending, so that it looks at the market for the poorest consumers. Mr Thomas: I trust that the Minister will clarify his intentions on that. The review should look at the three specific issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raised. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an interesting speech extolling the importance of credit unions—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—as a crucial alternative to some of the most costly parts of the consumer credit industry. He said, rightly, that the issue is not new, but the market is continuing to change. He also raised the issue of the importance of education, as did the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), whose initiative in setting up the all-party group I commend. The hon. Member for East Hampshire alluded, I think sympathetically, to considering how to regulate the worst excesses of the market. He made the important

Consumer Credit Regulation

44WH

point that the consumer credit industry, as part of the financial services industry, plays a crucial role in helping our economy to function effectively; nevertheless, there is genuine concern about some activities of the most controversial part of the consumer credit industry, that which provides pay-day loans. As others have touched on, it is crucial that we consider access to affordable credit beyond the consumer credit industry, such as through credit unions and community finance organisations. The issue is about not only financial education in schools but access to financial education and assistance outside the school environment through debt advice services, and about how we bear down on illegal activity such as loan sharking. Justin Tomlinson: On giving access to debt advice, my constituency office is working with debt agencies to train our staff, and me, in how to give the right advice. We are also working with local media to communicate constructive advice ahead of the festive period, which is a particularly risky time for people making financial commitments. Mr Thomas: I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work on that, and I hope he will bring his experiences to his all-party group so he can share that good practice with others. There were important contributions from the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Crawley (Henry Smith), from my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) made an important speech focusing our attention, rightly, on concerns about illegal loan sharking, which I want to come back to in a second. The hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for North Swindon also contributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for East Hampshire drew attention to the work of the previous Government in reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and introducing the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is time to look again at the definition of “unfairness” that sits as the heart of the 2006 Act to see whether it addresses the concerns of those championing reform of the 1974 Act. We need further action to tackle loan sharks, who continue to operate despite the activity of teams across the UK dealing with illegal moneylending. We also need to look at how to expand access to credit unions. Richard Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Thomas: Forgive me but, given the time, I will not. The hon. Member for East Hampshire raised the question of access to social fund loans, which are another important source of short-term lending for those in difficulty. The previous Government decided to increase the amount of social fund loans available, and it will be interesting to hear what steps the Minister’s

45WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Government plan to take on that. The previous Government also acted to increase pressure on businesses regarding how debts were collected and interest rates levied, due to considerable concern about how they were operating. I shall end with questions to the Minister. Consumer Focus, which I understand is to be abolished, has called for reform of the pay-day lending market. It has specifically called for the number of loans taken out or rolled over to be limited to five per household, and called for the development of an industry code of practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the activities of Wonga. He may be interested to know that it has developed a code of practice, and I will be interested to know what the Minister thinks about it, and whether he thinks there is merit in the industry doing more in that area. I hope the Minister will explain the Government’s intentions for the consumer advocate, and whether it will have a role in regulating unfairness. Will he explain how the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take over responsibilities for consumer credit from the Office of Fair Trading? Lastly, will he explain what the future holds for the growth fund and the financial inclusion fund? Both have done much to fund the expansion of access to credit unions and debt advice and, as a result, have provided substantial help to many extremely vulnerable people. 12.20 pm The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): We all wish to thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing this important debate. She made clear her views about loan sharks—even more so when she tweeted a message to me which, if clicked on, plays the “Jaws” signature tune. We know where she stands, and during the few minutes available, I hope to respond to the specific points that she raised. I also want to comment on the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). Sadly, time is tight, so I will go straight on to some of the points that were raised. I am sorry that the UnderSecretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), cannot be present, but he is involved in the Committee stage of the Postal Services Bill. As part of the development of our policy on postal services, we have published a document to secure the post office network in the digital age. The hon. Member for Walthamstow will have the opportunity to pick up a copy from the Vote Office, but let me draw her attention to paragraph 53 on page 24, which states: “We are firmly supportive of a stronger link up between Post Office and credit unions and are actively looking into ways the two can work more closely together. Credit union current accounts holders can already access their accounts at post offices through arrangements with the Co-operative Bank, and it is estimated that…almost 80,000 Credit Union transactions have been carried out in post office branches.”

We understand the importance of the links between credit unions and the Post Office, and we have made a commitment on that.

Consumer Credit Regulation

46WH

The hon. Lady also asked about a levy to fund credit advice, but that is not a straightforward matter because one would have to consider on whom the levy should fall. Should it fall on credit unions? The Consumer Financial Education Body is part funded by credit card providers and other credit providers, and before we go down the route of a levy, we should await the results of our wider debt review, which I shall say more about in a moment. The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about the consumer advocate and the consumer landscape review. Following the changes to the consumer landscape announced by the Secretary of State on 14 October, we are still considering the options. The previous Government launched a consultation on that issue, so we are not able to provide a response to that point at present. Given the level of concern among all parties, I would like to report on changes that are already under way, which go back to the previous Government. Those changes, which will offer significant new protections for borrowers, include a new cooling-off period that will allow the consumer 14 days to withdraw from any credit agreement, a need for adequate explanations to be provided to any consumer when taking out credit, and a requirement for someone to undertake a creditworthiness assessment before any loan is made. Those changes will benefit consumers. Let me turn to the focus of the debate: the consumer credit and personal insolvency review. A call for evidence was launched on 15 October. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is leading on that review and working closely with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The review focuses on three key issues, the first of which concerns helping consumers and lenders to make better borrowing and lending decisions because we think that more can be done in that area. Secondly, consumers and lenders should increasingly manage existing borrowing in the long-term interest of the consumer, so we want a regulatory regime that encourages consumers to manage their level of borrowing over time and limits the scope for people to be unfairly penalised for events beyond their control. Thirdly, people in difficulties should be able to access the most appropriate debt remedy. Chris Evans: When I visited a branch of Lloyds TSB recently, I was told that a major problem was that if good customers get into a dispute, for example with a mobile phone company, and a county court judgment is imposed on them before the dispute is resolved, their credit rating can be messed up. Do the Government intend to review that situation? Mr Willetts: Such abuse needs to be included in the review. In the remaining few minutes available, I shall try to reassure hon. Members about the way in which the review is being conducted. First, we know that we must engage with specific issues, such as advertising. The existing rules on advertising do not address some of the softer issues concerning the way credit is advertised, so we wish to examine that. Impulse buying on store cards is another key issue that will form part of the review. In addition, the coalition Government are concerned that some charges levied by banks, particularly for unauthorised overdrafts, may make it difficult for consumers to keep control over their finances. The review will also cover

47WH

Consumer Credit Regulation

48WH

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Willetts] interest rate caps, which we recognise as perhaps the most controversial issue touched on in today’s debate. We are concerned that the APR on some store cards can average 26%. Despite the fall in the base rate of interest since 2008, there seems to have been no comparable fall in rates on store cards. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked about other terms for the review. We have asked for evidence on a specific number of issues, so if people, including hon. Members, believe that we have not flagged up a problem that needs to be addressed, they should provide evidence of that problem to the review and state how it should be identified. The coalition agreement specifically mentions the issue of an interest rate cap on credit and store cards and that of a cooling-off period. Those are specific coalition pledges, which is why they are top of the list in the review, but there was no intention to exclude other subjects from the consultation should hon. Members, or other concerned people, wish to provide evidence of problems to be included. Stella Creasy: Is that a yes? If we provide evidence that there needs to be action on interest rates charged across the board, including for pay-day loans, home credit markets and hire-purchase agreements, will the Government look at that evidence, act and include the matters in the credit review? Mr Willetts: It is certainly an undertaking that if people, including the hon. Lady, come to us with evidence of a problem, we will consider that as part of the review. Obviously, we cannot commit the Government to act because that raises a host of further issues. If there were time, I might have repeated for the benefit of Opposition Members the details of at least three separate studies on interest rate caps that were commissioned by the previous Government. They all concluded that there were strong arguments against such caps, including the danger that people would become more dependent on loan sharks. We are aware of the evidence from the 2004 study, the 2006 inquiry into competition and, most recently, the OFT review. We are not committed to such measures because of our concern about people becoming dependent on loan sharks, but we will certainly consider the evidence. If the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Solihull—who has a track record of being concerned about this issue—or any hon. Member would like their evidence to be considered, they should submit it to our review. I assure the hon. Member for Walthamstow that I and the rest of the Government appreciate the many concerns about the availability and consequences of consumer credit. When used sensibly and responsibly, credit is a tool for coping with life’s uncertainties, but this is an area in which we must gather evidence before we introduce new rules, because we otherwise risk unintended consequences. That is why we have launched our call for evidence, and it is why I welcome today’s debate.

UK Film Industry 12.30 pm Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con): I am honoured to be here, as people always say, but I am honoured in particular because this is my first Westminster Hall debate—and under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, which is much appreciated. I thank Mr Speaker for selecting me for once. It is a great honour. I suspect that there was no one else for the lunchtime slot, but one never knows. I am here today to talk about taxation, and taxation to do with the British film industry in particular. I have a specific film interest in my constituency, which is the base for Leavesden film studios—recently acquired by Warner Brothers and, even now, one of the most successful film studios in Europe. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Warner Brothers announced yesterday an investment in excess of £100 million in finally acquiring and developing the site. For the record, most people in this country are highly delighted that what has been Watford’s little-known secret—the filming of the Harry Potter films in my constituency, which has been going on for quite a few years—is now formalised. I have not yet been offered a part in the films, but I have had a close relationship with Warner Brothers, as the Government have—the managing director has met with Ministers several times in the past few weeks. The value of the film industry to this country is significant. People might not be aware, but it directly employs about 36,000 people. If we include the multiplier effect, which studies do, 100,000 people derive their income from the film industry. The taxation commensurate with that is significant. The industry provides about £1.6 billion in direct revenues to the country and £440 million in taxation. The industry is very significant, with highly skilled and highly paid workers—everything we are looking for in an industry in this country. It has weathered the recession quite well, unlike many other businesses, and production activity is pretty good, I am told. We rely extensively on inward investment, which is what I want to talk about today. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the British film industry and he has already articulated its importance culturally and economically. It is a vast employer that brings a huge amount of investment and a lot of jobs to this country. Will he, therefore, join me in expressing some surprise that not a single Opposition Member is present—no shadow Minister or Labour politician to speak on behalf of the British film industry. Richard Harrington: My hon. Friend makes a good point, as ever. Given the importance of the industry to this country, I had hoped that Opposition Members would be present. However, avid readers of Hansard they may be, so I am sure that they will be able to catch up in the morning. Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair): Order. It is important to point out that this is a half-hour Adjournment debate, and it is not normally possible for Members

49WH

UK Film Industry

9 NOVEMBER 2010

other than the Member who secured the debate and the Minister responding to participate without having gained the consent of those people. Therefore, saying that Mr X or Mr Y is not present is not really a good point, because in a half-hour Adjournment debate people who could not participate would not normally be expected to attend. Richard Harrington: Thank you, Mr Chope, but I ought to explain that I mentioned to the Minister whom I thought would be present—my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), who told me that he would be here—the fact that I thought there would be one or two interventions. I hope that has not caused offence to the Chair, and thank you for the clarification. The first item of which people should be aware is the current taxation, which is a producer film relief for companies making films that qualify in the UK as British films. The relief is in place, and the industry supports it and hopes that the Government will leave it in place. My understanding is that the industry has made suitable representations to the Secretary of State and that that will be the case, although I hope for clarification. The taxation position, however, has been complex. In 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, they decided to reward what some would say was the electoral help of media “luvvies”—but I am not one of those. Some would say that there was a lax film taxation regime, allowing high-net-worth individuals to get 100% tax credits for investing in films. That situation was, I think it is fair to say, abused by the tax avoidance industry, rather than by the film investment industry. To quote Charles Fry of Pinder Fry, a legendary accountant in this field: “The fact that we’re investing in films is irrelevant. If we could get the same tax relief investing in cauliflowers, we’d do it.”

To mix my metaphors, there was a chink of light and that industry drove coach and horses through it. The end product was that in 2006 the previous Government pulled down the drawbridge—to use another cinematic analogy—and cut off the tax break for investor funding for high-net-worth individuals. The vehicle left was the enterprise investment scheme, which is quite well used but very much on a small scale. The average investment through the EIS is between £5,000 and £10,000, so it is a good way to get small investors. However, small films are the type that tends to be funded. While they are very useful, the fact is that, while we have amazing facilities in this country and all the infrastructure, we are providing a vehicle mainly for foreign investors to do their production here while the profit, quite understandably, returns to the investors, who are abroad. Today, I am speaking to the Government about how we need to achieve a situation in which British investors can invest in British films tax efficiently. What we need to understand about the British film industry is that the budget for a film is now about £1.5 million—the average, median cost of a British film. It was £2.9 million in 1993. With due respect to some fantastic operators, we have gone down to a kind of cottage industry. To give an example, Mr Martin Carr, who has given me some excellent evidence from his company Formosa Films, explained to me that it is a question of finding

UK Film Industry

50WH

many investors to do one film. Films have 600 or 700 investors putting in small amounts of money. While that is obviously useful in employment terms and in benefit to the economy, we have the facilities and capabilities to do much more. Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that one of the biggest threats to the film industry is piracy? While I welcome the Gowers report and the Digital Economy Act 2010, we could do many things to improve the Act. That should also be addressed by the Government. Richard Harrington: The Oxford Economics study, which was commissioned by the film industry last year, proved that very point. Piracy and the infringement of copyright are the major reasons why money disappears from the system and why film makers are not getting the benefit of any of their films. In many cases, that is a criminal matter and the Government will have to make progress on it—like shoplifting, it is theft, and just like any other crime. What I am really talking about, however, is how we create an independent film industry in which the vast number of high-net-worth individuals who will take risks can have a vehicle to invest in. What went wrong last time was that clever accountants came up with a device whereby schemes were risk free. People were doing sale-and-leaseback schemes. We are talking about not risky films—everyone knows that films are risky and that people either make or lose a fortune with a film—but series of television programmes that were pre-sold to television companies, so there was no risk at all. Accounting firms were making use of the provisions, which really ruined things for genuine film operators, who are now spending all their time making presentations all over the country to get investors to invest small amounts. There is no question but that films are risky. In this country, we have a tradition of people investing in one film, which comes from the days of theatre angels, who would invest in a particular west end play. However, serious private investors need a vehicle that bunches a group of films together, because some films obviously work and some do not. People can make a very risky investment, for which they will get some tax relief, and there will be huge benefits for the country in employment and everything else. That is what I am asking the Minister for. A working party should be set up. I and people in the industry would be happy to take part, along with the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to see whether a suitable vehicle could be devised. Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): This is an important debate. Small businesses in my constituency are involved in film making. Like my hon. Friend, they have made the point that tax is the important issue, but there are other factors. One is simply creating the right environment for investment in the sector, and I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say about that. For example, there are the links that small producers have with the BBC and with other small producers. A feel-good factor encourages the right kind of investment, and we need to attract people to these high-profile industries, which also produce a lot of export work.

51WH

UK Film Industry

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Richard Harrington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I should also mention lottery funding, although I am referring not to charitable or community-based assistance, but to a serious vehicle for serious investors. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is besieged by people wanting handouts. I have spoken to the Treasury about this issue, and I am talking about not a handout, but something that would be hugely beneficial to the country economically—all the evidence is there. Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): I am lucky enough to represent Ealing Studios, a very longstanding and famous set of film studios, and I agree with what has been said this morning. In America and Hollywood, there is so much money that people can afford to plan 10 years ahead. They know that a couple of the films that they take on will be duds, but they can afford to carry the duds because they know that somewhere in the mix there will be at least two or three films that make them a sensational fortune. What is it that they get so right over there that we need to look at so that we get it right here? We need a big enough investment and a big enough group of people who can plan ahead and take a couple of duds on the chin, but who can get the good films going as well. Richard Harrington: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that goes to the nub of my argument. For once in this country, we have all the infrastructure. We have studios such as Ealing, Pinewood, Shepperton and Elstree. Of course, no one would dispute that the Hollywood of the UK is Watford and Leavesden, which makes some of the lusher, more tree-lined roads in Watford very much akin to Beverly Hills. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. There has been a lot of talk about south of Watford, but I want to stand up for Yorkshire and the north. Probably one of the most successful British films of recent years was “The Full Monty”, which was filmed just down the road from me, in Sheffield, and I remember going to see it at Penistone picture house. However, my constituency has also hosted two long-running television series, which shows our expertise in film, with all the crew who were involved. We had “Last of the Summer Wine”in Holmfirth, which ran for more than 30 years, and the ITV drama “Where the Heart Is” in Slaithwaite. We have lots of wonderful skills—not just in the television industry—and it is important that we keep them employed in this country. Indeed, if we go on holiday to New Zealand or other English-speaking countries, we find that they also love our dramas, so this really is a good industry for us. Well done to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Richard Harrington: I greatly appreciate that point. Everything that is made in Colne Valley, and every television programme and film that is made, shows research and development working on the spot. A lot of the world-class facilities that this country has developed for graphic arts and special effects have come from films, rather than from laboratories or other fields. There is a compelling argument here. The Government have done an excellent job on the film producer credit, which the industry is grateful for and which works, but

UK Film Industry

52WH

we should look carefully at creating an industry that is British financed and British made, and whose profits remain in Britain. Thank you very much for your time, Mr Chope. 12.45 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Chope. This is perhaps a poacher-turnedgamekeeper moment for you, and I hope you will not take too many points of order during what remains of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on a stunning debut in Westminster Hall and on bringing the success of the UK film industry to the attention of the House. He talked knowledgeably about the film industry and some of its technical details, which does not surprise us at all, given that he is the vice-chairman of the all-party group on the film industry and the hon. Member for Watford/Hollywood. I also thank all other hon. Members for their valuable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) talks so much about piracy that he should perhaps talk a starring role in “Pirates of the Caribbean 4”—a £200 million film being filmed in the UK. He is extremely knowledgeable and has, indeed, worked in the film industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) represents the highly successful Ealing Studios, which are run by Barnaby Thompson. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made an important point about film. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) helpfully pointed out that not a single Labour Member could be bothered to come to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has not spoken, but his presence simply illuminates the debate, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his strong campaigning on behalf of S4C, another broadcaster whose future the Government have stepped in to secure. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford began by noting the investment by Warner Bros in Leavesden Studios in his constituency. The studios are quite a well-kept secret in the United Kingdom. They are the place where all the Harry Potter films have been made and have, therefore, been responsible for a massive amount of inward investment into this country. Yesterday, Warner Bros announced that it was going to invest £100 million in Leavesden to make it the only major US studio outside Hollywood, so my hon. Friend’s remark about Watford being the Hollywood of the UK was in no way facetious. That announcement is a real milestone and a fantastic vote of confidence in the UK film industry. The success of the UK film industry is built on a number of factors. We are, for example, the third-largest cinema-going nation in the world, but we also have a huge range of technical expertise. When my hon. Friend talks about the number of jobs that are directly related to the film industry, it is worth remarking that we have built a highly successful film industry that is fit for the 21st century on the back of the success of the tax credit and the inward investment from Hollywood studios. That includes elements that we might not necessarily

53WH

UK Film Industry

9 NOVEMBER 2010

consider as part of film, such as the computer graphics industry and world-class companies such as Double Negative Visual Effects, which provide visual effects to the film industry. That is another reason why so many people want to make films in Britain. My hon. Friend also mentioned Pinewood-Shepperton, and it is instructive that the studios are full at the moment. People who want to bring films to the UK are having to negotiate for space with that highly successful organisation. It will not have escaped the attention of my hon. Friends—I can say that, as all Members in the Chamber are Conservative—that the film industry has been somewhat in the news because of my Department’s decision at the end of July to announce the abolition of the Film Council. One film director said that it was akin to abolishing the NHS. However, as the dust has settled it has become apparent that we took that difficult decision because we wanted to ensure that as much money as possible went to the film industry itself and that we spent as little as possible on overheads. We will shortly be making an announcement on the future structure of support for the film industry. However, the decision to abolish the Film Council in no way reflected on its leadership. It was superbly led, and is still led, by Tim Bevan, its chairman; and was superbly led by its recently departed chief executive, John Woodward. I pay tribute to John Woodward; having been on the front line of the British film industry for 15 years, both in the British Film Institute and the Film Council, he can take a large part of the credit for the success that we currently enjoy. Nevertheless, there have been some bumpy rides along the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford pointed out that the film tax credit lost its way in the mid-noughties, and that it was seen more as a tax avoidance scheme than a way of investing in the British film industry. I am glad to say that it now works incredibly effectively, and is the main reason for inward investment. We have made it absolutely clear that we guarantee its continuation. The scheme has to be approved. Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on securing the debate. We are talking about inward investment in the UK film industry, but does the Minister recognise the fact that the industry is UK-wide and that we should not focus on any one region? Every nation and region of the UK can play its full part in film-making; it can be an effective way of spreading prosperity away from the south-east of England. Mr Vaizey: My hon. Friend is quite right. His intervention further illuminates the debate by ensuring that I put on the record the huge success of the Welsh film industry, Welsh television productions and the Film Agency for Wales, and the way that Wales is forging ahead with its digital agenda—no doubt ably supported by my hon. Friend, who is a strong voice for Wales in the House. The film tax credit is due to expire, on a technicality, on 31 March 2012. If anyone is worried by that statement I can tell the House that, as part of the European state-aid rules, we are required to re-notify the European Commission that we intend to continue implementing it. Officials have already begun the process of ensuring that the system continues beyond 31 March 2012 and is cleared again without a gap.

UK Film Industry

54WH

The film tax credit stands at the heart of inward investment, and I pay tribute to the team currently residing in the Film Council that implements the tax credit, dealing with the nuts and bolts and ensuring that the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted. Those people do a superb job. I hear again and again from the film industry— this is perhaps for the team’s benefit—that instead of saying, “The computer says no,” it says, “How can we help?” That is to be commended. There is another strand that supports British film, particularly those films with an essentially British content— national lottery funding. I am delighted that the Government decided to increase significantly the money available from the lottery for the production of UK films. The total sum available, which includes an element for training, will rise to £40 million in 2014; that is a 40% increase. Because of our decision to rationalise the bureaucracy that supports film in the UK, a far larger proportion of that money will go directly to supporting the British film industry. It is worth pointing out that, as well as the £40 million that will eventually be available from the national lottery and the £100 million or so from the tax credit, the British film industry is supported by BBC Films and Film4. I was delighted to hear Film4 announce recently that it would increase its investment in film from £10 million to £15 million a year for the next five years; that is a 50% increase every year for the next five years. That decision, too, was taken after we announced the abolition of the Film Council. It is a huge vote of confidence in our film industry. Sadly, one gap remains. I note that Sky now has 10 million subscribers. I hope this successful British broadcasting company will follow the lead of BBC Film and Film4 and establish its own film fund. I am sure that, in a 10-minute conversation with Sky, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford could explain that with the tax credit, the ability to leverage in private investment and possibly the ability to gain lottery funding, a small financial commitment could see substantial British films being made in this country. As for direct grant in aid, the Government will be putting in about £73 million over the next four years. That includes our support for the British Film Institute. The institute is another important element in preserving our film archive and heritage, but it also promotes British film, particularly with the highly successful London film festival, which garnered a lot of attention this October and brought many film financiers and investors to London. We also want to ensure that we are known in the world. We have a highly successful British film commissioner in Los Angeles, who helps with inward investment. He is aided by Film London, ably led by Adrian Wootton, and I put on the record my commendation of his work. Pinewood is expanding, with Pinewood Toronto studios becoming a leading production facility for film and television in Canada. We intend to work closely with UK Trade & Investment to ensure that British film has a presence throughout the world. A side effect of our decision to abolish the Film Council is our wish to establish a more direct relationship with the British film industry. I was pleased to announce recently that we are to have a biannual ministerial forum on film, where all elements of the British film industry can discuss important matters with Ministers.

55WH

UK Film Industry

56WH

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr Vaizey] The key thrust of my hon. Friend’s excellent speech was that we need to build a sustainable British film industry. We want to take it, as it were, beyond the cottage-industry state. It is a highly successful industry that makes excellent films, but the perennial question—the gold at the end of the rainbow—is how to make it sustainable. It is difficult to replicate the US model, which integrates distribution and, with the huge amount of capital that is available, allows investment in a slate of films. However, we shall not take our eye off the ball. We need to consider a number of the imaginative measures that have been proposed. The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television proposes what it calls a lot-box; the key to its proposal is that producers should keep some of the intellectual property in their films. Too often, it is given up in order to raise private finance. We need to consider imaginative proposals on leveraging private investment on the back of the substantial money that is available from lottery funding. We must also keep close scrutiny on the need for a distribution model that works for British film, because without distribution the job of making a successful film is only half done. The film industry in the UK is highly successful—one of the most successful in the world. We have a huge range of talent, not only in our brilliant actors but in our formidable technicians and fantastic world-beating companies. I am delighted to say that through our increase in lottery funding, our guarantee for the film tax credit and proposals that we hope to announce shortly, we intend to build on that success, maintaining and increasing it.

Food Security (Africa) 1 pm Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): I will start my speech, although I am not sure that the Minister is yet here to listen to my remarks. I am pleased to have secured my first Adjournment debate and to be speaking about food security in Africa. I declare an interest: in September, I was lucky to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Kenya that was organised and paid for by the all-party group for agriculture and food for development. I am pleased to say that one of my fellow travellers, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), is in the Chamber. I plan to limit my remarks to 10 minutes in the hope that he and other hon. Members will be able to speak before the Minister responds. My week in Kenya is undoubtedly one reason why I applied for the debate. I am not an expert on food security or on Africa, but I am, I admit, a child of the ’80s. The television images I saw as a 10-year-old of starving children in Ethiopia made a deep and lasting impression. I have called the debate because I never want to see those images again, because emergency food relief has to be the last resort, and because I believe that Africa has the ability to feed itself and that we in the UK should be doing more to help African agriculture to realise its potential. I also passionately believe that at a time when much of our political discussion is focused quite understandably on the state of our domestic economy, it is important that we all remember that there are 265 million people suffering from chronic hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the UK’s population four times over, and a third of the region’s total population. Sadly, that number is set to grow by 2020, when it is estimated that, if current trends continue, half Africa’s population will be affected. We must not let that happen. I have come here today to ask the Minister to put tackling hunger and malnutrition for millions of Africans at the heart of his Government’s fight against global poverty. I also come to remind him—although I hope that I do not need to—that the primary aim of our overseas development assistance must be to tackle the basic needs of the poorest people in the poorest countries, and to help them help themselves. I also come to say that while maternal health, access to family planning and the fight against disease are all vital, so too is investing in smallholder farmers, most of whom are women. Ironically, it is those smallholder farmers who are most likely to face severe hunger and malnutrition. I also wish to ask the Minister to increase the UK aid that we spend on helping African farmers so that they can improve their harvests and the productivity of their livestock, to increase the amount of agricultural expertise provided by his Department within African countries, and to use our influence within the international community to ensure that African Governments honour the commitments that they made at Maputo in 2003. I know that I have set out a long wish list, so let me tell hon. Members why I am convinced that refocusing UK and international efforts in this area could make a significant difference. The availability of adequate food of the right nutritional quality is fundamental to people everywhere. Undernourished mothers give birth

57WH

Food Security (Africa)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

to underweight babies. Children who are malnourished in the first two years of life are at a much greater risk of ill health when they are older. How will a child learn if he or she is starving? How will the child’s mother fight off malaria if she does not have a decent diet? How will women be empowered if they cannot feed themselves? When I was preparing this speech over the weekend, I came across reports of fishermen in Malawi using malaria nets to secure their catches in Lake Victoria. If ever there were an example of the way in which food security underpins so many other development goals, surely that is it. If there were a ready supply of food in Malawi, I would suggest there would have been much more chance of the nets being used for their intended purpose. When the all-party group visited Kenya in September, we met family after family who told us that while their livelihood was their land, that land often did not produce enough for them to live on. They are not even subsistence farmers; they are sub-subsistence farmers, and there are millions of them in Africa. Given the effects of climate change and more irregular rainfall patterns, there are likely to be many more in years to come. The sad thing is that it does not have to be that way. The use of better seeds, appropriate fertilisers and access to basic knowledge about planting and irrigation can have a dramatic impact on yields. The current agricultural output in Africa, measured in tonnes per hectare, is less than the UK’s wheat output in 1680. Better storage, cross-breeding of livestock and access to micro-finance can mean the difference between feeding one’s children or not, and the difference between having a small surplus to sell at market or not. None of that is rocket science, yet there is a huge challenge in getting the basics right, and getting the best seeds and right sort of agricultural knowledge to the farmers who need them. There are fantastic projects, however, that have the potential to be scaled up in a way that could offer real results. Take FIPS in Kenya—Farm Inputs Promotions Africa—a Department for International Developmentfunded, not-for-profit company, which, through a network of village-based, agricultural advisers, works with the private sector to get new seeds and fertilisers out to the farmers who need them. Take Farm Africa’s dairy goat project in the semi-arid area of Kenya around Mwingi, which trains local people in the cross-breeding of goats to increase milk yields and resistance to drought. Better yields can not only feed the family but generate small amounts of additional household income, which creates a virtuous circle of economic activity. As the recently published Montpellier panel report says, however, there is a “potentially dangerous gap” between a rich patchwork of on-the-ground activities, such as those I have just mentioned, and a “top-down global response” to addressing food security, which is characterised by much-lauded international conferences and big set-piece policy statements. Do not get me wrong: the pledges of large-scale funding at L’Aquila last year are welcome, but they must translate into real improvements in the lives of the poorest in Africa. I hope that I have been able to explain why I feel that a focus on food security and agriculture in Africa is so important. I ask the Minister, in the light of what I have said, to consider increasing the proportion of bilateral aid spent on agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa to 10% of total DFID money spent there. According to a recent reply to a parliamentary question, the sum for

Food Security (Africa)

58WH

agriculture in that area amounted to £51 million in 2008-09. I calculate that that is just 3% of UK bilateral aid for the region in that year. Does the Minister agree with World Bank estimates that suggest that a 1% increase in agricultural GDP in Africa reduces poverty by three to four times as much as a 1% increase in non-agricultural GDP? Does he agree that agriculture would, therefore, fit neatly with his Government’s desire to get as much bang for their buck as possible from their overseas development assistance? Will he tell me the position that the UK will be adopting on food security at the G20 summit in the next few days? Will he tell me how much of the £1.1 billion commitment made by the UK at L’Aquila last year has been disbursed in sub-Saharan Africa? Does he know how many of the staff his Department has working in Africa have agricultural training or experience? I understand that there is only one DFID employee with such a background in Africa, who is based in Uganda. I ask him to consider how that might impact on the delivery of the £1.1 billion of commitments. Has he thought about how such a lack of in-country expertise might have affected the offer that each of DFID’s in-country teams have been asked to prepare as part of the bilateral aid reviews? If I were the Minister, I would not be too surprised if those returns were characterised by scant reference to agriculture as a route out of poverty, although perhaps he could reassure us. I appreciate that some of my questions are detailed and that the Minister might not be able to reply to all of them today, but these points are critical if we are to make 2010 the year in which we set the agenda for dealing with the fight against hunger in the decades to come. If I may, I will leave the Minister with this thought. Investment in small-scale farming will help not only the rural poor. On the first day of our all-party group visit in September, we met a man called David, who lives with his three children in the Nairobi slum of Korogocho. His home is a two-metre by three-metre hut, edged by dirt tracks and foul-smelling gullies. David left the countryside because of family breakdown and because he was unable to feed his children. When he got to Nairobi, however, his life was no better. His saviour was, in fact, a cash-transfer project being run by Concern Worldwide and Oxfam. David’s dream is now to own a piece of land to provide for his family. I could not help but think that if the right type of support had been provided to him and his rural community when it was needed, perhaps he and his family would not be trapped in the Nairobi slum in which they are today. For millions of Africans, food security is not a fancy concept—it is a matter of life and death. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to address the challenge facing Africa and to use the UK’s position as a world leader in overseas development assistance to ensure that this decade is the one when we really make a difference. 1.10 pm Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): I congratulate my colleague, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), on securing the debate. I also congratulate her on her speech, which outlined the reasons why investment in smallholder farming underpins many of our country’s development goals and why greater investment in agriculture could yield much wider benefits.

59WH

Food Security (Africa)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Craig Whittaker] At my last “meet your MP” public meeting in my constituency, I was asked why we are spending so much money on foreign aid when our own country’s financial plight seems so dire. The answer is quite simple: foreign aid not only brings untold benefits to the recipient country and its people—when we do it right—and untold long-term benefits to our own economy and country, but produces a sustainable, stable foreign country that helps and grows itself, which in turn helps to make a safer and more secure world. I want to expand on my comment about “when we do it right”, because the hon. Lady highlighted several charities and non-governmental organisations that do some fabulous work in Kenya. I must also declare an interest, because on our trip to Kenya with the all-party group on agriculture and food for development, we saw not only the excellent examples to which she referred, but the fact that it is not always necessary to spend great deals of money to implement a change for the better. In the smallholder farming stakes, we saw an excellent project in Mwingi, where Farm Africa is doing some fantastic work with the cross-breeding of goats. We were told that a local goat produced a mere 80 ml of milk a day, but if it is cross-bred with one of the stronger breeds of goat, such as a British variety of goat or a German Alpine goat, it produces up to a litre of milk a day. If that cross-breed is then cross-bred further to 75%—that is a goat that is 75% of the stronger foreign goat and 25% of the local goat—the yield of milk goes up to a staggering 3 litres a day. When that simple, low-cost exercise is carried out by local farmers, it helps them to become much more sustainable within the food chain, because they can sell their milk to hospitals for money that they can use to buy a variety of food to achieve a balanced diet. Furthermore, the resulting milk has tremendous effects by improving the nutrition of newborn children, and indeed their mothers. It is a real “win-win” situation, whereby a low-cost project empowers local people to strive towards sustainability and, eventually, to excel and become sustainable. Our Government have a huge vested interest in the big society. We need look no further than British NGOs and charities to see examples of organisations that are living and breathing the big society on a daily basis. Through their volunteer programmes, they empower the people with whom they work to map out their own sustainable futures. The power, innovation, leadership and enterprise of our NGOs are absolutely second to none. The NGOs deliver with passion and genuine innovation for smallholder success, without the corruption and self-interest that we often see in national Governments. They are good at mapping out a sustainable future for smallholder farmers but they need help, both from ourselves and our partners. For the first time in two generations, Africa has a real opportunity to achieve food and nutrition security through agricultural development. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Montpelier report was published recently. It shows that, despite the fact that the international donor community started to pull out of agricultural development well over two decades ago, there is growing optimism in sub-Saharan Africa that the region can achieve its anticipated green goals.

Food Security (Africa)

60WH

Food security is a key intermediary outcome in the development process and we have seen a new and growing commitment from African countries to increase resources for agriculture and rural development to at least 10% of national budgets within five years. The challenge for our country, and indeed for our European partners, is how to help to co-ordinate those strategies and how to help to ensure that the momentum is sustained in terms of even greater commitment and funding by the key African and European partners. The Montpelier report believes that we are well placed to take the lead and drive forward that change. It highlights three key areas that need urgent attention: sustaining the momentum, as I have already mentioned; reducing price volatility; and tackling chronic hunger. My main wish is that the Minister accepts the Montpelier report as a solid blueprint for real sustainable change and that the recommendations in the report, as well as the excellent work of our NGOs and charities in agriculture in particular, are incorporated within our aid programme to help eradicate chronic hunger in Africa for good. One of the basic requirements in life is food. If we can drive forward our quest to empower people to become self-sustainable with food, the human instinct to survive, along with our aid to empower potential, will ensure that other basic requirements, such as education, health care and housing, will follow. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the key catalyst to a safer and more secure world is investment in agricultural development and food sustainability. 1.16 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O’Brien): I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate on a very important subject, and on the powerful and passionate way in which she presented her argument. She also presented the context for any debate on food security, recognising the enormous range of challenges, of which food security is one. The question is how we achieve the critical balance between determining what will be most effective, and what will have most impact in assisting Britain to partner countries to help them graduate away from aid over time, simultaneously meeting the needs of the very poorest people in those countries. I was delighted that both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) had an opportunity to travel to Kenya with the all-party group on agriculture and food for development—there is no substitute for seeing things for oneself in order to bring these issues to life. To some degree, I have seen these things for myself, as I was born in Tanzania and partly raised and educated in Kenya. The scale of this issue is immense. More than 200 million people in Africa—more than one in four of the continent’s population—suffer chronic hunger. Although Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda and Ethiopia have all made significant progress in reducing hunger, many countries have made little or no progress and, frankly, some are going backwards. Levels of hunger in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have nearly trebled since 1990, and the levels in Burundi, Botswana, Swaziland, Zambia and Gambia have also increased due to conflict, rapid population growth, economic stagnation or HIV/AIDS. In the years to come, climate change and the scarcity of natural resources will add to the challenge.

61WH

Food Security (Africa)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

The Government are determined to make faster progress in helping to reduce hunger. That is why, at the millennium development goal summit in September, we reaffirmed our determination to tackle malnutrition and to focus our efforts on “the first 1,000 days”—the period from conception until a child’s second birthday—after which intellectual and physical damage from chronic undernutrition is irreversible. In doing so, we agreed to work with six major donors to co-ordinate and accelerate our work in countries with high levels of malnutrition. Ghana, Malawi and Uganda are among the first countries to request assistance to reduce under-nutrition rates, which will please the hon. Lady as she referred to a very good example of this type of work in Malawi. It is also why, soon after taking office, the Government reaffirmed our commitment to the L’Aquila food security initiative, which was agreed at the G8 summit in 2009. The agreement aims to increase food production in developing countries, make food more affordable for the poorest and most vulnerable, create wealth and lift the poor out of poverty. The hon. Lady asked how much of the £1.1 billion in L’Aquila commitments have been spent so far. Although that figure is not yet available, we will certainly write to her as soon as it is. However, I can tell her with confidence that the UK will have met its commitments, which I hope reassures her. Within the G20, we have committed to improving food security by making agricultural trade and markets function more effectively and reducing food price volatility in order to protect those most vulnerable to food price increases. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate. Does the Minister agree that one of the most important things that can be done for food security is to improve food storage facilities? On the ground, I have seen food go to waste many times simply because appropriate food storage was lacking. Mr O’Brien: I defer to my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise in such matters, as he has shown great commitment to them over the years. He is right. No supply chain can be managed without the ability to store foodstuffs and distribution points that make it accessible, particularly to the hardest to reach. He is right to emphasise that we should consider a well-designed, holistic approach to solving the big challenge. Heidi Alexander: I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention a fantastic resource in this country, the Natural Resources Institute, which I was lucky enough to visit during the past couple of weeks. Its researchers are working on technical solutions to some of those storage problems. I urge him to look into the work the institute is doing, as it holds some good potential solutions. Mr O’Brien: The hon. Lady is right to highlight that. There is nothing more important than an evidence base and designing in what works to ensuring that the programmes and resources being supplied in partnership to other countries have the greatest impact. The point is well made. It also ties in with the hon. Lady’s question as to whether Department for International Development personnel could include more agricultural

Food Security (Africa)

62WH

technicians and professionals. I can confirm that we currently have more than one, which will come as some relief. A newly appointed senior economist in Tanzania used to be the head of the agriculture team in the policy division, and we are in the process of recruiting senior agricultural advisers for Rwanda and Mozambique. I am due to visit Mozambique before long and have been to Rwanda and Tanzania. Early next year, the Government will publish a major new foresight review of the future of farming and food that will consider how the world can continue to feed itself sustainably and equitably over the next 40 years. I hope that the foresight review will have the opportunity to learn from the research and support that the hon. Lady mentioned. We expect its recommendations to influence a wide range of practitioners and policy makers. I assure the hon. Lady that we are making a difference. In Rwanda, our work on land tenure reform is helping to underpin wealth creation and food security, particularly for women and girls, who drive it. In Malawi, our support for the Government’s agriculture programme has helped farmers produce a maize surplus in each of the last four years. In Ethiopia, our support for the productive safety nets programme has benefited nearly 8 million people previously dependent on emergency aid. In South Africa, we are funding work on zero tillage technology that conserves soil, reduces water losses and improves yields. This year, our immediate assistance in response to severe food shortages in the eastern Sahel—she will have read about them—helped avert a major humanitarian crisis. Increasingly, African Governments are giving agriculture higher priority, with support from the comprehensive African agriculture development programme, which we strongly support. The CAADP is leading to increased budget provision in the sector. Above all—I think this is the point the hon. Lady was hoping to elicit from me—it is an Africa-owned and Africa-led initiative. It aims to increase productivity by 6% a year. As the hon. Lady knows, however, farmers do not work for this or any Government. Agriculture is a private sector activity, whether it involves subsistence farmers, smallholders—as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley mentioned—or large-scale commercial farming. The bulk of the investment needed to ramp up productivity will come from the private sector: from farmers’ own pockets, from banks and micro-credit agencies and from local and national investors. That is why the Government are seeking to increase our engagement with the private sector. A new private sector department is being created within the Department for International Development, and we are working to encourage increased levels of responsible investment in all aspects of agriculture, including production, processing, transportation and retail. That will be recognised as the results of the bilateral aid review emerge. The results on food and agriculture are much more positive than was suggested, although the hon. Lady will not be aware of that, inevitably, as we have not yet been able to aggregate and publish them. We shall do so in due course. Food security in Africa is high among my priorities. Since taking office, I have visited Rwanda, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Sierra Leone, and I am off to Nigeria this evening. During my visits, I have seen what a contribution agriculture makes to combating poverty and hunger. It is also

63WH

Food Security (Africa)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Mr O’Brien] hugely important for empowering women, who provide much of the agricultural labour but control just a tiny fraction of the productive assets they need to support themselves and their families. That is why we have made it such a priority. I am pleased that the hon. Lady was able to visit Kenya as a member of the all-party parliamentary group and to see for herself something of how food security works and should work. I hope she was able to see some of the projects that DFID, under the coalition Government, supports. Much of our work aims to ensure that new agricultural technology, which she was keen to highlight, is taken up swiftly by smallholder farmers, who make a substantial contribution to food production in Africa. Our cash transfer programme for Kenyan pastoralists has reduced the poverty of 376,000 people and had a clear impact on nutrition. That relates to the point about agriculture versus nutrition, which is often a false dichotomy but must be addressed. Increasing private sector investment is clearly important, but the ultimate prize is reducing hunger and malnutrition. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing a debate on an issue that would have justified an hour and a half of debate, had we been given more notice. The Minister has highlighted the role that science will play in many such programmes; I am pleased that the Government safeguarded the science budget in the comprehensive spending review. How will the Department for International Development, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments co-operate on science and consider how it can be delivered in Africa? Mr O’Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely powerful point. The commitment to science can lead to an evidence base that gives us the confidence and sustainability to design the programmes that will have

Food Security (Africa)

64WH

the greatest impact over time. That is precisely why holding on to our precious science budget in the comprehensive spending review was so important. He makes an equally important point: this is not just about a single Department’s efforts, but must involve crossDepartment working. We have a number of the inevitable committees and other initiatives. Importantly, I was talking yesterday to my counterpart at DEFRA about precisely such issues of food safety and how the expertise within DEFRA can be harnessed to ensure that the design of our programmes is even more likely to secure the impact and benefits of spending our money well, transparently and in areas of greatest need. The hon. Lady asked for us to allocate a certain percentage to the issue. It is always more complex than calling for a simple amount within a budget to be allocated; clearly, trade-offs would have to be considered. I hope she will recognise that, as we go through the bilateral and multilateral aid review and, indeed, the humanitarian and emergency response review—coupled with the regional reviews, where there is a real opportunity to look at some regional sharing—she can look forward to seeing how we will aggregate the call for a greater emphasis on food, farming and agriculture with the nutrition elements. I noted that the noble Lord Cameron—the leader of the all-party group on agriculture and food for development, of which the hon. Lady is a member—highlighted a particularly interesting point about Shujaaz FM radio, which I think all the team must have seen. Important evidence from such trips comes back to DFID, which we can incorporate into our thinking as we move forward, particularly as the foresight group will be reporting early next year. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for introducing the debate and raising the subject. I look forward to working with her and other hon. Members as we find the best way to support those concerned, particularly smallholder farmers, in playing a role in tackling hunger where it is most necessary to do so. We need to ensure that we do so on the basis of evidence and knowledge.

65WH

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Government Policy (NEETs) 1.30 pm Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): A number of right hon. and hon. Friends want to intervene during this debate. As I have told the Minister what I intend to say, I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I take my speech at a bit of a canter because that will, I hope, give colleagues the opportunity to intervene when they can. Given the interest in this topic, I slightly regret that I did not enter the ballot to have an hour and a half debate. A report on young people not in education, employment or training produced earlier this year by the then Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families states: “We accept that the term ‘NEET’ is imperfect. In particular, its use as a noun to refer to a young person can be pejorative and stigmatising. It is, however, a commonly used statistical category, and—in the absence of an appropriate alternative—we have accepted it as a first step in understanding the issues.”

A NEET is someone under 25 who is in employment for less than 16 hours a week and who is not in education or training. My constituency has two main towns, Banbury and Bicester. In September this year, 7.5% of Banbury’s 16 to 18-year-olds—approximately one in 12 young people—were not constructively engaged in education, employment or training. Nationally, the Prince’s Trust estimates that almost 15% of 16 to 24-year-olds in England are NEETs, which is around 874,000 young people. The Prince’s Trust estimates that the cost to the state of young people who are NEET is £3.65 billion per year. As hon. Members may know, in recent years, I have helped to establish job clubs in Banbury and Bicester and, earlier this year, we set up a working party involving those running the job clubs—including Jobcentre Plus and Connexions—to consider what more could be done to help NEETs back into education, employment or training. We also considered how to improve the NEET situation in future years and assist the 142 or so existing NEETs in and around Banbury. I know my hon. Friend the Minister takes the issue seriously. He inherited a skills system that he has rightly described as over-complicated, over-bureaucratic, incredibly micromanaged and top heavy. He has observed that the previous Government went wrong by basing their skills policy on target-driven bureaucracy, failing to provide sufficient attention to community-based adult learning and effectively abandoning a generation of NEETs. However, during the work I have been doing this year, I have become concerned that a number of policy changes might have the unintended consequence of worsening the opportunities for less skilled and disadvantaged young people to move into further education or employment with training. We need to consider whether returning the contractual relationship to the Young People’s Learning Agency from councils has reduced local flexibility to provide what is needed post-16, and whether removing the ring fence from Connexions funding has put at risk the work needed to prevent NEETs. It is not possible for me to show in Hansard a diagram of what we are doing locally to try to prevent NEETs and to help existing NEETs. However, the simple fact is that Connexions is the gateway for existing NEETs and provides the signposting,

Government Policy (NEETs)

66WH

engagement and intervention to help them. That is done through support with apprenticeships, engagement with things such as SKIDZ motor mechanics, work trials, personal advice, interventions, or through programmes such as the new projects in Banbury, including the very welcome new Prince’s Trust programme. We need to ensure that Connexions can effectively undertake that work, because we should be in no doubt that the long-term cost to society of a youngster dropping out at 16, 17 or 18 is far greater than the money that would be spent in ensuring they have educational or training opportunities. Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): I am certainly grateful for the debate. The comments my hon. Friend makes about the costs are absolutely on point. I am sure he is well aware that the cost to the taxpayer is £97,000 per individual over their lifetime—some estimates put the figure at £300,000 if benefits are included. Does he therefore agree that such figures need to be borne in mind when the Government consider how to resolve this intractable problem? Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with that point, which my hon. Friend makes extremely well. Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab): I congratulate my fellow Oxfordshire MP on securing this important debate and on the initiatives he is pursuing in our area—I would certainly be pleased to support such projects. Does he agree that what these young people most need is continuing support in the form of advice, mentoring and the monitoring of progress? They need ongoing engagement with work-focused practical experience that can lead to a job, and some modest incentives to reward their progress. Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said; he puts the matter in a nutshell very well. Do the current targets for retention rates on courses for further education colleges mean that they may be tempted to turn away applicants with poor school attendance records? That would effectively write off the already disadvantaged, and potentially create a group of long-term disengaged and unemployed young people with little possibility of improving their position. My impression is that, locally, people are working very hard to try to engage NEETs and get them back into education or training. However, that is not easy. By definition, NEETs have mostly decided to opt out or they have other difficulties—although it is important to recognise that young people who are NEET are not a homogenous group with the same issues, and that they are not even necessarily at the same stage of disengagement. We also need to recognise that some groups of youngsters clearly have particular challenges. Mencap has sent me a copy of the detailed submission that it made last December to the Children, Schools and Families Committee. In that document, it makes the point that three in every 10 disabled young people aged 19 are NEET, and that a youth cohort study found that young people who recorded themselves as having a health problem or disability are twice as likely to be NEET as others. When a young person is without or not in education, employment or training they require—as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said—support in many different ways. Of course, ultimately that support

67WH

Government Policy (NEETs)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Tony Baldry] may have little impact if an appropriate offer of employment or training is not available. I am concerned that the present system to provide further education perhaps does not provide a favourable environment for this group of young people. There seems to be a fundamental policy problem. If I understand matters correctly, that problem is money. Each youngster who stays on in school or goes to an FE college takes with them a pot of money by staying on at school or college to do A-levels or other training—their place gets funded. A NEET has effectively opted out of the system and receives no funding. Any organisation set up by the local authority or by anyone else to help NEETs get back into education or training also does not receive any funding. Those with the greatest need receive no funding and those trying to help them are left scrabbling around to find funding elsewhere. It might be worth considering some sort of system of NEET vouchers, so that if a youngster who is a NEET undertakes approved activity or enrols in an appropriate course, that activity or course receives some funding. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how we will break out of this NEET Catch-22. It goes without saying that we need a name for programmes supporting NEETs that is sympathetic and has an overall project title—“Dealing with NEETs” clearly does not do it. We need a name such as “Youth Engagement,” and the subject needs a brand. There will be those who say that one of the reasons why there are NEETs is that such people feel that they will not find a job. However, there is something of a chicken-and-egg issue here. The Prince’s Trust has observed that the first concern for disadvantaged young people is often their need for money and a job, and the skills they want are those they need to give them a practical route to employment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has observed that, despite financial difficulties and a reduction in vacancies, the majority of organisations remain enthusiastic about recruiting new talent. However, many organisations that require specific skills find that those are not being met by job candidates. The CIPD’s recruitment, retention and turnover survey of this year found that two thirds of organisations report that a lack of necessary skills is a barrier to recruitment. It also found that a lack of necessary specialist skills was a greater problem for the manufacturing and production professions—76% of that group—than any other. If young people do not acquire skills, the reality is that they are unlikely to be able to access jobs. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government’s recent decision to add 50,000 apprenticeship places this year, and hopefully more next year, is a step forward regarding some of the issues he is talking about? Moreover, the Government are committed to moving away from programme apprenticeships, in which most of a young person’s time is spent in the classroom, towards work-based apprenticeships, which are based around the workplace. Tony Baldry: I think that the increase in apprenticeships is fantastic. The difficulty is that NEETs often need to improve their maths and English before they can access apprenticeships. There is sometimes a gap between where they are and where they need to be.

Government Policy (NEETs)

68WH

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): Although the increase in apprenticeships is extremely welcome, in many areas, including my constituency, one of the problems is finding enough employers who will commit to them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that further education colleges should be given more licence to start apprenticeship programmes, with a view to finding employers perhaps after one or two years? Tony Baldry: Employers are crucial to apprenticeships, and we all have a duty to encourage employers in our constituencies to take on apprenticeships. Those who engage with apprenticeships realise that it is actually a really rewarding thing to do. That has been demonstrated by a number of employers in my constituency who have taken on apprenticeships as a consequence of their involvement with the Banbury and Bicester job clubs. As it happens, a number of substantial construction projects are about to start in north Oxfordshire, and I suspect that it would be daft for the developers to rush to recruit people from eastern Europe when they start to run into skills shortages. It must be sensible to liaise with those doing the construction and development work locally, so that they consider the extent to which they would be prepared to work collaboratively with the local FE college, Oxford and Cherwell Valley college, the Construction Industry Training Board and others. By encouraging young people training in the construction industry, they can start to grow locally some of the skills they will need. I also understand that the bizarre situation exists whereby youngsters, once they have completed their construction skills training, are required to buy a certificate demonstrating they have the necessary competences, which costs about £200, but if they are under 18 Jobcentre Plus cannot fund that. It is slightly bizarre that young people who have acquired skills are unable to demonstrate that because they cannot afford the necessary certificate. I am glad to say that in Banbury, with the support of Cherwell district council and the national affordable housing programme, we are staring a self-build scheme at Miller road for young people who are NEET. The scheme is unique in providing a blend of education and learning opportunities, to level 1 diploma standard, in construction for approximately 20 NEET young people so that they can improve their employment prospects and life skills development. When the houses are built, the young people will be re-housed in the completed scheme. It is hoped that that pilot project will demonstrate a model that can be replicated on other affordable housing developments. There are several partners in the scheme, including Cherwell district council, Sanctuary housing association, Southwark Habitat for Humanity, Oxford and Cherwell Valley college, Connexions and the children, young people and families services at Oxfordshire county council. The college has designed a bespoke course to meet the requirements of the scheme and is in the process of recruiting young people to the course. The intention is that work will start this month. In short, that new affordable housing scheme will provide 10 rented units for young people, who will all participate in the building process and receive training from the FE college, leading to a level 1 diploma in construction, and 20 young people, NEETs, will be involved in the building process. I am sure we would have no difficulty in filling more such construction

69WH

Government Policy (NEETs)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

apprenticeships, and there are other successful initiatives, such as SKIDZ, which encourages youngsters to learn motor mechanic skills that are now extremely difficult to fund. There is clearly a need to keep NEETs engaged. They are often youngsters who, for all sorts of reasons, did not enjoy school or who do not want to try something new simply for fear of failing. As I understand it, Jobcentre Plus and Connexions run a red, amber and green coding system for NEETs: green is for those who are engaged and want to move forward, and red is for those who have simply dropped out. The predominant colour in my patch appears to be amber, verging on red, which suggests that for those who stay engaged there ought to be some incentive, such as the possibility of outward-bound adventure training, or even free swimming. They are young people, and research shows that if a youngster drops out as a NEET, over their lifetime in various ways they are each likely to cost the state and state agencies £1 million. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—putting an amber light on his pacy speech—and congratulate him on securing the debate. Last week, I was honoured to be invited to present the school awards for Moor End technology college at Huddersfield town hall. The school has faced many challenges in recent years. For example, 27 different languages are spoken among its pupils. What really stood out was that the head teacher, Jane Acklam, who provides inspirational leadership, was proud to tell me that only one of the 150 pupils who left the school last year is currently a NEET. Does my hon. Friend think there would be any value in keeping such statistics coming, so that schools can retain some interest in what happens to the children after they leave at 16? That would bring an added motivation and could then link in with the colleges and the wonderful schemes he has mentioned. Tony Baldry: The right hon. Member for Oxford East made the point that young people need support, and hopefully they will receive that from their schools during their school careers, but youngsters become NEETs for all sorts of different reasons. Time has prevented me from giving details—I have given them to the Minister—of young people in my constituency who are NEET for all sorts of reasons. They can be young mums, or they might have become offenders when they were younger. The reasons are not necessarily the result of the school’s failure, but the fact is that a combination of different factors has caused them to disengage. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): Skelmersdale and Ormskirk college in my constituency is seen as an example of best practice. It offers very flexible programmes for NEETs, starting with early interventions for 14 to 16-year-olds. The point I really want to make is that the college might very well be penalised for its investment in its NEETs programme by disinvestment in the county council and by the Government’s employment and support allowance regulations. Tony Baldry: The point I made earlier, which I hope the hon. Lady heard, was that we must between us work out how NEETs who have dropped out get funded back into the system. There is a double whammy, because

Government Policy (NEETs)

70WH

they have dropped out and are not getting money, so the organisations that are helping them have to find money from somewhere else, which is often difficult. That is the challenge for us all. In north Oxfordshire, we are grateful that programmes such as that run by the Prince’s Trust are now getting involved locally. That programme will take 12 16 to 24-year-old NEETs through an intensive 12-week course, but funding has to be found locally to support the initiative. That is additional funding that we have to find from somewhere. If that is the situation in a constituency such as mine, and if we are looking at anything like one in 12 youngsters becoming NEETs, nationally that is a truly serious issue. We have to find a better and, I suggest, more positive description for that group of young people. We have to recognise that, by definition, they will be youngsters who will need encouragement and support. They will not necessarily always want to undertake mainstream activities. Indeed, they might find accessing colleges and courses difficult. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with me that there needs to be more emphasis on schools equipping youngsters for work, beyond the one or two-week work experience placements? Tony Baldry: Yes, and the more one can engage youngsters in school, the better. Indeed, many of the schools in Banbury already involve youngsters not only in work experience, but, where appropriate, in programmes such as SKIDZ, because they want to keep them engaged. There are clearly a number of pieces of the jigsaw that we have to get right. They include Connexions and its ability to support youngsters, and apprenticeships, as has been said. My understanding is that the Government want one in five school leavers to become apprentices by 2020, so we need to do more to encourage employers to provide opportunities, particularly in those areas where youngsters particularly want to work, such as construction. The Select Committee made the following observation in its report earlier this year: “We recognise that future solutions to reduce the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training will have to be more cost-effective and will require efficient joined-up working at local level.”

In Cherwell and Oxfordshire, we are doing everything possible to ensure that there is joined-up working at local level. We all recognise the financial challenges that every sector faces, but clearly it is doubly hard to help young people if they are NEET and therefore receive no funding. With the Banbury and Bicester job clubs, we have made it clear that we want to do everything we can to support people in our community while they are out of work, and help them back into the world of work as speedily as possible. The desire to give that support applies just as equally to youngsters who are NEET. However, there are some policy issues that need to be resolved if we are to make the progress that we should like. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister inherited some skills and training structures that he clearly believes are flawed, and we are fortunate that his present ministerial post is the one he shadowed extremely ably for a number of years. Many Members are keen to know about the Government’s overall approach in trying

71WH

Government Policy (NEETs)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

[Tony Baldry] to ensure that a far smaller percentage of youngsters between 16 and 24 are not in education, employment or training. 1.50 pm The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. It is a particular delight to respond to this debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), whom I know cares deeply about such matters. I make it clear that I share his doubts about the label “NEETs”. For some reason, young people seem perpetually prone to being pigeonholed in unhelpful ways—from mods and rockers to hoodies. Of course such terms do not reflect reality and therefore do not do people justice. There is no such thing as a typical NEET; there are different groups of young people with particular kinds of challenges, different circumstances and different needs. As my hon. Friend said, it follows that we will be more effective in dealing with the problems and challenges they face if we have the flexibility to draw on a range of different options and build on best practice. I intend, in the course of the all too short time that I have, to make nine points of substance and then move to an exciting peroration. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I rattle through those points, but I hope they are relevant to him. Along the way, I will attempt to answer some of the particular issues that he raised. Next week—I know that you, Mr Chope, and the whole Chamber, are waiting with bated breath—we will publish our skills strategy, which will set out the direction we intend to take regarding the funding and management of skills. It will be radically different from the assumptions that have underpinned policy over recent years, and will challenge much of the orthodoxy upon which that policy was based. Let me deal with one point at the very beginning. I have asked officials to look at the issue regarding certification, which my hon. Friend raised. I agree that it does not seem appropriate—it is anomalous to say the least. We will look at that closely and deal with it. The young people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and those whom I meet, have ambition. They want to get on with their lives, and they recognise that learning can help them make something of themselves and can make them objects of admiration and respect. By attaining skills through learning, people gain a sense of value and are recognised by others as having worth. We believe that and care about it, and we will adopt policies that will enable young people to gain that sense of value. The investment we make in young people is our gift to future generations. I do not doubt that the previous Government cared about such matters too—no party in this place has a monopoly on wisdom, and certainly not on compassion. The matter is one that understandably generates strong sentiment, and sentiment is not something we should disregard in politics; we are not dull utilitarians, are we? None the less, there were real problems with past policy. Many millions have been spent on a bewildering succession of schemes, but to what effect? At the last count, some 874,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24

Government Policy (NEETs)

72WH

—or about one in seven—were not in any form of education, training or work. For a nation that cares about fairness and opportunity and about its own future, that is simply unacceptable. Let me move to my nine points. The first is that we will certainly take a close look job clubs such as those in Banbury and Bicester. They are good examples of what can be achieved by local people using prudent public investment, drawing together industry, local government, community groups and charitable organisations. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend, and I know they are examples that can be followed. I have asked my officials to look at them to see what can be done to share that good practice. The second point is again implicit in my hon. Friend’s analysis. We need a more holistic approach to the way we deal with the problem of such young people. It ranges from the circumstances at school and their prior attainment, to family circumstances and the particular physical or mental health issues they may face, to simple matters of confidence born of inadequate skills—a lack of confidence that is inevitable for those who have poor literacy and numeracy skills. However, it is not as simple as that—indeed, it is not simple at all—which is why we need the joined-up approach that I think has been lacking in the past. Thirdly, we also need to link the issue closely to our benefit reforms. I am speaking to the Department for Work and Pensions about those matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that part of the discussion is about funding. He made a good point about such people carrying funding with them and therefore being attractive to learning providers. We are on the case, and we will look once again next week—I do not want to give away any secrets—at the principles of learning accounts and the part they can play in driving the system through learner choice and employer need. I am mindful of those who are moving from disengagement to engagement in those terms. Anne Marie Morris: There is certainly an attraction to that approach. South Devon college, in my constituency, goes out on to the streets to where the NEETs are to find them. It is a win-win situation. I think we need to go out to get them rather than waiting for them to come to us, which is the point the Minister is making. Mr Hayes: My failure to respond to that point has nothing to do with its salience but with the time I have available. I will certainly take the matter up with my hon. Friend; it is a well-made argument. The fourth point is about careers guidance. We need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, to give such people the right advice and guidance. We will be launching an all-age careers service, which I spoke about last week in Belfast. Those who are interested may have a copy of my speech; those who are very interested can have a signed copy. The fifth point is that raised by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) about pre-apprenticeship training. As others have said, it is about getting people to the point where they can enjoy more formal training by the skills they acquire early on. We need a continuum of training, and I am working on that, too. However, it has to be progressive. I have said to the DWP that the offer must be authentic in terms of training and skills,

73WH

Government Policy (NEETs)

9 NOVEMBER 2010

and progressive—it must lead to further learning that makes people more employable, and then takes them into work. The sixth point is the need for early intervention. When dealing with such multi-faceted problems, we need to look at disadvantage; let us be frank about that. It means using the pupil premium, announced by the new Government, in the most imaginative, creative and productive way possible, and seeing how that can leverage real outcomes for people’s subsequent progress in learning and work. My seventh point is that the Government made a big commitment in the comprehensive spending review not just on apprenticeships, about which I will say a little more in a moment, but on community learning. Adult and community learning was protected in the CSR. I am passionate about the fact that there are different routes into learning. Some of them are informal and others formal, but we must not take the view that there is only one ladder to climb. People will return to learning, and people with a poor history in their prior experience will need a gentle approach. Small, bite-sized chunks of learning, highly accessible, very attractive and often linked to practical competencies can often be the way forward. That is why we protected both the basic skills and the adult and community learning budgets in the CSR. Eighthly, I have already mentioned apprenticeships. I do not want to trumpet the Government’s achievements in that respect. People are right: we will need to get employers involved, which is why we sent out tens of thousands of letters last week to small businesses to get

Government Policy (NEETs)

74WH

them involved in an apprenticeship programme and to back the £250 million we have put in, with a view to creating not just 50,000, or 60,000 but 75,000 more apprenticeships, which is more apprenticeships than we have ever had in Britain. Ninth and finally, we certainly need to give institutions more flexibility. We need to make the system more responsive to the needs of such young people, and generally. A more dynamic and responsive system, shaped around employer need and driven by learning choice, can deliver the skills the country needs, and it can also change lives by changing life chances. As a result of the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury in securing the debate, I have done three things. First, I have asked my Department to develop a cross-departmental strategy to deal with the NEETs problem. Secondly, I am looking at simplifying the funding process for accessing the right money to run community-led projects to address NEET issues. Finally, in particular, I have asked officials to see what we can learn from job clubs in north Oxfordshire. The issue is about the value we place on individual lives, and the value we place, too, on social mobility, social justice and social cohesion. When each feels valued, all feel valued. It is about building the big society from the bottom up—a brighter Britain where lives are illuminated by the power of learning, and a bigger Britain where all have their chance to grow. Question put and agreed to. 1.59 pm Sitting adjourned.

7WS

Written Ministerial Statements

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Ministerial Statements Tuesday 9 November 2010 BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS Debt Relief Orders The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): We are today announcing plans to amend the eligibility criteria relating to Debt Relief Orders (DROs) in order to allow access to those people who are currently excluded because they have certain pension rights that they cannot draw down for some years. DROs were introduced in April 2009 following research that identified that there were people in long-term debt difficulties who had nothing to offer their creditors and who could not afford to make themselves bankrupt. Delivered in partnership with the professional debt advice sector, DROs provide low-cost easy access to debt relief for those overwhelmed by relatively low levels of unmanageable debt. They are designed to provide a fresh start for the most vulnerable people trapped in debt. There are strict eligibility criteria of assets less than £300, debts no more than £15,000 and surplus income of less than £50 per month. Because a pension is treated as an asset, some people who would otherwise qualify find themselves unable to apply for a DRO because they have pension rights, even where the pension is of low value and not receivable for many years. The Insolvency Service issued a consultation asking whether changes should be made to make the system fairer for these people. After considering the consultation responses, I propose to allow those with HMRC-approved pension schemes to have access to a DRO. This brings DROs into line with bankruptcy where debtors are able to keep their approved pensions, and will provide welcome assistance to many of the most vulnerable. I intend to lay a Statutory Instrument which, subject to parliamentary approval, would bring these changes into effect from April 2011. I am placing copies of the summary of consultation responses in the Libraries of both Houses.

Written Ministerial Statements

8WS

has continued to develop its nuclear programme in defiance of six United Nations Security Council resolutions, which call on Iran to fully comply with its international obligations, increase transparency with the IAEA and answer a range of outstanding questions about its overall intentions. The UK therefore welcomes the success of the EU in securing a strong EU Council decision in respect of new sanctions against Iran in July. Until now, the UK has exercised discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to permit the export of goods listed in annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 (previously annex II to Council Regulation (EC) 423/2007 of 19 April 2007). However, these are dual-use goods which, by definition, may have utility to Iran’s nuclear programme. The UK therefore strongly believes that it should go further than the new measures agreed by the EU. With immediate effect therefore, we will no longer issue any licences for the export of goods or technology listed in annex IV of Council Regulation (EU) 961/2010 or for the provision of brokering services or technical or financial assistance related to those goods and technology, apart from the most exceptional cases—such as supplies for humanitarian purposes—where there is manifestly no risk that the goods will be used in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme. Furthermore we will not issue licences for investment in an Iranian person, entity or body engaged in the manufacture of goods listed in annex IV. Annex IV can be viewed at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L :2010:281:0001:0077:EN:PDF

Extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council (10 November 2010) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Baroness Wilcox has today made the following statement: I will be attending the extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council on 10 November, where the Belgian presidency aim to achieve a unanimous political agreement to the approach they have put forward on the Commission proposal for an EU patent language regulation. The Belgian presidency has suggested amendments to the language proposal in an attempt to overcome the concerns of some member states. The Government intend to support the Commission proposal, including the presidency amendments if necessary.

Exports to Iran

Post Office Network

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): Iran’s nuclear activities continue to cause significant concern to the international community, and we are determined to stop it obtaining the material that it needs to pursue a range of proliferation-sensitive activities prohibited by UN Security Council Resolutions. The UK refuses all export licence applications where we believe there is an unacceptable risk that the goods would contribute to Iran’s nuclear programme. The UK respects Iran’s right to a peaceful civilian nuclear programme as long as it meets its international obligations. But it has consistently failed to do so. Iran

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): On 13 October the Government published the Postal Services Bill. This Bill will safeguard the universal postal service and secure a sustainable future for Royal Mail and the Post Office. We promised at that time that we would shortly bring forward a more detailed statement on the future of the post office network. At the Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, we announced £1.34 billion of Government funding for the Post Office network over the spending review period. Today we are publishing a statement on our plans to secure the future of the Post Office network.

9WS

Written Ministerial Statements

9 NOVEMBER 2010

The funding we have announced will enable the Post Office to invest in the network, reaching out to new customers by refurbishing its branches, extending its opening hours and reducing queues. This will make the Post Office more convenient and an even stronger retail partner for Royal Mail. Securing the Post Office network in the digital age also sets out: New opportunities for Post Office as the “Front Office for Government”, including examples of new pilots the Post Office is conducting in conjunction with Government Departments and closer working with local authorities. An agreement between Post Office Ltd and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to give RBS—including Natwest—customers access to their current and business accounts through the Post Office, making almost 80% of current accounts accessible at post offices. Plans for potential future mutualisation of Post Office Ltd so that the interest of staff, sub-postmasters and even customers can be better aligned.

Copies of the document will be available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be accessible online on the Department’s website.

Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (Supplement to Statement)

Written Ministerial Statements

10WS

TREASURY Improving Tax Policy (Finance Bill 2011) The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): At the June Budget the Government set out a commitment to build a new approach to tax policy making1—one founded on predictability, stability and simplicity—with consultation on policy design and scrutiny of draft legislation as the cornerstones. The Government will therefore publish draft clauses planned for Finance Bill 2011 on 9 December. At the same time, the Government will publish a formal response or update on the following consultations that it has undertaken over the summer/ autumn: tax policy-making: a new approach; simplification of corporate capital gains for companies; pensions annuitisation; furnished holiday lettings; and a number of areas relating to HMRC’s powers review.

Ahead of this, the Government will publish more details on corporate tax reform, including interim improvements to controlled foreign company legislation and reform of foreign branches planned for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2011. It will also publish the outcome of consultations that have been carried out on a number of anti-avoidance measures. 1

The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): During the statement I made to the House on 3 November 2010, on higher education funding and student finance, and repeated by Baroness Wilcox in the other place, I regret that the description of the proposed maintenance package was incomplete. The statement said: “There will also be increases in maintenance loans for students from families with incomes from £42,000 to £60,000”.

The current maintenance support system is complicated. The maintenance grant is means-tested: when the maintenance grant was reintroduced in 2004 and 2006 it was in partial substitution for maintenance loan and hence the means-testing now involves a number of tapers by which maintenance grant is reduced with increasing family income. The result is that it is difficult for students and their families easily to calculate the support they are entitled to; and it adds to the administrative burden on the Student Loans Company in calculating means-tested entitlement. It is in order to simplify the system that in the proposed maintenance arrangements for 2012-13 academic year and beyond, the multiple tapers for maintenance grants have been substituted by a single taper, and the reduction in total support (maintenance grant and maintenance loan taken together) as income increases is a more constant one. As a result of the sum of these changes, almost all students receive an increase in their total financial support, but there is a very small proportion of students who will receive less maintenance loan than they would have if they entered under the old system. Students with a household income of around £49,000 to £53,000 will receive, on average, £120 less in maintenance loan. This equates to a 2.5% reduction for around 2.5% of students.

“Tax policy making: a new approach” HM Treasury and HMRC, June 2010

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Government Olympic Executive (Quarterly Report) The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson): I am publishing today the Government Olympic Executive’s quarterly report—“London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report November 2010”. This report explains the latest budget position as at 30 September 2010, and outlines some of the many wider economic and social benefits to the UK. The overall public sector funding package for the games will remain at £9.298 billion following the spending review announcement on 20 October 2010. The funding package will, however, be reconfigured from April 2011 to make provisions for operational requirements, reflecting the changing focus of the programme from construction to operational delivery. Also from April 2011, Government funding for the programme—excluding security which sits with the Home Office and other Government Departments—will be held by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games remain on time and within budget. The Olympic Delivery Authority’s (ODA) anticipated final cost has reduced by £29 million to £7.232 billion as of 30 September 2010. The majority of contingency remains unreleased and savings have also been made in the quarter through project and procurement efficiencies. The ODA continues to make strong progress in preparing the venues and

11WS

Written Ministerial Statements

9 NOVEMBER 2010

infrastructure in the Olympic park, with over 75% of the programme to the 2012 games now completed. The Olympic stadium is structurally complete with the cable net roof covered and all 14 lighting towers in place. The aquatics centre permanent structure and roof are in place, while the velodrome remains on target to be the first Olympic park sporting venue to be finished early in 2011. The structures of the handball and basketball arenas are now completed. More than three-quarters of the residential plots on the Olympic village are structurally finished, with the structure of the Chobham academy education campus also nearing completion. At the Lee Valley White Water Centre, the 10,000 square metre lake is full and water is flowing through the courses, with internal fit-out works of the two-storey facility building approaching completion. The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games are continuing to help businesses and people through the difficult economic times. Already, £5 billion worth of contracts have been awarded by the ODA, with 98% of the ODA’s suppliers being British companies, and many more winning work in the supply chains of its contractors. As of September 2010, over 10,000 people were working on the Olympic park and village. The Olympic Park Legacy Company has announced that in legacy the Olympic park will be called “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park”. It has set out new plans to help deliver family-focused neighbourhoods; to make the park a top visitor destination; to ensure the venues provide a lasting sporting legacy; to create commercial and job opportunities; and to help stitch together the area’s communities through new road connections. I would like to commend this report to the Members of both Houses and thank them for their continued interest in and support for the London 2012 games. Copies of the quarterly report November 2010 are available online at: www.culture.gov.uk and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. DEFENCE Northern Grouping Initiative The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): The strategic defence and security review made it clear that alliances and partnerships would remain a fundamental part of this Government’s approach to defence and security. We will therefore deepen our multilateral and bilateral defence relationships with key allies. Last week, I informed the House about our deepened relationship with France. As the next step, tomorrow I will have a meeting with the new Northern Grouping which includes Nordic and Baltic nations, as well Poland and Germany. The Northern Grouping will help us build a closer bilateral relationship with Norway, which is one of our key strategic partners. It will create a further framework that makes it easier for Sweden and Finland to have a closer relationship with NATO, and through our involvement as a nuclear power it will reassure the Baltic states about the value of article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. In a world in which there is a multi-polar power base, we need more different levers to act in the interests of our national security.

Written Ministerial Statements

12WS

CABINET OFFICE Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s Report on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (Government Response) The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper): The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee published its report on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (HC 436) on 10 September 2010, immediately prior to Second Reading. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government’s response to the Committee’s report has been laid before Parliament and published (Cm 7951). Copies are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The Government’s response to the Committee will assist consideration of the details of the Bill in Committee on 16 November. HOME DEPARTMENT Prevent Review/New Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): I am pleased to announce today that the Government are formally reviewing the Prevent strand of Contest, the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. That we need a preventative approach to terrorism is not in question: we have to deal with the causes of terrorism as well as its symptoms. But we want to avoid the mistakes of the previous Government. The new Prevent strategy will follow the principles of our counterterrorism legislation. It will be proportionate to the specific challenge we face; it will only do what is necessary to achieve its specific aims; and it will be more effective. It will be separate from work to tackle wider forms of extremism and to promote integration, which is being led by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The review will, among other things: look at the purpose and scope of the Prevent strategy, its overlap and links with other areas of Government policy and its delivery at local level; examine the role of institutions—such as prisons, higher and further education institutions, schools and mosques—in the delivery of Prevent; consider the role of other Prevent delivery partners, including the police and other statutory bodies; consider how activity on Prevent in the UK can be more joined up with work overseas; examine monitoring and evaluation structures to ensure effectiveness and value-for-money; and; make recommendations for a revised Prevent strategy.

I am also announcing today a period of public consultation to enable delivery partners, front-line service providers and all other interested parties to participate in the review of Prevent. Contributions can be submitted by e-mail ([email protected]) or online at: (http://preventreview.homeoffice.gov.uk). I am pleased to announce that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the current reviewer of terrorism legislation, will provide expert, independent oversight of the Prevent review. His role is essential in ensuring that the review takes into consideration all the relevant information and looks at all the options.

13WS

Written Ministerial Statements

9 NOVEMBER 2010

I am also pleased to announce that I intend to appoint Mr David Anderson QC as the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Mr Anderson QC is a specialist in European Union and public law and human rights and has been a QC for over 10 years. He is a Recorder and visiting professor at King’s College London. I expect him to take up this role early in the new year. Until then, I have extended the period of appointment of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, as the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. During this period. Lord Carlile will also conduct a brief review of the arrests (and subsequent release) of six individuals under the Terrorism Act 2000 during the recent state visit to the United Kingdom by the Pope. I am extremely grateful to Lord Carlile for his willingness to continue in his role, one he has performed with distinction. TRANSPORT High Speed 1 The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond): I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have approved the sale by London and Continental Railways Ltd of HS1 Ltd. HS1 Ltd is the company that holds the concession to operate Britain’s first high-speed railway, running from central London to the channel tunnel. It also includes

Written Ministerial Statements

14WS

the stations at St Pancras International, and the international stations at Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford. It is used by Eurostar and the Kent domestic high-speed services. Deutsch Bahn have also recently announced their intention, by 2013, to start running international services over the line to Frankfurt and Amsterdam, via Brussels. The successful bidder is a consortium comprising of “Borealis Infrastructure” and “Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan”, each with a 50% stake. The acquisition value is just under £2.1 billion. The sale receipts will be paid on completion of the contract, which is expected to happen later this month. At that point, the consortium will become the owner of HS1 Ltd which has a 30-year concession to manage the High Speed 1 line and stations. Under the terms of the concession, HS1 has the rights to sell access to track and stations on a commercial basis while having to preserve the nature and capacity of the high-speed railway and to maintain and renew it to modem standards. Compliance with these terms is overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation. The Secretary of State for Transport will continue to own the infrastructure of the railway and the freehold to the associated land. On expiry of the concession, the Government will once more take unencumbered ownership of the railway with the opportunity to let a further concession. In addition, the Government retain a 40% stake in Eurostar International Ltd and development rights on the major associated regeneration sites at Kings Cross and Stratford.

181W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers to Questions Tuesday 9 November 2010

Written Answers

182W

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether an equality impact assessment was undertaken before his decision to implement the majority of the proposals for the reorganisation of his Department before June 2011. [20622] Mr Philip Hammond: Yes. Completed equality impact assessments were presented to the Department board on 29 October.

WALES Departmental Publications Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment she has made of the recommendations relevant to her Department’s policy responsibilities contained in the Foresight report on Mental Capital and Wellbeing by the Government Office for Science; if she will ensure that her Department takes steps to promote well-being; if she will ensure that her Department’s policy development process takes account of psychological research into subjective [22910] well-being; and if she will make a statement. Mr David Jones: I welcome the conclusions of the Foresight Project on Mental Capital and Wellbeing and will ensure that my Department acts on these as appropriate.

TRANSPORT Cycling: Finance Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit ratios his Department uses to assess the merits of funding Cycling England [20716] programmes. Norman Baker: The original Cycling England programme was proposed by the board and approved by Ministers on the basis of existing research and expertise. Many of the programmes were intended as demonstration projects and provide an evidence base for the potential of local cycle interventions. Individual programmes are delivered via a variety of partners, with different criteria for selection, and are subject to ongoing evaluation. Analysis of results of the first phase of funding for the initial six cycling demonstration towns has provided a benefit cost ratios in the range 2.6 to 3.5. Departmental Reorganisation John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons he has decided to implement the majority of the proposals for re-organisation of his Department before June 2011; [20353] and when he took that decision. Mr Philip Hammond: The reorganisation timetable reflects the judgment of the Secretary of State and senior officials, and best practice in other organisations, that change is managed most effectively over a short period. A provisional decision that reorganisation should be undertaken swiftly was taken in the spring. Formal approval for that approach was conditional on the results of the comprehensive spending review. That formal approval was given by the Department’s board on 29 October.

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he consulted before implementing the majority of the proposals for the reorganisation of his Department before June 2011. [20623]

Mr Philip Hammond: We continue to consult the trade union side and Department for Transport staff. We have discussed our proposals with a large number of other central Government Departments and a number of private sector organisations with experience in this area. Driving: Licensing Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department takes to inform older drivers of the requirement to renew a driving licence at age 70; how many drivers eligible for renewal of their licence at age 70 did not renew their licence in the latest period for which figures are available; and if [22592] he will make a statement. Mike Penning: The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency sends reminder letters 90 days prior to a driver reaching their 70 birthday to advise them how to renew their driving entitlement. Between 30 October 2009 and 29 October 2010, the number of drivers reaching the age of 70 was 499,901. Of these 141,722 drivers did not renew their driving entitlement. Freight Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of arrangements to examine freight arriving [21804] at UK ports and airports. Mr Philip Hammond: I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement made by the Home Secretary in the House on 1 November 2010, Official Report, columns 632-33. The UK Government have temporarily banned all air cargo originating from Yemen and Somalia. I and officials will be meeting with senior representatives of airlines, airports and the air cargo industry over the coming weeks to determine future aviation security strategy. Liquid Petroleum Gas Sheryll Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with representatives of the liquid petroleum gas industry the contribution of liquid petroleum gas as a road fuel to meeting the [22344] Government’s air quality targets.

183W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Norman Baker: To date, I have not received any invitations from representatives of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) industry wishing to discuss air quality issues. Testing conducted for the Department on recent petrol vehicles converted to run on LPG showed no reduction in air quality emissions when running on LPG, although CO2 emissions were slightly reduced. Data from other sources shows similar results. Representatives of the LPG industry are in touch with the Department’s officials and will no doubt keep them informed of any new evidence as it emerges.

Written Answers

184W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Departmental Official Hospitality Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on hospitality for events hosted by each of its Ministers in (a) September and (b) October 2010. [21780] Richard Benyon: Three events were hosted during October which all Ministers attended at a cost of £134. Departmental Pay

Railways: Wiltshire Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of the [20671] Kemble to Swindon railway line.

Martin Vickers: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many permanent staff in her Department received an annual salary greater than £25,428 in the latest period for which figures are available; and if she will make a [21174] statement.

Mrs Villiers [holding answer 1 November 2010]: The Government recognise that re-doubling the railway between Swindon and Kemble could generate important passenger benefits and improve resilience by providing a diversionary route for the Great Western Main Line to Wales. Unfortunately, the need to address the deficit means that we are not able to commit Government funding to this project at present, but it remains our aspiration to take it forward in the future. However, this is the type of project that will be considered for funding in the next railway control period.

Richard Benyon [holding answer 2 November 2010]: There were 4,870 full-time equivalent permanent members of staff paid an annual salary greater than £25,428 out of a total of 10,061 staff in core-DEFRA and its Executive Agencies—Rural Payments Agency, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Food and Environment Research Agency, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Animal Health and Veterinary Medicines Directorate—during 2010.

Taxis: Licensing Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to bring forward proposals for a national standardised licensing regime for (a) hackney carriages and (b) private hire vehicles. [23070] Norman Baker: We have no plans to amend the legislation to impose standardised licensing policies. We publish Best Practice Guidance to assist licensing authorities in formulating suitable taxi and private hire vehicle licensing policies. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to implement obligations under Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding accessibility in relation to his [21125] Department’s policy responsibilities. Norman Baker: Department for Transport officials are working with officials at the Office for Disability Issues on preparing a report to the UN on what the UK is doing to implement the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The report, which will be published next year, will set out what the Department is doing to meet its obligations under article 9 of the convention.

Departmental Public Expenditure David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what her Department’s capital expenditure per head was in (a) London and (b) the North West in each of the last five [21455] years; (2) how much and what proportion of her Department’s capital expenditure was allocated to (a) London and (b) the North West in each of the last five [21461] financial years. Richard Benyon: Capital expenditure is not currently recorded by the Department on a regional basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Departmental Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding to meet staff redundancy costs was identified in her Department’s settlement letter in respect of the [21532] comprehensive spending review. Richard Benyon: All pressures on Departments’ budgets were taken into account as part of the spending review and settlements were allocated accordingly. The full cost of redundancies will be met from within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ spending review resource DEL settlement. Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of redundancies arising from the spending reductions proposed in the

185W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

comprehensive spending review in respect of (a) her Department and (b) its non-departmental public [21533] bodies. Richard Benyon: DEFRA will make the reduction in headcount through natural wastage and voluntary departures wherever possible, with compulsory redundancies as a last resort. Until we know the numbers who take up voluntary departure, it will not be possible to estimate the number of compulsory redundancies. However, overall, we expect DEFRA and its arm’s length bodies to have up to 8,000 fewer staff by 2015, from a total workforce of 30,000 across the network in 2010-11. Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department of staff [21534] redundancy in each of the next four years. Richard Benyon: The overall cost of exits is estimated to be around £190 million. Until workforce modelling has been completed across the network and the terms of the newly proposed Civil Service Compensation Scheme are approved, this can only be regarded as a planning assumption. Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff of (a) her Department and (b) its agencies have been offered enhanced early retirement packages in each of [22024] the last three years. Richard Benyon: The following table shows the total number of staff who were offered and accepted enhanced early retirement packages in each of the last three years. Core/Agency 2010-11

2009-10

2008-09

Number Exits

Core RPA

24 3

AH

4

VMD

0

VLA

0

CEFAS

0

FERA1

0

Written Answers

186W

Dogs: Breeding Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward amendments to the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs to include references on dog breeding [22424] and genetic health and welfare. Mr Paice: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 September 2010, Official Report, column 934W. Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with (a) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and (b) the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation on proposals for a standard puppy contract; and if she will [22428] make a statement. Mr Paice: The potential value of the puppy contract has been raised with Lord Henley by the President of the British Veterinary Association at a recent meeting. DEFRA will assess the situation once it has been reviewed by the independent Dog Advisory Council as part of its wider programme for bringing forward a strategy to improve the health and welfare of dogs. Fisheries Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely effects on fishing communities of the proposed requirement on vessels in the under-10 metre fleet to complete a log book. [21682]

Richard Benyon: This requirement will not affect the vast majority of inshore fishermen in the south and south east of England, whose fishing trips are confined to single fishing areas, and no adverse effects on fishing communities is anticipated. It will, however, help to ensure that local inshore fishermen in each of the affected sea areas are not disadvantaged by having catches taken in adjacent sea areas wrongly attributed to their area, thus reducing the amount of quota available for them to fish.

Core RPA

6 13

Flood Control: Finance

AH

0

VMD

0

Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of her Department’s capital expenditure was allocated to the Environment Agency for flood defence schemes in each of the last five years; how much she plans to allocate to such schemes in each of the next [22920] five years; and if she will make a statement.

VLA

0

CEFAS

1

FERA1

4

Core RPA

2 8

AH

0

VMD

0

VLA

0

FERA1

1

Richard Benyon: Between 2006-07 and 2010-11, the Department allocated the following amounts to the Environment Agency for flood defence schemes: Allocation (£ million) 1

1 The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) was formed on 1 April 2009. All data prior to this date relate only to the former Central Science Laboratory (CSL).

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

216.3 210.0 313.1

187W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers

188W

DEFRA is currently considering capital allocations for the next four financial years (those covered by the recent spending review) across the DEFRA Network, including the Environment Agency. More information on allocations should be available in January 2011.

The Regulations place obligations on the producers and business end-users of a wide range of waste electrical equipment, including retail refrigerated display cabinets. These include the financing of the separate collection, subsequent treatment, re-use, recovery, recycling and environmentally sound disposal of such equipment when it becomes waste. Treatment and recycling facilities are approved and regulated by the Environment Agencies to ensure compliance with strict standards that minimise the environmental impacts of their operations and the maximisation of recycling rates.

Food

National Parks Authorities

Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the prospects for discussion of UK food security as part of the forthcoming negotiations on the future of the common agricultural policy.

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had on National Parks becoming responsible for economic development of the areas they cover. [22520]

Allocation (£ million) 2009-10 349.4 2010-11 354.0 1 Actual spend figure including resource-capital switch (allocation figure unavailable).

[21681]

Mr Paice: The Commission will soon publish its Communication which will set the framework for the common agriculture policy (CAP) in the new financial perspective. DEFRA’s UK Food Security Assessment concluded that the UK enjoys high levels of food security. It details that the best guarantor of UK food security is an open trading system with other countries, with farmers at home and overseas being able to respond to market price signals. The current CAP is an impediment to both and we will be seeking reform in the forthcoming negotiations. Forestry Commission: Land Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many acres of land the Forestry Commission (a) owns, (b) manages and (c) otherwise has responsibility for.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA is currently conducting a consultation on the governance arrangements for the national parks. Following this I will be considering proposals for changes to the way these areas are looked after, which may include the future responsibilities of the authorities. Nature Conservation: Crime Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were (a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against and (c) convicted of an offence under the (i) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (ii) Deer Act 1991, (iii) Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 and (iv) Hunting Act 2004 in each police force area between 2004 and [22851] 2009. Richard Benyon: I have placed the data requested in the Library of the House.

[22494]

Rural Areas: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Mr Paice: The public forest estate is owned by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commissioners under section (3)1 of the Forestry Act 1967. It comprises 18% of total forest area in England; 13% is owned by other public bodies and 69% is in private hands. As at 31 March 2010 the public forest estate in England comprised 198,298 hectares (490,005 acres) of freehold land and 57,692 hectares (142,560 acres) of leasehold land. In addition the Forestry Commission manages 1,701 hectares (4,203 acres) of land in England under long-term management agreements. Landfill: Refrigerators David Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to reduce the number of retail refrigerated display [21226] cabinets disposed of in landfill sites. Mr Prisk: I have been asked to reply. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006 already minimise the amount of discarded electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill.

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to encourage the use of liquid [21721] petroleum gas as a road fuel in rural areas. Justine Greening: I have been asked to reply. A reduced rate of duty is applied to liquid petroleum gas for road use in all parts of the country. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October 2010, Official Report, column 149W, to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). Rural Development Agency Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what transitional arrangements she plans to put in place for applicants for funds from the Rural Development Programme for England following the ending of [21908] regional development agencies. Mr Paice: DEFRA will ensure that delivery arrangements for the Rural Development Programme for England continue to be in place following the abolition of the

189W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

regional development agencies, based on a stronger national lead by DEFRA for the remainder of the programme period to 2013, and will minimise disruption for potential beneficiaries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

190W

European Arrest Warrants Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been sent (a) from the UK to each other EU member state and (b) to the UK from each other EU member state under the European Arrest Warrant since its inception; [15105]

Animal Experiments: Primates Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of overseas companies designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the purposes of scientific research that use wild populations of non-human [22040] primates for breeding purposes. Lynne Featherstone: Of the overseas breeding centres supplying animals to the UK during the past two years we understand that two use wild populations of non-human primates for breeding purposes. Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies in Mauritius are designated as breeding and supply establishments to supply non-human primates to the UK for the [22047] purposes of scientific research. Lynne Featherstone: Of the overseas breeding centres supplying animals to the United Kingdom during the past two years two are located in Mauritius. Crime: Statistics Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms she plans to put in place for the collection of crime data for regular beat [19742] meetings. Nick Herbert: The Government are committed to replacing bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability. We are introducing Police and Crime Commissioners and we will ensure the public have the information they need to hold their force and Commissioner to account. The coalition agreement includes a commitment to ensuring that crime data are published at a level that allows the public to see what is happening on their streets from January 2011. These data are held locally by all police forces and the Home Office is working to develop an online platform which allows the public to easily access the data in an open and standardised format, alongside street-level crime maps.

(2) how many people sent (a) from the UK to each other EU member state and (b) to the UK from each other EU member state under the European Arrest Warrant who were subsequently convicted have received a custodial sentence longer than (i) one year, [15106] (ii) five years, (iii) 10 years and (iv) 20 years; (3) how many people sent (a) from the UK to each other EU member state and (b) to the UK from each other EU member state under the European Arrest Warrant were subsequently (i) acquitted and (ii) [15107] convicted. Nick Herbert: The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (for Scotland) are the designated authorities in the UK responsible for processing European arrest warrants (EAWs). Extraditions under the EAW process are known as ‘surrenders’. The following tables show the total numbers of people (a) surrendered from the UK (excluding Scotland) and (b) surrendered to the UK (including Scotland) since 2004. It has not been possible to break these data down by member state prior to April 2009 as this would involve a manual examination of all SOCA case records for that period, which would incur disproportionate cost. In April 2009 SOCA introduced a new IT system and the number of surrenders has been broken down by member state for the financial year 2009-10. It is not possible to answer questions 15106 and 15107. SOCA’s involvement in an EAW case ceases at the point of surrender, and SOCA is not informed of the outcome of any subsequent criminal proceedings. European arrest warrants 2009-10 (business year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK 2008-09 (business year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans her Department has for the future of the diplomatic domestic visa system. [22418]

Damian Green: We plan to review next year the current immigration rules in relation to persons, including diplomats, who wish to bring individuals from overseas to the UK to work for them in their private household in a domestic capacity.

516 88

2007-08 (business year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

Entry Clearances: Diplomatic Service

699 71

415 107

2006-07 (business year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

178 84

2006 January to March Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

25 15

191W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

European arrest warrants 2005 (calendar year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

77 63

2004 (calendar year) Surrenders from the UK Surrenders to the UK

24 19

192W By number

Finland Greece Luxembourg Slovenia Denmark

1 1 1 1 0 699 EAW surrenders to the UK, 2009-10 Totals

EAW surrenders from the UK, 2009-10 Totals Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden

1 6 1 4 34 0 7 1 19 21 1 8 19 10 15 55 1 2 18 425 3 18 7 1 16 6 699

Cyprus France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Malta The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain Sweden

By number Spain The Netherlands Ireland France Poland Cyprus Greece Portugal Romania Germany Italy Malta Sweden

By number Poland Lithuania Czech republic Germany France Ireland The Netherlands Romania Spain Latvia Italy Hungary Estonia Slovakia Belgium Sweden Cyprus Portugal Malta Austria Bulgaria

425 55 34 21 19 19 18 18 16 15 10 8 7 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 1

2 6 1 2 11 1 1 17 5 2 2 20 1 71

20 17 11 6 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 71

European Investigation Order Mr Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the statement of 27 July 2010, Official Report, column 881, on the European Investigation Order, if she will place in the Library a copy of each item of correspondence on the European Investigation Order between her Department and (a) the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and (b) each police force which is a [19186] member of ACPO. Nick Herbert: I have placed the following in the House of Commons Library: correspondence received by the Home Office from the Association of Chief Police Officers; an e-mail sent by the Home Office which requested the views of International Liaison Officers on the European Investigation Order; and a summary table of e-mail correspondence received in response to this.

193W

Written Answers

Identity and Passport Service: Newport (Gwent) Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether she has assessed the merits of short-time working for all staff at the Newport Passport Office as an alternative to the proposed reduction in the number of jobs at that office; [22287]

(2) whether the impact assessment for the closure of the Newport Passport Office will take into account the levels of unemployment in neighbouring areas from which the staff at the passport office are drawn; and if [22288] she will make a statement. Damian Green: The offer of a shorter working week for staff would not absorb the excess capacity, in terms of both people and the physical estate, that exists within the Identity and Passport Service (IPS). In order for IPS to continue to deliver value for money, the proposed restructuring of the passport application processing centres requires that savings are achieved through the closure of the centre at Newport and the corresponding reductions in staff.

194W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

The Impact Assessment will make use of relevant data from the StatsWales website and the Longitudinal Labour Force Survey and the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings compiled by the Office of National Statistics. Data will be applied on a regional basis. Illegal Immigrants: Deportation Mr Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been removed in each month since May 2010. [22393] Damian Green: The following table shows the number of removals and voluntary departures for May and June 2010. Data for July 2010 to September 2010 will be available from 25 November 2010 when data for the third quarter of 2010 are published. The Home Office publishes statistics on the number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK on a quarterly and annual basis, which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office’s Research, Development and Statistics website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylumstats.html

Removals and voluntary departures1,2 Number of departures2 Enforced removals and voluntary departures

Total

Non-asylum cases refused entry at port and subsequently removed7

Grand total

1,440

3,530

1,655

5,180

1,105

3,200

1,505

4,710

Enforced removals and notified voluntary departures4

Assisted voluntary returns5

Other voluntary departures6

May

1,730

360

June

1,705

395

1

Figures are rounded to the nearest five and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. 2 Provisional figures. Figures will under record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken. 3 Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken. 4 Includes persons leaving under facilitated return schemes. 5 Persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the international organisation for migration. May include some on-entry cases and some cases where enforcement action has been initiated. 6 Persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities. 7 Includes removals performed by immigration officers at ports using enforcement powers and cases dealt with at juxtaposed controls.

Immigration Controls Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the immigration cap does not adversely affect the capacity of companies to recruit staff from outside the EU with skills not available from the UK [22227] workforce; and if she will make a statement. Damian Green: Under the current interim limit, we are monitoring each sponsoring employer’s allocations closely and reviewing them as appropriate. Employers can request to sponsor additional migrant workers above their allocation. On 1 November, the UK Border Agency published refined criteria for handling these requests, to give employers greater certainty. Regarding the full limit that will be introduced from next year, the Government carried out a full public consultation over the summer and are assessing the responses. Immigration Controls: English Language Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account her Department

takes of the proficiency in English of the (a) spouses and (b) dependants of applicants for (i) British citizenship, (ii) leave to remain and (iii) asylum in determining the outcome of such applications. [22565] Damian Green [holding answer 8 November 2010]: Those applying for naturalisation as a British citizen are expected to demonstrate that they have sufficient knowledge of English and of life in the United Kingdom. Those applying for citizenship through registration routes, which include children under 18, do not have to meet this requirement. Those applying for settlement also need to demonstrate the knowledge of life requirement unless they are applying under a category for which this is not required. A person can show that he or she meets this requirement by either passing a citizenship test, or attending a course which teaches English for Speakers of other Languages using citizenship-based materials. The proficiency in English of a person’s spouse and dependents are not taken into account when considering an application, although if they wish to apply for citizenship in their own right they will need to demonstrate that they meet this requirement.

195W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

From 29 November 2010 we will require those applying to come to or stay in the UK as the spouse or partner of a British citizen or person settled here to meet an English language requirement. For citizenship, settlement, and applying for entry as a spouse or partner there are exemptions to the language requirement, such as where the person has a mental or physical condition which would make it unreasonable to expect them to learn English or is aged 65 or over. For spouses and dependants applying for leave to remain under the points based system routes, there is no English language requirement. Similarly there is no English language requirement for spouses or dependants of refugees who want to join them in the UK. Mental Health Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the recommendations relevant to her Department’s policy responsibilities contained in the Foresight Report on Mental Capital and Wellbeing by the Government Office for Science; if she will ensure that her Department takes steps to promote wellbeing; if she will ensure that her Department’s policy development process takes account of psychological research into subjective wellbeing; and if she will make [22202] a statement. James Brokenshire [holding answer 8 November 2010]: Officials in the Home Office reviewed the report at the time of its publication in 2008 and noted that poor mental capacity or well-being could have serious ramifications for criminal behaviour, although causal linkages are not necessarily established. However, many of the solutions lie outside the Home Office remit and we will continue to work with other Government Departments in this area. When developing policy we consider psychological research. For example in considering drug policy, the mental health of substance misusers, in particular young people, is particularly relevant. We seek expert advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to inform our policy development of the latest psychological

196W

and mental health research and we include the impact upon victims when estimating the costs of crime and of terrorist incidents. These estimates are used within the Department and more widely as inputs into policy appraisal and evaluation (for instance, in impact assessments for new policy proposals and in business cases for procurement projects). Earlier this year the Home Office appointed a psychologist, nominated by the British Psychological Society, to its Science Advisory Committee to help ensure that research in psychology is considered as it develops its science and research programmes. Police Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate she made of the number and proportion of police officers aged (a) 18 to 21, (b) 22 to 25, (c) 26 to 29, (d) 30 to 39, (e) 40 to 49, (f) 50 to 55, (g) 56 to 60 and (h) over 60 years in the latest period for which figures are available; [20017] (2) what the average age was of (a) male and (b) female police officers (i) nationally and (ii) in each constabulary who retired in the latest period for which [20018] figures are available; (3) what the average age was of (a) male and (b) female police officers who joined the police force (i) nationally and (ii) in each constabulary in the latest [20019] period for which figures are available; (4) what the average age was of police officers who joined the police force (a) nationally and (b) in each constabulary in the latest period for which figures are [20020] available; (5) what the average age was of police officers (a) nationally and (b) in each constabulary who retired in the latest period for which figures are available. [20021] Nick Herbert: The available data are provided in the tables. The latest available period is the financial year 2009-10. Figures are collected centrally in the following age categories: 25 and under, 26 to 40, 41 to 55 and over 55. Figures are not collected centrally on average age or by gender. Figures are also not collected centrally on age of joiners or on age of officers who retired.

Police officer strength by force and age group, March 20101,2,3 25 and under

26 to 40

41 to 55

Number

Proportion (%)

Number

Avon and Somerset

113

3

Bedfordshire

108

9

Cambridgeshire

121

8

763

51

597

40

93

4

1,199

55

880

40

Cheshire

Proportion (%)

Number

Proportion (%)

1,720

51

1,519

45

662

52

480

38

Cleveland

91

5

925

53

716

41

Cumbria

65

5

574

45

615

49 44

Derbyshire

129

6

1,029

49

936

Devon and Cornwall

94

3

1,737

48

1,770

49

Dorset

42

3

824

54

651

43

Durham

31

2

770

50

727

47

Dyfed-Powys

64

5

575

47

572

47

519

14

1,773

48

1,345

37

64

5

689

51

581

43

509

6

4,270

52

3,408

41

52

4

787

54

618

42

129

3

2,088

55

1,586

41

Essex Gloucestershire Greater Manchester Gwent Hampshire

197W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

198W

Police officer strength by force and age group, March 20101,2,3 25 and under Number

26 to 40

Proportion (%)

Number

41 to 55 Proportion (%)

Number

Proportion (%)

Hertfordshire

194

9

1,226

56

740

34

Humberside

88

4

980

47

1,015

48

Kent

339

9

2,089

54

1,397

36

Lancashire

220

6

1,938

52

1,534

41

Leicestershire

141

6

1,220

52

972

41

Lincolnshire

83

7

562

46

565

46

London, City of Merseyside Metropolitan Police Norfolk

36

4

389

45

419

49

392

9

2,118

46

2,008

44

2,263

7

17,528

52

13,623

40

113

7

856

50

720

42 42

Northamptonshire

101

7

692

50

574

Northumbria

215

5

2,119

50

1,885

45

North Wales

70

4

768

48

763

47

North Yorkshire

53

4

737

49

712

47

Nottinghamshire

143

6

1,265

52

1,023

42

South Wales

101

3

1,692

53

1,376

43

South Yorkshire

80

3

1,476

49

1,420

47

Staffordshire

57

3

1,137

52

991

45

Suffolk

54

4

652

51

562

44

Surrey

160

8

1,049

54

696

36

Sussex

298

9

1,793

55

1,171

36

Thames Valley

426

9

2,363

52

1,689

37

Warwickshire

32

3

489

50

456

46

West Mercia

111

5

1,165

48

1,126

46

West Midlands

686

8

4,883

56

3,135

36

West Yorkshire

365

6

3,114

53

2,337

40

43

4

537

45

611

51

9,088

6

75,222

52

60,521

41

Wiltshire Total

Over 55 Number

Total Proportion (%)

Headcount Total

Avon and Somerset

25

1

3,377

Bedfordshire

15

1

1,265

Cambridgeshire

12

1

1,493

Cheshire

13

1

2,185

Cleveland

10

1

1,742

Cumbria

10

1

1,264

Derbyshire

16

1

2,110

Devon and Cornwall

31

1

3,632

Dorset

11

1

1,528

Durham

4

0

1,532

Dyfed-Powys

4

0

1,215

37

1

3,674

8

1

1,342

29

0

8,216

9

1

1,466

Hampshire

27

1

3,830

Hertfordshire

17

1

2,177

Humberside

23

1

2,106

Kent

37

1

3,862

7

0

3,699

Leicestershire

18

1

2,351

Lincolnshire

8

1

1,218

London, City of

19

2

863

Merseyside

42

1

4,560

Essex Gloucestershire Greater Manchester Gwent

Lancashire

Metropolitan Police

406

1

33,820

Norfolk

11

1

1,700

Northamptonshire

10

1

1,377

Northumbria

12

0

4,231

North Wales

8

0

1,609

North Yorkshire

5

0

1,507

Nottinghamshire

20

1

2,451

South Wales

20

1

3,189

199W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers

Over 55

200W Total

Number

Proportion (%)

Headcount Total

South Yorkshire

17

1

2,993

Staffordshire

18

1

2,203

9

1

1,277

Suffolk Surrey

23

1

1,928

Sussex

23

1

3,285

Thames Valley

38

1

4,516

Warwickshire

8

1

985

West Mercia

22

1

2,424

West Midlands

61

1

8,765

West Yorkshire

40

1

5,856

14

1

1,205

1,197

1

146,028

Wiltshire Total 1 2 3

Figures are provisional and have not been verified by forces. Figures are on a headcount basis. Force totals will therefore not match published figures, which are on a full-time equivalent basis. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore they may not appear to sum to 100%.

Police: Unidentified Bodies

DEFENCE

Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unidentified bodies were held by police forces in England and Wales on the most [16338] recent date for which figures are available.

Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations

Nick Herbert: On 21 September 2010, the National Policing Improvement Agency’s (NPIA) Missing Persons Bureau database Hermes held 847 open unidentified cases that are being investigated by English and Welsh police forces. This includes 636 unidentified body cases, 68 cases where the remains of bodies were found, or body parts were found, 49 cases where the persons were found alive but could not be identified, and 94 cases where articles are found indicating a disappearance, for example, tents, bicycles, and articles of clothing. These figures reflect data held centrally on that date. In accordance with the code of practice on the collection of missing persons data, police forces are required to notify unidentified people, bodies and body parts to the bureau within 48 hours. Consequently bodies which are identified within 48 hours may not be reported to the bureau. UK Border Agency: Airlines Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which airlines have declined to carry passengers being deported from the UK by the [22208] UK Border Agency. Damian Green [holding answer 8 November 2010]: Airlines have a legal obligation to carry passengers being removed from the UK under the 1971 Immigration Act. This includes cases where the airline has been identified as the inbound carrier and cases where removal is to be carried out at public expense. Historically, almost all airlines will have refused to carry an individual on the basis of highly disruptive behaviour and/or violence prior to take off. The captain of the aircraft has authority to take that decision under the Tokyo Convention. It is not possible therefore to provide an exhaustive list given the volume of enforced removals effected by UK Border Agency (UKBA) (19,570 during 2009). In cases where an individual is offloaded, UKBA will work with the airline to rearrange the removal, including looking at alternative carriers, additional escorts, or the use of charters.

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department has given to changing the rear wheels of the Wolfhound vehicle to a half-track for the purposes of increasing performance during the winter in Afghanistan. [22238] Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence is continually evaluating the performance of all vehicle fleets. There currently is no requirement to adapt the Wolfhound’s capability by designing a half-track variant which would not offer a performance advantage over the range of vehicles currently deployed on operations in Afghanistan. Army: Northern Ireland Mr Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to transfer the Brigade Headquarters of the 19th Light Brigade from Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, to Great Britain; and if he will [22826] make a statement; (2) what plans he has to (a) withdraw soldiers from Ballykinler Army base and (b) relocate them to Great Britain; and what plans he has for the future role of the [22827] base. Nick Harvey: As announced by the Prime Minister on 19 October 2010 as part of the strategic defence and security review the Army will undergo a major restructuring. The transformation over the next 10 years to Future Force 2020 will provide five self-supporting multi-role brigades and one specialist brigade, reducing by one the number of deployable brigades. Detailed work is now under way to consider how this will be implemented. All areas of the Army and its estate requirements are being scrutinised, and it is therefore too early to say what the outcome will be for specific units, bases and individuals. Atomic Weapons Establishment Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complete Chevaline warheads were manufactured at the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and what the maximum size was of the total stockpile [20128] of complete Chevaline warheads.

201W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Dr Fox: We have no plans to publish historical information on the number of Chevaline nuclear warheads in the UK stockpile. Chinook Helicopters Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of procuring the 12 new Chinook helicopters referred to in the strategic defence and [20022] security review. Peter Luff: The cost of the 12 new Chinook helicopters will be determined at the project’s main gate, the timing of which is subject to the ongoing planning round. Defence Support Group: Redundancy Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 28 October 2010, Official Report, column 14WS, on staff reductions, by how many he expects the staff complement at each location to be reduced by 2013. [22296]

Peter Luff: Work is currently in hand to identify the number of staff reductions required at those Defence Support Group sites likely to be affected by the announcement. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is concluded. Defence: Communication

Written Answers

202W

Peter Luff: The industrial implications of the key strategic defence and security review choices were given careful consideration. We have not made a specific assessment of the impact of the reduction in the Department’s budget on Rolls-Royce or any other individual companies. As part of the SDSR implementation process, we are now engaging in an extensive programme of commercial negotiations, some of which will lead to the cancellation of contracts. This work will focus on the areas where there have been the most significant changes in the SDSR, but is expected to involve all of the Ministry of Defence’s key suppliers. European Strike Fighter Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) civil servants and (b) military personnel are assigned to the procurement of the [22580] Eurofighter Typhoon programme. Peter Luff: As at 4 November 2010, the Defence Equipment and Support (DE and S) Typhoon Team has the following numbers of civil servants and military personnel assigned to management of the procurement and through-life support of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Number of personnel Civilian Military Total

160 86 246

Guided Weapons Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps he plans to take to reduce his Department’s expenditure on media and [19648] communications; (2) whether the steps he intends to take to reduce his Department’s expenditure on media and [19647] communications will include redundancies. Dr Fox: We are taking a number of steps to further reduce expenditure on Defence media and communications. These include reducing the amount we spend on marketing and advertising as part of a Government-wide freeze, merging some functions, reducing the number of websites and internal publications, and deleting posts dealing with lower priority work. Details of the reductions in Defence manpower set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review White Paper, will be developed as part of the wider departmental implementation of SDSR and the work of the Defence Reform Unit. The scale of post reductions across Ministry of Defence will require redundancy or early release schemes for both military and civilian personnel. It is not possible at this stage to say whether it will be necessary to include media and communications personnel within those schemes.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of adjustments to the D5 Missile extension programme consequent on the proposed reduction in the number [19728] of missiles. Dr Fox: An assessment is under way of the financial implications for the D5 missile extension programme arising from the Strategic Defence and Security Review decisions. It is, therefore, too early to provide a meaningful estimate. Nuclear Weapons: Expenditure Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which budgetary headings he expects the proposed reduction in expenditure on the nuclear [19578] weapons programme to be made. Dr Fox: The £750 million referred to in the Strategic Defence and Security Review is split between submarine platform costs and the nuclear weapons programme and is planned to occur across the first four financial years of the spending review period, financial years 2011-12 to 2015-16.

Defence: Procurement

Service Personnel: Reductions

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely effect of reductions in his Department’s budget on (a) Rolls-Royce and (b) other companies and their [22487] suppliers.

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with the First Sea Lord on (a) meeting current commitments and (b) the planned reduction in the number of Royal [19540] Navy personnel;

203W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

(2) what discussions he has had with Chief of the General Staff on (a) meeting current commitments and (b) the planned reduction in the number of Army [19541] personnel; (3) what discussions he has had with the Chief of the Air Staff on (a) meeting current commitments and (b) the planned reduction in the number of Royal Air [19542] Force personnel; Dr Fox: The full range of issues associated with the Strategic Defence and Security Review were discussed in the Defence Strategy Group, which included all five Chiefs, including the First Sea Lord, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff. Strategic Defence and Security Review Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with (a) members of the armed forces, (b) representatives of the defence manufacturing industry, (c) academic institutions and (d) other organisations during the [19580] Strategic Defence and Security Review. Dr Fox: I invited contributions to the Strategic Defence and Security Review in July 2010. The Ministry of Defence received over 6,000 responses from MPs, members of the armed forces, public servants within and beyond defence, industry, academics and the public. The MOD also engaged a wide variety of external organisations during the SDSR, including NATO, principal UK and international think tanks and academic institutes, NGOs, industry organisations and service veterans’ and families’ organisations. Trident Submarines Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of extending the life of the current fleet of Vanguard [19733] submarines to 2028. Dr Fox: Detailed costings are at an early stage, but to accommodate the deferral of the successor submarine in service date from 2024-28, we expect to spend around an additional £1.2 billion in maintaining the Vanguard Class. The overall impact of the changes identified by the value for money study and reported in the strategic defence and security review will reduce costs by £3.2 billion over the next 10 years. Warships Sheryll Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the likely effects of the proposed reduction of the number of hulls in the surface fleet on the Royal Navy’s capacity to discharge [22199] current commitments. Nick Harvey: I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology (Peter Luff) gave on 26 October 2010, Official Report, column 204W, to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy).

Written Answers

204W

JUSTICE Driving Offences Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of prosecutions brought in respect of the death of a pedestrian in an accident involving a (a) bicycle and (b) motor vehicle resulted in a conviction in each of the last five years. [23022] Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data reported centrally do not include the circumstances of each case. For example statistical information available on motoring offences do not identify if the victim was a pedestrian or, other than where specified in the statute, the type of vehicle involved in the offence. Arrest Warrants Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many arrest warrant applications were made to district judges by private individuals in the period 1 January 1995 to 1 January 2010 in respect of an offence under (a) section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (endangering safety at aerodrome), (b) sections 9 to 14 of that Act (hijacking of ships etc) and (c) sections 1 to 3 of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997; and how many such applications were (i) refused and (ii) granted in respect [22281] of suspects of each nationality; (2) how many arrest warrant applications were made to district judges by private individuals in the period 1 January 1995 to 1 January 2010 in respect of an offence under (a) section 1, 2 or 6 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (hijacking), (b) sections 1 to 2A of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 (offences relating to nuclear material) and (c) section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture); and how many such applications were (i) refused and (ii) granted in [22282] respect of suspects of each nationality; (3) how many arrest warrant applications were made to District Judges by private individuals in the period 1 January 1995 to 1 January 2010 in respect of (a) offences relating to piracy or an offence under section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 (piracy where murder is attempted), (b) an offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (grave breaches of Geneva conventions) and (c) an offence under section 1 of Taking Hostages Act 1982 (hostagetaking); and how many such warrants were (i) refused and (ii) granted in respect of suspects of each [22286] nationality. Mr Kenneth Clarke: The information sought is not recorded. However, such applications are generally heard at the City of Westminster magistrates court, and staff there are aware of ten applications for arrest warrants in respect of universal jurisdiction offences in the last ten years. It is public knowledge that two applications were granted. Six of the applications related to allegations of grave breaches of the Geneva conventions under the 1957 Act, and four to allegations of torture under the 1988 Act.

205W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) which (a) individuals, (b) organisations and (c) foreign governments were invited to comment on his Department’s note of 20 March 2010 on arrest [22391] warrants-universal jurisdiction; (2) what (a) individuals, (b) organisations and (c) foreign governments responded to his Department’s note of 20 March 2010, on arrest warrants-universal jurisdiction; and whether he plans to publish those [22406] responses. Mr Kenneth Clarke: The following organisations and individuals were invited to comment on the note of March 2010: the Lord Chief Justice the Senior Presiding Judge the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) the Justices’ Clerks’ Society the Criminal Bar Association the Law Society Liberty JUSTICE Amnesty International the District Bench (Magistrates Courts) Legal Committee the Jewish Leadership Council.

Comments were received from: the Justices’ Clerks’ Society the Criminal Bar Association Liberty JUSTICE the Jewish Leadership Council Hickman and Rose, Solicitors the Board of Deputies of British Jews Labour Friends of Israel Middle East Monitor the Palestinian Forum of Britain.

The comments have not been published but have been made available on request. No foreign governments were invited to comment and none did so. Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what meetings he has had with representatives of foreign governments on universal jurisdiction and [22407] arrest warrants since 20 March 2010. Mr Kenneth Clarke: I have had no such meetings. Chief Coroner Pat Glass: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has received on public opinion on his proposals to close the Office of the Chief Coroner; and if he will make a statement. [22597]

Mr Djanogly: Following my statement of 14 October 2010, Official Report, columns 37-38WS, I met with organisations and charities that have an interest in the coroners system to discuss the proposals for reform and the abolition of the Office of Chief Coroner. I am committed to continue working with them in taking forward our proposals to improve the system for the

206W

benefit of bereaved people. I have written to the hon. Lady in response to her letter to me of 21 October 2010 with further detail on our proposed reforms to the service. This was one of a number of letters I have received on this matter. Community Orders Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 November 2010, Official Report, columns 516-20W, on sentencing, what estimate he has made of the average time between a community sentence being issued for an offence of each type and the recipient starting their designated programme of action. [22998] Mr Blunt: Waiting times for designated programmes are managed locally by each probation trust. This information is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by obtaining information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response. Criminal Injuries Compensation Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) whether he plans to bring forward proposals to change the categories of people eligible for compensation under the Criminal Injuries [22387] Compensation scheme; (2) whether he plans to change the monetary value of awards made under the Criminal Injuries [22388] Compensation scheme; (3) whether the Government have commissioned research into options for the reform of the Criminal [22389] Injuries Compensation scheme; (4) what plans he has for the future funding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme in each of the [22398] next four years. Mr Blunt: The Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme is currently subject to review. No decisions have been made. Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) in respect of how many cases under consideration by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority the claimant had not been notified of a resolution on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many of those cases had been filed more than (a) six, (b) 12, (c) 18 and (d) 24 months [22390] prior to that date; (2) how many compensation awards to victims of crime are outstanding; and how many such people have been waiting for such awards for more than (a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) one [22400] year. Mr Blunt: The information requested is set out in the following table Number Outstanding cases as at 30 Sept 2010

49,667

Cases less than six months

24,320

207W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Number Greater than six but less than 12 months

9,265

Greater than 12 but less than 18 months

6,817

Greater than 18 but less than 24 months

2,448

Greater than 24 months

6,817

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the monetary value is of outstanding [22399] compensation payments to victims of crime. Mr Blunt: The monetary value of outstanding compensation payments to victims of crime is £598.6 million. Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many award decisions made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in the last 12 months have been referred to the Tribunals Service (Criminal Injuries Compensation); and how many such tribunals have (a) overturned and (b) amended such [22401] an award decision. Mr Blunt: The information requested is set out in the following table and relates to tariff cases which have been referred to the Tribunals Service. Number Cases appealed in last 12 months

3,192

Heard

2,909

Overturned

1,341

Amended

324

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he made of the mean average compensation payment paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in each year since its [22402] inception. Mr Blunt: The information requested is set out in the following table.

Written Answers

208W

Mr Kenneth Clarke: My Department is developing firm plans to deliver its priorities within the funding baselines announced in the spending review. We will be consulting widely on proposals for change but as yet no internal budgets have been set. Preliminary estimates suggest that the Department will lose around 14,000-15,000 posts, including a significant reduction in our headquarters and administrative areas. Where possible, staff reduction will be through natural turnover and voluntary redundancy, avoiding compulsory redundancies if possible. My Department’s response to the spending review marks the beginning of a programme of radical change which will fundamentally reform the way justice is provided by 2015. I am confident that the process will lead to a transformed Ministry of Justice which is efficient, transparent, and affordable. Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of staff redundancy in each of the next [21543] four years. Mr Kenneth Clarke: My Department is developing firm plans to deliver its priorities within the funding baselines announced in the spending review. We will be consulting widely on proposals for change but as yet no internal budgets have been set. We are therefore currently unable to provide estimates of the costs of staff redundancy for the years in question. Where possible, staff reduction will be through natural turnover and voluntary redundancy, avoiding compulsory redundancies if possible. Employment Tribunals Service Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2010, Official Report, columns 350-1W, on the Employment Tribunals Service, how much was paid out in compensation in each category in each such year. [22261]

Mean cases values (including all cases resulting in a nil payment) FY End £ 1997

1,411

1998

1,402

1999

1,477

2000

1,494

2001

1,606

2002

1,719

2003

1,975

2004

2,203

2005

2,409

2006

2,537

2007

2,757

2008

2,972

2009

3,637

Departmental Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of redundancies arising from the spending reductions proposed in the comprehensive spending review in respect of (a) his Department, (b) its nondepartmental public bodies and (c) other public bodies which are dependent on his Department for funding. [21542]

Mr Djanogly: Compensation awards are recorded by the Tribunal Service for the discrimination and unfair dismissal jurisdictions. For other types of claims any award by the Employment Tribunal will be a statutory entitlement, such as a redundancy payment or unpaid paid wages, rather than an award of compensation. Table 1 shows the compensation awards of which the Tribunal is aware for the financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10. Further, statistical information published annually by the Tribunals Service includes a breakdown of the maximum awards, median awards and average awards in each type of case where such data is recorded centrally. To set the information in Table 1 in context, Table 2 shows the median awards made in each jurisdiction, in each of the three relevant financial years. In 2009-10, the median award across all jurisdictions for which the Tribunals Service collates data was £5,056. Table 1: Total compensation awarded in discrimination and unfair dismissal claims in financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10 £ Financial year Jurisdiction Unfair Dismissal

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

20,564,500

19,819,100

26,319,300

209W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Table 1: Total compensation awarded in discrimination and unfair dismissal claims in financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10 £ Financial year Jurisdiction

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Race Discrimination

946,800

2,183,900

1,263,700

Sex Discrimination

1,700,700

1,907,300

2,924,900

Disability Discrimination

1,796,100

2,206,000

3,802,300

Religious Belief Discrimination

6,400

31,800

34,200

60,600

94,700

305,800

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Age Discrimination Total

73,300

186,200

306,100

25,148,500

26,429,100

34,956,200

Notes: 1. The compensation figures are those of which the Tribunal is aware, The Tribunals keeps records on compensation awarded for the discrimination and Unfair dismissal jurisdictions. 2. All judgments are held in the public registry in Bury St Edmunds or Glasgow. 3. All figures are independently rounded and thus may not add to totals. The following conventions have been used: Values from 100 to 999 are rounded to nearest 10; Values of 1,000 and over are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: ET Annual Reports 2007-08 to 2009-10

£ Financial year

Unfair Dismissal

210W

Employment Tribunal Applications’, details of which can be found at the following link: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/ docs/10-756-findings-from-seta-2008

This includes some data on legal costs for both respondents and claimants. Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2010, Official Report, columns 350-51W, on the Employment Tribunals Service, what estimate has been made of the number of complaints in each category classified as [22263] vexatious that were dismissed. Mr Djanogly: Information in relation to the number of complaints that were classified as vexatious and were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal is not collated and held centrally by the Tribunals Service. The information can be provided only at a disproportionate cost by manually checking individual case files and records.

Table 2: Median compensation awarded in discrimination and unfair dismissal claim in financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10

Jurisdiction

Written Answers

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

4,000

4,269

4,903

Race Discrimination

8,120

5,172

5,392

Sex Discrimination

5,200

7,000

6,275

Disability Discrimination

8,363

7,226

8,553

Religious Belief Discrimination

1

—

4,291

5,000

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

2,103

15,351

5,000

Age Discrimination

1,526

3,000

5,868

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2010, Official Report, columns 350-1W, on the Employment Tribunals Service, what the average length of time was [22264] of a hearing in each category. Mr Djanogly: The following table gives the overall average time taken, in minutes, for a hearing at an employment tribunal, and a jurisdictional average. This information is management information and is used for internal purposes only; it has not been validated and relies on manual data input. Average hearing times, in minutes, for claims at an employment tribunal 2007-08 to 2009-10 Minutes 2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

246

250

224

1

Not recorded. Notes: 1. Compensation awarded is that of which the tribunal is aware and entered onto IT systems. For awards in cases of Discrimination there is no statutory cap. 2. The Tribunals keeps records on compensation awarded for the discrimination and Unfair dismissal jurisdictions. 3. All judgments are held in the public registry in Bury St Edmunds or Glasgow. 4. Religious Belief Discrimination: there were only two awards recorded centrally in FY 2007-08; therefore, the average and median values are the same, £3,203. Source: ET Annual Reports 2007-08 to 2009-10

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2010, Official Report, columns 350-1W, on the Employment Tribunals Service, whether his Department holds information on the (a) legal costs incurred by claimants whose claims were (i) upheld and (ii) dismissed and (b) the proportion of such costs which were paid by the employer in each case in each such [22262] year. Mr Djanogly: Information in relation to legal costs incurred by claimants and the proportion of such costs which were paid by the employer is not held by the Tribunals Service. In March the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a report in March, the ‘Survey of

All claims Average length of hearing By jurisdiction Unfair dismissal

276

275

251

Unauthorised deduction from wages (formerly Wages Act)

197

193

172

Breach of contract

217

208

187

Sex discrimination

266

285

284

Working time directive

204

193

173

Redundancy pay

130

120

110

Disability discrimination

255

264

232

Redundancy—failure to inform and consult

109

154

178

Equal pay

189

242

283

Race discrimination

390

438

368

Written statement of terms and conditions

202

205

195

Written statement of reasons for dismissal

226

291

224

Written pay statement

175

172

164

Transfer of an undertaking— failure to inform and consult

246

214

219

Suffer a detriment/unfair dismissal—pregnancy

250

227

235

Part time workers regulations

314

248

188

National minimum wage

187

231

254

Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief

422

424

370

211W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Average hearing times, in minutes, for claims at an employment tribunal 2007-08 to 2009-10 Minutes

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

338

276

258

Age discrimination

212

260

237

Others = All other jurisdictions combined

352

383

326

Foreign Nationals: Bereavement Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what budget his Department has allocated for helping foreign nationals bereaved by murder and [22899] manslaughter while in the UK in 2010-11. Mr Blunt: Lead responsibility for ensuring provision of support services and assistance to victims of crime rests with the Ministry of Justice. In 2009-10 the Ministry of Justice provided funding of £38.2 million to Victim Support to support their work across England and Wales. Victim Support provides assistance to victims of crime in England and Wales, regardless of their nationality. An additional £250,000 was provided to specialist organisations providing support to relatives bereaved by murder and manslaughter from the Victims Fund and £140,000 to the organisation Support after Murder and Manslaughter. For 2010-11 the Ministry of Justice has allocated £45 million for Victim Support, £140,000 for Support After Murder and Manslaughter and £270,474 for specialist organisations supporting bereaved relatives via the Victims Fund. Grandparents Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to bring forward proposals to extend the rights of grandparents to have access to their grandchildren following a divorce or separation.

Written Answers

212W

funding allocated to North Wales by HMCS Wales was £8,039,170 which included staff and judicial salary payments, estates maintenance costs, including security, cleaning, utility costs, judicial costs and other office expenditure. Additionally HMCS in Wales allocated a further £1,762,000 for capital estates schemes in North Wales that included refurbishment works and essential improvements that ensured compliance of legislative responsibilities. Funding allocations for court services in North Wales for 2010–11 currently stands at £7,546,155. Additionally HMCS in Wales allocated a further £2,888,000 for capital estates schemes in North Wales that included works and essential improvements that ensured compliance of legislative responsibilities and an integration scheme at Wrexham. HMCS is unable to confirm the level of funding that will be provided for North Wales for 2011-12. HMCS and HM Tribunals service will merge to form a new agency on 1 April 2011. The settlement for HMCTS has yet to be agreed. Information Commissioner Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what meetings the Information Commissioner has had with his international counterparts in the last 24 months. [22244] Mr Djanogly: The Information Commissioner and his staff regularly meet their international counterparts. Meetings include attendance at the annual International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners; the European Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners’ Conference; the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Joint Supervisory Authority for Customs and the Schengen information System. Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

[22222]

Mr Djanogly: The Family Justice Review, which is currently under way, is considering how best to promote further contact rights for non-resident parents and grandparents following the breakdown of a relationship, as well as the wider issues around the family justice system. The Review Panel, which is independently chaired, is due to issue an interim report in March 2011 and a final report in the autumn of 2011, following a full, national consultation.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average annual salary is of an employee in the Office of the Information [22245] Commissioner. Mr Djanogly: The average full-time equivalent salary of an employee of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), including the Information Commissioner, is £26,422.

HM Courts Service: Wales

Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much funding he allocated to the Court Service in North Wales in 2009-10; and how much such funding he plans to allocate in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many staff are employed by the Office of [22246] the Information Commissioner.

[22258]

Mr Djanogly: Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS) is responsible for administration of courts in England and Wales. HMCS allocates financial resource to Wales and the six regions of England; however some costs for providing court services in Wales such as payment of rent and rates are met nationally. During 2009-10 the

Mr Djanogly: On 31 October 2010, 354 staff (equivalent to 330 full-time staff) were employed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This includes the Information Commissioner. Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

213W

Written Answers

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) annual salary and (b) benefits including (i) car scheme, (ii) pension contributions, (iii) bonus payments and (iv) expenses payments were of (A) each Deputy Information Commissioner, (B) the Director of Corporate Affairs, (C) the Director of Operations, (D) the Director of Organisational

214W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Development and (E) each non-executive Director in the Office of the Information Commissioner in the last [22250] 24 months. Mr Djanogly: The annual salary and pension contributions for the Information Commissioner’s executive team are set out in the following table in £5,000 pay bands:

Deputy Commissioner (1—Data Protection)

Deputy Commissioner (2—Freedom of Information)

Director of Corporate Affairs

Director of Operations

Director of Organisational Development

Annual salary1

£70,000-£75,000

£80,000-£85,000

£55,000-£60,000

£75,000-£80,000

£50,000-£55,000

Pension contributions

£15,000-£20,000

£20,000-£25,000

£10,000-£15,000

£20,000-£25,000

£10,000-£15,000

Annual salary2

£75,000-£80,000

£80,000-£85,000

£55,000-£60,000

£80,000-£85,000

£50,000-£55,000

Pension contributions

£15,000-£20,000

£20,000-£25,000

£10,000-£15,000

£20,000-£25,000

£10,000-£15,000

2008-09

2009-10

1

From 1 July 2008 2 From 1 July 2009

The remuneration packages and expenses for the Information Commissioner and members of his executive team are published in the Information Commissioner’s annual report 2009-10, which was laid before Parliament in July 2010. There was no increase in the salaries or pension contributions from the 2009-10 financial year to the 2010-11 financial year for members of the executive team. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) does not operate a car scheme. However, members of the executive team have access to a cash health plan on subscription with a value of £60 per annum. Members of the executive team are eligible for bonus payments of £250 per annum. The ICO has four non-executive directors. They each receive a salary of £12,000 a year, which is non-pensionable. The non-executive directors are required to work 15 days per year and they are not entitled to bonus payments or additional benefits. The expenses for members of the executive team (excluding the Information Commissioner) and the nonexecutive directors are set out in the following table: Expense claims paid in the following financial years

Expense claims paid in the following financial years £ 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-111

Enid Rowlands (appointed 1 December 2009)

n/a

323

163

Jane May (appointed 1 May 2010)

n/a

n/a

445

Andrew Hind (appointed 1 September 2010)

n/a

n/a

0

1

Until 31 October 2010

Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was spent by the management board of the Office of the Information Commissioner on (a) taxi fares and (b) other transport in the last 24 months. [22251]

Mr Djanogly: The management board comprises the executive and non-executive directors. Expenditure by the management board on taxis and other transport since the 2008-09 financial year is set out as follows:

£ 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-111

Executive team members

£ Financial year

Taxis

Other transport 70,754

1,381

993

318

2008-09

6,031

Vicky Best

698

696

0

2009-10

4,764

45,792

Susan Fox

1,194

618

252

591

20,705

David Smith

8,859

5,284

638

Graham Smith

1,969

868

109

Alistair Graham (stepped down 30 November 2009)

879

536

n/a

Clare Tickell (stepped down 30 April 2010)

810

1,126

111

David Clarke (stepped down 30 November 2009)

818

932

n/a

Robert Chilton (stepped down 31 August 2010)

880

900

180

Neil Masom (appointed 1 December 2009)

n/a

0

0

Simon Entwisle

Non-executive team members

2010-11 (up to 31 October 2010)

Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the annual leave entitlement is of each member of the management board of the Office of the [22252] Information Commissioner. Mr Djanogly: The Management Board comprises the Executive Team and the non-executive directors. The Executive Team members are entitled to annual leave of

215W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

25, 27 or 30 days per annum depending on their length of service. Non-executive directors are not entitled to annual leave. Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the annual (a) revenue and (b) capital budget was for the Office of the Information Commissioner in each year since it was established. [22253]

Mr Djanogly: This information is being collated. I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as possible. Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which buildings the Office of the Information Commissioner (a) owns and (b) rents; and how much funding the Office of the Information Commissioner allocated to property expenditure in the last 24 months. [22255]

Mr Djanogly: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) owns no buildings. The ICO leases the following properties: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire (entire building) Cambrian Buildings, Mount Stuart Square, Cardiff (part floor) 51 Adelaide Street, Belfast (one floor).

In addition, the ICO occupies the following properties under licence: 93-95 Hanover Street, Edinburgh (part floor) Millbank Tower, London (part floor) Earl Road, Nr Cheadle, Cheshire (storage space).

The following table outlines expenditure on property, which includes rent, rates and refurbishment costs. Financial year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-111 1 Up until 31 October 2010.

Cost in £ 1,217,000 970,000 2,763,541

The increase in expenditure between 2009-10 and 2010-11 reflects the refurbishment costs of Wycliffe House. Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) highest and (b) lowest salary is of an employee in the Office of the Information [22256] Commissioner. Mr Djanogly: The highest salary of £140,000 is paid to the Information Commissioner and is published in his annual report. The lowest salary paid to an employee of the ICO is within the salary band £11,939 to £16,152. Note: This information was provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Written Answers

216W

Judges: Public Appointments Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects to announce the changes his Department proposes to the way in which judicial appointments are made; and if he will make a [22409] statement. Mr Kenneth Clarke: On 28 June I announced my intention to review the operation of the judicial appointments process in close consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. We have decided that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman will remain in place as valued independent bodies, which do much to bring openness to the way candidates are selected for judicial appointments. However, it is clear that at times the appointments process can take too long and cost too much. The first duty of the Commission is to maintain the high quality of Judicial appointments but I believe that the JAC should also focus on delivering efficiency in the selection of judges, working with the judiciary and the unified Courts and Tribunals Service. The recruitment of the new Chair of the JAC is underway and, with the Lord Chief Justice, I look forward to working with the Commission on more detailed proposals for improving the appointments process, in the first instance within the existing statutory framework. Any subsequent proposals requiring legislation would be brought forward in the usual way. Prison Sentences Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to review the powers in respect of indeterminate public protection sentences under the [22647] Criminal Justice Act 2003. Mr Blunt: We have announced that we are conducting an assessment of sentencing. The sentencing assessment is looking at the full range of penalties and restorative measures available in the criminal justice system including sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We will publish a Green Paper later this year, setting out plans to reform sentencing and rehabilitate offenders more effectively. Prisons: Employment Mr Charles Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what expenditure his Department has incurred on employment support for prisoners in England and Wales in the latest period for which figures are available; and what percentage of prisoners secure employment within six months of release in that [22850] period. Mr Blunt: No such information is held centrally. There is considerable employment support work undertaken to help prisoners across the NOMS estate. Expenditure for this work is part of prison baseline funding and it is not currently possible to disaggregate the costs. A considerable amount of work in this area is also undertaken in partnership with the Department of Business Innovation and Skills as well as the Department of Work and Pensions.

217W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

In 2009-10, 24.5%1 of prisoners discharged from prison entered employment upon release. NOMS does not track the employment status of discharged prisoners within six months of their release date.

Written Answers

218W

Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department plans to allocate to the construction of an airfield on St Helena. [22651]

1

NOMS Annual Report for 2009-10 Employment on Release figures. Employment outcomes were expressed as a proportion of recorded discharges. Performance was calculated using recorded employment status and discharge data. The National Offender Management Service Annual Report and Accounts for 2009-10 was published on 9 September 2010.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Developing Countries: Climate Change Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development under which budget headings he plans to allocate the £2.9 billion funding for climate finance announced in the comprehensive [22767] spending review. Mr O’Brien: The £2.9 billion International Climate Fund (ICF), funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will be used to support adaptation and low carbon development and to help tackle deforestation in developing countries. Specific spending decisions have not yet been made. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the £2.9 billion allocated to climate finance in the comprehensive spending review includes all of the UK’s £1.5 billion share of the fast-start finance pledged at Copenhagen. [22768]

Mr O’Brien: No. Part of the UK’s Fast Start commitment will be spent in 2010-11, before the new spending review period, which runs from 2011-12 to 2014-15. Spending on Fast Start in 2011-12 and 2012-13 will come from the International Climate Fund (ICF), which is budgeted for in the new spending review period. Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of international climate finance he expects to be delivered in the form of loans in the period from 2010 to 2015. [22769]

Mr O’Brien: UK international climate finance will include grants and loans. The balance between them will depend on specific spending decisions that have not yet been made. St Helena: Airfields Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether funding provided by his Department for the construction of an airfield on St Helena will be classified as official development [22644] assistance. Mr Duncan: All the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s) support for St Helena, including any funding proposed for the airport, meets the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Mr Duncan: It would be inappropriate to announce the proposed funding allocation for the St Helena airport, since doing so could prejudice our future commercial negotiations. Sub-Saharan Africa: Cotton Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has undertaken of the effects of European Union cotton subsidies on farmers in sub-Saharan Africa; and if he [22226] will make a statement. Mr O’Brien: The UK Government have supported significant research into the impacts of cotton subsidies on African farmers, including EU cotton subsidies. These subsidies have a significant negative impact on farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and their removal is a key objective of the UK Government. The Department for International Development (DFID) will work closely with DEFRA to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy and eliminate direct support to the EU cotton sector. ATTORNEY-GENERAL Google Robert Halfon: To ask the Attorney-General what representations the Crown Prosecution Service has received on prosecution of Google for illegal offences under (a) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and (b) the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 in respect of its Street View project; and if he will make a [22705] statement. The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was contacted by Avon and Somerset police in May of this year for advice on what its likely view would be on prosecuting Google for potential offences arising out of its “Street View” project. The CPS position is that if, following an investigation, a file were to be submitted to the CPS, then the case would be reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and dealt with accordingly. No other representations are known to have been received, although such requests would not be collated centrally. Human Trafficking: Prosecutions Stephen Phillips: To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Government is taking to increase the proportion of prosecutions of those engaged in human [22378] trafficking which result in conviction. The Solicitor-General: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Attorney-General to the oral parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on 26 October 2010, Official Report, columns 161-62. Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Prosecutions Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought under section 35 of the Offences Against the

219W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Person Act 1861 for the offence of wanton and furious driving in the last five years; how many such prosecutions there have been in each such year; and what proportion of the prosecutions relating to the riding of a bicycle in each such year resulted in a conviction with a (a) custodial sentence of (i) two years and (ii) between one and two years and (iii) less than one year, (b) fine and (c) community sentence [23023] order. The Solicitor-General: The records held by the Crown Prosecution Service identify the number of offences charged under Section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in which a prosecution commenced, rather than the number of defendants prosecuted. During the last five years the number of these offences was as follows: Number 2005-06

33

2006-07

26

2007-08

18

2008-09

31

2009-10

25

CPS records do not identify the number of defendants prosecuted for specific offences. Rather, they show the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced and reached a first hearing in magistrates courts. CPS records do not identify the proportion of offences in which a bicycle was involved. The following table outlines the total number of people sentenced under the above Act for causing bodily harm by furious driving where that was the principal offence sentenced. The Ministry of Justice data does not record how many of these cases involved bicycles. Persons sentenced to immediate custody, by sentence band, or other outcome for causing bodily harm by furious driving1, England and Wales, 2005-092, 3 Outcome

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total sentenced

8

7

5

11

12

Immediate custody

2

4

0

4

5

Less than one year

1

3

0

1

3

Over one year and less than two years

7

1

0

3

2

2 years

0

0

0

0

0

Fine

l

0

0

0

1

Community sentence

4

1

1

2

3

Suspended sentence

0

2

4

5

3

Discharges

1

0

0

0

0

Otherwise dealt with

0

0

0

0

0

Written Answers

220W

Rape: Prosecutions Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Attorney-General what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing prosecutions for rape; and if he will make a [22854] statement. The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is committed to ensuring that offenders are brought to justice through successful prosecutions, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The CPS works with the police and others partners to ensure that investigations and prosecutions are as effective as possible; and that victims are given appropriate support. Sovereignty of Parliament Stephen Phillips: To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received on the judicial [22411] basis for parliamentary sovereignty. The Solicitor-General: By long-standing convention, observed by successive Administrations and embodied in the Ministerial Code, the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have been requested to advise (or have not advised or have not been requested to advise) on a particular issue, and the content of any advice, is not disclosed outside Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION Accommodation Mr Knight: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff in the House of Commons Service are provided with (a) overnight and (b) residential accommodation and facilities other than a worktime office; what positions are held by such persons; what accommodation is provided; and for [22509] what reason in each case.

Of which:

1

Offences against the Person Act 1861 S.35 The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 3 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Justice Statistics—Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice 2

Sir Stuart Bell: The House of Commons provides single-room hostel-style sleeping accommodation in John Islip street, for up to 17 staff who undertake occasional late duties. Staff including doorkeepers and administrative staff are eligible to use the sleeping accommodation provided they satisfy the following guidelines: They are expected to be on duty to support the House or its Committees after 10.30 pm and they live outside the 25 mile taxi radius. They are on duty until the rising of the House if this is expected to be after 7.30 pm and they are required for duty before 8.30 am the following day. There is a departmental business reason and they have prior approval.

In addition, sleeping facilities on the estate are provided for the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Assistant Serjeant at Arms, Clerk Assistant, Clerk of Committees, Clerk of Legislation, Assistant Secretary to the Speaker and the Speaker’s Trainbearer. This reflects the requirement that they are present on the parliamentary estate over prolonged periods and at unpredictable times. Six staff are entitled to residential accommodation so that they can be available for duty at short notice. They are the Clerk of the House, Serjeant at Arms, Speaker’s

221W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Secretary, Head Office Keeper and two Senior Office Keepers. The addresses of the accommodation are: 2 Parliament street, 3 Parliament street, 2a Canon row, 2b Canon row, 4 Canon row and a flat at 102 Rochester row. Early Day Motions Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the cost to the House of Commons Service was of processing early-day motions in Session [22571] (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2009-10. Sir Stuart Bell: The estimated cost to the House of administering and processing early-day motions (EDMs) in financial year 2009-10 was approximately £1 million. Figures for the previous year are not readily available but there is no reason to suppose that they were significantly different in real terms, other than that the number of EDMs tabled may be higher in a longer session. Most of this cost was accounted for by printing and publication of early-day motions, amendments to them, and names added to them, under the House’s contract with TSO. This cost nearly £776,000 in 2009-10. Expenditure is incurred on staff time to process and input notices relating to early-day motions, and to index that material. Staff who deal with EDMs also undertake other duties, but a rough estimate of the full salary costs incurred from the estimated amount of their time spent on EDMs, including employer’s pension contribution and national insurance, is of the order of £150,000 for 2009-10. In addition, technical support for the EDMi database and the Table Office’s software application for processing EDMs cost approximately £87,000 in 2009-10.

222W

Sir Stuart Bell: The basic salary payable to Members is £65,738 per annum as at 1 November 2010. At that date, 78 staff were paid an annual salary above this figure. A list of the posts in the Senior Commons Structure and at pay band Al, which have pay maxima higher than Members’ current salary, will be placed in the Library, together with the individual pay of SCS2 and SCS3 staff in £5,000 bands. Details of the staff pay bands and staff pay arrangements are available on the parliamentary intranet. The salaries of Members of the Board of Management are disclosed in the House of Commons: Administration annual accounts. Official Report: Finance Mr Knight: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the total cost was of producing an edition of the Official Report to record the Youth Parliament debate on 29 October 2010; and from what [22729] budget the money will be drawn. Sir Stuart Bell: Official Report staff produced the report of the Youth Parliament debate on 29 October 2010; no additional staff costs were incurred. Parliamentary Print Services produced the printed copies of the report at a cost of £186. This will come from the budget of the Department of Chamber and Committee Services. UK Youth Parliament Philip Davies: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the cost to the public purse was under each budgetary heading of hosting the UK Youth Parliament debate on Friday 29 October 2010. [22239]

Genetically Modified Organisms: Food Sir Stuart Bell: The additional cost was: Mr Knight: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether any (a) genetically modified and (b) irradiated food is served or offered for sale in House of Commons catering and retail outlets. [22510] Sir Stuart Bell: In line with its procurement policy, the House of Commons Catering Service avoids, wherever identifiable, the procurement of foods that contain genetically modified organisms. To this end, as part of the tendering process, food suppliers are required to work to a strict GMO policy and give assurances that goods supplied be free from genetically modified materials. In line with guidance from the Food Standards Agency there is no defined policy which covers the procurement of irradiated foods; however the House of Commons Catering Service does not knowingly purchase any foodstuffs that are irradiated. House of Commons: Pay Mr Knight: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff employed in the House of Commons Service on 1 November 2010 earned as much as or more than an hon. Member; and what the (a) posts and (b) current salaries are of [22511] such staff.

Budget

£

Catering Broadcasting Printing Training Photographs Supplies Total

8,689 8,415 1,278 1,500 760 216 20,858

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT BBC: Broadband Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will bring forward proposals to provide independent access to broadband for providers dependent on BBC licence fee funding for [22991] the extension of such services. Mr Vaizey: I have been asked to reply in my capacity as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Broadband infrastructure upgrades utilising the public funding announced in the spending review will follow public procurement guidelines. Those guidelines require

223W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

competitive tendering and additionally require wholesale access to that infrastructure to be made available to all suppliers of broadband services. Olympic Games 2012 Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport when he plans to decide on the route for the Olympic torch; and if he will consider including Hastings as a location on the [22723] route. Hugh Robertson: The Olympic and Paralympic torch relays are the responsibility of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). LOCOG has announced its vision for welcoming the Olympic flame, when the torch arrives in the UK on Friday 18 May 2012. The torch will travel around the UK for 70 days, arriving in London the weekend before the games begin. LOCOG has not finalised the Olympic torch relay route at this stage but is currently undertaking initial route planning. LOCOG has confirmed that the torch will come within a one-hour journey time of 95% of the UK population. Earlier this year, local communities were invited to contribute expressions of interest and ideas for hosting a welcome event for the torch during a three-month tour of the UK’s Nations and Regions. These evening celebration events will be announced next year, as they are confirmed. Olympic Games 2012: Counterfeit Manufacturing Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to deter counterfeit ticketing for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. [22472] Hugh Robertson: The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is responsible for the ticketing arrangements for the London 2012 Games. As the almost entirely privately-financed Organising Committee, LOCOG must raise a significant proportion of its £2 billion budget from ticket sales. Tickets are protected by the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act of 2006, which makes any unauthorised sale of London 2012 tickets in a public place, in the course of a business, or for profit a criminal act. LOCOG works very closely with the Metropolitan police unit charged with working to prevent ticket fraud. A dedicated Metropolitan police team from the Specialist Crime Directorate—Operation Podium—has been working with key Olympic stakeholders to profile the risks, share intelligence and build in prevention measures associated with ticketing fraud. Through the launch of its ’Sign Up’ campaign, LOCOG is educating the public on where the official outlets for tickets are—in the UK, tickets will only be available through LOCOG, its partner Thomas Cook and prestige ticketing suppliers. Outside of the UK, tickets will only be available for purchase through each National Olympic Committee’s appointed ticket agent. LOCOG now owns significant numbers of online domain names, and where other sites claim to sell tickets LOCOG takes action, including reporting them to the police. It will be illegal to sell tickets on auction websites.

Written Answers

224W

Olympic Games 2012: Low Income Families Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to allocate tickets for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to low income families. [22473] Hugh Robertson: The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is responsible for the ticketing arrangements for the London 2012 Games. As the almost entirely privatelyfinanced Organising Committee, LOCOG must raise a significant proportion of its £2 billion budget from ticket sales. LOCOG has announced pricing for Olympic tickets, which provides for accessible and affordable tickets to achieve full stadia at Games-time, and in doing so offer as many people as possible the chance to attend the Games. Almost a third of Olympic tickets will cost £20 or less, and these tickets will feature in every sport. LOCOG has also announced special pricing arrangements for seniors, a “Pay Your Age” scheme at nearly a third of all sessions for those 16 or under, and “Ticketshare”, a scheme where 100,000 tickets have been paid for by those buying prestige hospitality tickets which will be distributed to school children via schools registered as part of the London 2012 Get Set Network. Tickets for events in London will also include a travel card, zones 1-6 on the day of the event. Arrangements for Paralympic ticket prices will be announced in 2011, which will demonstrate further affordability. Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport how much funding to meet staff redundancy costs was identified in his Department’s settlement letter in respect of the [21520] comprehensive spending review. Mr Jeremy Hunt: All pressures on Departments’ budgets were taken into account as part of the spending review and settlements were allocated accordingly. The full costs of redundancies will be met from within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s resource DEL settlement. Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of staff [21522] redundancy in each of the next four years. Mr Jeremy Hunt: Determining optimal work force reforms in order to live within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport spending review resource DEL settlement is an ongoing process. The Department is not able to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of redundancies as yet for each of the next four years as we, alongside other public sector bodies across government, are awaiting the outcome of the Superannuation Bill which is due to be finalised in December 2010.

225W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Departmental Official Hospitality Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent on hospitality for events hosted by each of its Ministers [21779] in (a) September and (b) October 2010. Gregory Barker: The amount spent in September was £118.44. The provisional figure, pending the receipt of final invoices, for October was £1,040.82.

Written Answers

226W

Andrew Stunell: I attended the Global Peace and Unity event on 24 October on behalf of the Government. No assessment has been made of the outcome of the conference. Ministers and officials have regular discussions about ministerial attendance at public events. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Pakistan

Renewable Energy: Shetland

15. Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on [22541] Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether he has made an assessment of the merits of capping renewable energy transmission charges for Shetland and Orkney; [21286] and if he will make a statement.

Mr Hague: A stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan is in Britain’s interest, and in the interests of all EU member states. I have had intensive contact with my EU counterparts in recent weeks to ensure substantial European support for Pakistan following the floods, including on trade access.

Charles Hendry: Ofgem is currently conducting an overarching review of transmission charges through Project TransmiT which was launched on 22 September. In parallel with Project TransmiT, I will be undertaking analysis so a decision can be made on whether to use section 185 of the Energy Act 2004 to adjust transmission charges for renewable generation on Shetland and Orkney and the Western Isles. I aim to be in a position to act quickly should a section 185 scheme be required once we know the outcome of Project TransmiT.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Anti-Semitism Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who serves on the cross-Government working group to tackle antiSemitism; on what dates the working group has met since May 2010; on what dates the group plans to meet during the next six months; and if he will make a [20254] statement. Andrew Stunell: The cross-Government working group to tackle anti-Semitism is made up of civil servants from across Whitehall as well as representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust and a representative of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against AntiSemitism. The working group met on Friday 23 July 2010. Further meetings are planned for Wednesday 17 November 2010, followed by meetings during the second week of February 2011 and June 2011. Global Peace and Unity Conference John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many Ministers attended the Islam Channel Global Peace and Unity conference on 23 and 24 October 2010; what assessment he has made of the outcome of that conference; and what discussions he has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) officials on ministerial [22863] attendance at the conference.

21. Jason McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the policy of the EU on [22547] Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. Mr Hague: The EU is Pakistan’s largest trading partner, one of the largest investors in Pakistan, and has a relationship covering counter-terrorism, governance, humanitarian aid and development. We want to see a deeper, more visible EU-Pakistan relationship, including improved market access for Pakistani goods into the EU. EU Treaties 16. Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the proposed [22542] new EU treaty. Mr Lidington: There is no proposed new EU treaty. However the European Council asked its President Herman Van Rompuy to “undertake consultations” on a limited treaty change to allow for the creation of a permanent crisis mechanism to “safeguard the financial stability of the Euro area”. Zimbabwe 17. Claire Perry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the political situation in [22543] Zimbabwe. Mr Bellingham: Hardliners within the Inclusive Government continue to block reform. However, the Inclusive Government offer the best means of transforming Zimbabwe. We will continue to work with reformers in Zimbabwe and the region to prepare for credible and properly monitored elections. Weapons Shipment: Lagos 18. Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the origin of the shipment of weapons seized in Lagos by the Nigerian authorities on [22544] 26 October 2010.

227W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Bellingham: We are aware of media allegations about Iranian links to the shipment of weapons seized in Lagos by the Nigerian authorities on 26 October 2010. If true, this would represent a serious and unacceptable breach of UN sanctions and further evidence of Iran’s destabilising role in the Middle East. We continue to condemn Iranian support to groups such as Hamas and Hizballah which pursue an ideology of violence directly undermining prospects for peace in the region. Yemen 19. Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in [22545] Yemen; and if he will make a statement. Mr Hague: Yemen is fragile and in need of enhanced international support. It faces a combination of instability; poverty and rapid economic decline; and increasing terrorist activity by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Government of Yemen must take the lead in tackling this threat and pursuing reform and development. We, and others in the international community, remain ready to assist as required. We have led the international response to this, both bilaterally through our long-standing relationship with the Yemeni Government and our substantial development programme, and multilaterally through the international Friends of Yemen Group. University Teaching: Italy 20. Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs What the outcome was of his recent meeting with the president of the Association of Foreign Lecturers in Italy on the rights of UK citizens teaching in universities in Italy; [22546] and if he will make a statement. Mr Lidington: I met the President of the Association of Foreign Lecturers in Italy, Professor Petrie, on 28 October. I said that I would raise the issue with the Italian Minister for European Affairs, the Italian ambassador to the UK and the European Commissioner for Employment. Our British embassy in Rome will also meet members of the association and Italian Government officials. It is wrong and contrary to the spirit of nondiscrimination in the single market that the “lettori” should still be denied their rights. I shall continue to press the Italian Government on this issue. Turkey 22. Iain Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the state of bilateral relations with Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

Written Answers

228W

British Nationals Abroad: Bereavement Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training his Department provides for consular desk staff on provision of services to UK nationals bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad. [22477] Mr Jeremy Browne: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is committed to delivering high quality support to British nationals overseas. We continue to invest in our staff to sustain their professionalism through compulsory training designed to give them the relevant skills and knowledge to provide appropriate support in a range of circumstances. Training covers customer care and welfare issues in addition to practical matters. Particular attention is paid to the special circumstances affecting the family of murder victims. Both knowledge of what help the FCO can provide and the skills staff must use when dealing with individuals in difficult circumstances are tested to ensure all staff meet the required standard. Consular training team won five awards in 2009, including the International Visual Communications Association Gold award for Practical Training. China: Human Rights Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department monitors the human rights record of Chinese state-owned enterprises which have operations [22457] in Africa. Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government attaches high importance to responsible business practices in Africa. In May 2010, the Department for International Development supported an international conference in Beijing on ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and African Development’. The conference provided an opportunity for delegates from China, Africa, US and the EU to discuss how to promote and practice responsible business that can benefit Africa. We have an active programme of engagement with China on Africa issues, including an annual official-level UK-China dialogue on Africa. The most recent round took place in Beijing in October 2010. Colombia Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Colombian counterpart on [21980] imprisonment of Rosalba Gavira Toro. Mr Jeremy Browne: On 5 November 2010 our embassy wrote to the Presidential Programme for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law to raise Mrs Gavira’s case. We will continue to monitor her investigation and raise the matter with the Colombian authorities again should it prove necessary.

[22548]

Colombia: Trade Unions Mr Lidington: We have excellent co-operation with Turkey on a wide range of issues, reaffirmed in a new strategic partnership signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during our joint visit to Turkey in July. Priority areas of co-operation include trade and investment, regional security, defence, energy and counter-terrorism.

Mr Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to his Colombian counterpart on an investigation of the killing of trade union [21350] representative Nelson Murillo.

229W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr Jeremy Browne: On 29 October, officials at our embassy in Bogota sent a letter to the Office of the Presidential Program of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, the International Unit of the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Human Rights Division of the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the assassination of Mr Murillo. We asked to be kept informed on the progress of the investigation. We will continue to monitor the investigation and raise the case again with the Colombian authorities should it prove necessary. The safety of trade unionists in Colombia remains of great concern to us. Staff at our embassy in Bogota continue to visit those who are under threat and make representations to the Colombian authorities in cases of violence or intimidation against trade unionists. We are also working with the UN on a research initiative to help improve trade union human rights protection and the development of positive labour relations.

2008-09: Nil 2009-10: Nil 2010-11: four FER

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our agencies only offer early departure schemes where they will help to address staffing issues within the organisation which have been identified by our Strategic Workforce Plan. Applications are assessed against a number of criteria including business need and value for money. All packages which are agreed are calculated and paid in strict accordance with the rules of the CSCS. EU Law Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EU (a) regulations and (b) directives affecting the UK were passed in each year since 1997; and how many were transposed into domestic law in each year since 1997. [22057]

Democratic Republic of Congo: Minerals Paul Goggins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that minerals sourced in the Democratic Republic of Congo and sold by UK companies are [22526] ethically sourced. Mr Bellingham: The UK is committed to promoting responsible corporate behaviour amongst British companies wherever they operate. We promote high standards of accountability and responsibility with regard to human rights from British companies trading in natural resources sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo and adherence to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) voluntary Guidelines for Multinationals. We support new OECD due diligence guidelines for mineral supply chains. Departmental Early Retirement Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have been offered enhanced early retirement packages in each of [22025] the last three years. Alistair Burt: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has offered the following numbers of staff early retirement on compulsory early retirement (CER) or flexible early retirement (FER) terms. CER and FER are the only schemes which allow for an enhancement of service. The Civil Service pensions website at: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/pensions/ index.aspx

has descriptions of the various terms currently on offer under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS). 2008-09: 59 staff (20 CER, 39 FER) 2009-10: 95 staff (14 CER, 81 FER) 2010-11: 51 staff (0 CER, 51 FER)

For FCO Services the position is: 2008-09: One CER 2009-10: Nil 2010-11: Nil

For Wilton Park:

230W

Mr Lidington: This information is not held centrally as it is the responsibility of each Government Department to ensure that EU legislative instruments are transposed into UK law. It would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile this information. However, research has been conducted concerning the amount of UK legislation that is affected by EU regulations and directives which is available in the Library of the House titled “How Much Legislation Comes from the EU” under reference 10/62. European External Action Service Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former staff of his Department terminated their employment to join the European External Action Service in (a) [21800] 2009 and (b) 2010. Mr Lidington: No members of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff have terminated their employment to join the European External Action Service (EEAS). If recruited, Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff will join the EEAS on secondment for a fixed period and will then return to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. European Union Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress he has made on his proposals to repatriate powers from the EU to the UK; what opportunities for the UK to repatriate powers from the EU he expects in the next [22054] 12 months; and if he will make a statement. Mr Lidington: The Government’s priority has been the EU Bill. The aim of the forthcoming Bill is to increase democratic and parliamentary control, scrutiny and accountability over EU decision making. The Bill will introduce a ‘referendum lock’. This referendum lock will ensure that any proposed future treaty, or treaty amendment, that transferred competences or areas of power from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum.

231W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Our national priority is getting our budget under control, and that includes getting the EU budget under control. We have had a significant success at the October European Council in doing that, not just for this budget but in framing the debate for the next multi-annual EU budget. That is what we will be focussing on in the months ahead. In fulfilment of the coalition agreement we have begun initial work on the balance of the EU’s competences. In addition we will continue to work to limit the application of the working time directive in the United Kingdom. Foreign Nationals: Bereavement Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on assisting foreign nationals bereaved by murder and manslaughter while in the UK in 2009. [22474] Mr Blunt: I have been asked to reply. Lead responsibility for ensuring provision of support services and assistance to victims of crime rests with the Ministry of Justice. In 2009-10 the Ministry of Justice provided funding of £38.2 million to Victim Support to support their work across England and Wales. Victim Support provides assistance to victims of crime in England and Wales, regardless of their nationality. An additional £250,000 was provided to specialist organisations providing support to relatives bereaved by murder and manslaughter from the Victims Fund and £140,000 to the organisation Support after Murder and Manslaughter. For 2010-11 the Ministry of Justice has allocated £45 million for Victim Support, £140,000 for Support After Murder and Manslaughter and £270,474 for specialist organisations supporting bereaved relatives via the Victims Fund.

Written Answers

232W

Alistair Burt: We have not seen recent reports of Iran supplying suicide vests to al-Qaeda. But we have longstanding and serious concerns about Iranian financial and material support to militia groups in Iraq, and the Taliban. We have repeatedly called on Iran to work with the international community to build a stable and secure future for the region. Iran: Nuclear Power Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Government of Iran complies with its international obligations in [22415] relation to nuclear non-proliferation. Alistair Burt: The UK has been at the forefront of international efforts to intensify pressure on Iran to comply with its obligations. We have supported unprecedented UN and EU sanctions to this end. We are fully focussed on a diplomatic resolution to this issue and are using all channels to urge Iran to enter into negotiations. Iraq: Prisoners Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the letter from the Minister of State of 30 September 2010, ref. 88511, what response embassy officials received from the Iraqi Chief of Prisons Monitoring Department on prison conditions for (a) Dr Mahdi Saleh, (b) Mr Haman Yousif Hamadi and (c) Dr Amwer Rashid after they had made representations in each case; and if he will make a statement. [22342]

Alistair Burt: We are aware of reports of restrictions on a number of social science university courses in Iran, including reports that no new departments will be opened and existing courses will have their content revised. Restrictions to women’s studies and human rights courses are of particular concern and we will continue to monitor these developments closely.

Alistair Burt: Our embassy has made no representations to Iraqi Chief of Prisons Monitoring Department with regard to these individuals, who are Iraqi citizens standing trial in accordance with Iraqi Law at the Iraqi High Tribunal, nor was any undertaking made to make such representations in the letter of 30 September. We regularly discuss the justice system, and prison conditions, with senior members of the Iraqi Government. In August 2010 our ambassador in Baghdad met with the Iraqi Human Rights Minister and raised concerns over prison conditions. On 7 September our embassy officials in Baghdad met with the Chief of Prisons Monitoring Department during a Human Rights working group with EU embassies and also discussed conditions of prisons and treatment of detainees. We will continue to look for opportunities to remind the Iraqi authorities that any prisoners detained without charge should be dealt with by due process and, should be treated in line with internationally accepted standards regarding fair trials and prisoners’ rights.

Iran: Iraq

Israel: Sanctions

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent reports he has received of the (a) supply and (b) training by Iran of militias and insurgents in Iraq; and if he will make a [21939] statement; [R] (2) what recent reports he has received on the supply to al-Qaeda of suicide vests by the government of Iran; [21940] and if he will make a statement. [R]

Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received recent representations from trade union leaders on trade boycotts against Israel; and if he will [20970] make a statement.

Iran: Higher Education Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received of restrictions imposed by the government of Iran on university courses in (a) law, (b) philosophy, (c) management, (d) psychology, (e) political science and (f) women’s studies and human rights in that [21936] country; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: We do receive representations from groups who advocate a trade boycott against Israel.

233W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

However, we do not think boycotts are a constructive way forward. They are an obstruction to the close friendship and trade links shared between the UK and Israel. Lebanon: Anti-Israeli Missile Mr Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake pre-emptive multilateral diplomatic action to prevent the escalation of anti-Israeli missile [22902] deployment in Lebanon. Alistair Burt: We continue to press for the full implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions, most notably UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls upon Hizballah to disarm. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary underlined the importance of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 with Prime Minister Hariri during his visit to the UK last week. I also raised these issues during my visit to Syria and Lebanon in July underlining the need to prevent the flow of arms to Hizballah.

Written Answers

234W

Mr Jeremy Browne: The UK remains deeply concerned by North Korea’s illicit nuclear weapons programme, which we regard as a threat to regional and international security. We strongly support the tough sanctions imposed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. These are targeted to limit North Korea’s proliferation activities, and we continue to work closely with international partners to ensure that these measures are robustly implemented. We hope that the Six-Party Talks process, which we view as the most realistic mechanism for making progress towards denuclearisation, recommences soon. In the meantime, we urge North Korea to refrain from any further provocative actions. Taiwan: EU External Trade Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department’s policy is on the proposal for a free trade agreement [22626] between the EU and Taiwan. Mr Jeremy Browne: We value our strong trade links with Taiwan and seek to enhance them. We support active consideration of practical measures to strengthen trade between the EU and Taiwan.

Mental Health

Terrorism: Expenditure

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recommendations relevant to his Department’s policy responsibilities contained in the Foresight Report on Mental Capital and Wellbeing by the Government Office for Science; if he will ensure that his Department takes steps to promote wellbeing; if he will ensure that his Department’s policy development process takes account of psychological research into subjective wellbeing; and if he will make a [22204] statement.

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department’s projected overseas counter-terrorism expenditure is for [22911] 2010-11.

Alistair Burt [holding answer 8 November 2010]: The Foresight Report recognises the important role employers have to play in promoting the mental well-being of those in their care. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) already has in place many of the initiatives highlighted in the report. These include a health care scheme for staff and families posted overseas, an in-house welfare and occupational health service, access to a confidential Employee Assistance Programme, a stress management framework, based on the Health and Safety Executive’s management standards and a regular programme of health promotion activities. The FCO regularly reviews its policies towards mental well-being in the light of operational experience and the prevailing academic research. Additional support is offered to staff serving in high threat posts (Iraq, Afghanistan), and to those who have been involved in traumatic incidents while serving overseas. North Korea: Nuclear Power Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Government of North Korea complies with its international obligations in relation to nuclear non-proliferation. [22416]

Alistair Burt: The counter-terrorism department overseas programme budget in 2010-11 for counter-terrorism is £38 million. UK Membership of EU Dan Byles: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent estimate he has made of the total annual gross benefit to (a) the public purse and (b) the UK economy as a result of [21950] the UK’s membership of the EU. Justine Greening: I have been asked to reply. The UK’s projected public sector receipt from the EU budget in 2010-11 is £4.8 billion. These figures can be found in the latest Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis document (see Table C1, page 176). http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2010_complete.pdf

The Treasury reviews as part of its analysis of the EU economy, a wide range of studies by external commentators that attempt to assess the costs and benefits of EU membership. Venezuela: Human Rights Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on human rights in Venezuela; and if he will [21930] make a statement. Mr Jeremy Browne: The EU Heads of Mission in Caracas compiled a report on Venezuela, including human rights, for the EU Latin America Working Group (COLAT) meeting held on 6 July 2010 in Brussels. We also receive regular reporting from our embassy.

235W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

The EU report focuses in particular on human rights concerns in the pre-electoral period. It said that while freedom of expression existed, there had been increasing cases of journalists being intimidated and harassed, as well as the closure of media outlets and some overt censorship by the press. Our embassy in Caracas continues to monitor the situation. Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions (a) HM Ambassador to Venezuela, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department have had with the president of Venezuela on human rights in Venezuela; on what date each such meeting took place; who was present at each such meeting; and [22004] if he will make a statement.

Written Answers

236W

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Health Services Mr Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospital admissions there were for (a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (b) all respiratory diseases in (i) Mansfield district primary care trust area and (ii) each other primary care trust area in the latest period for which figures are available; [22230]

(2) how many hospital bed days there were for (a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (b) all respiratory diseases in (i) Mansfield district primary care trust area and (ii) each other primary care trust area in the latest period for which figures are available. [22231]

Mr Jeremy Browne: There have not been any recent discussions with the President on issues of human rights. Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary General of the United Nations on human rights in Venezuela; and if he will [22005] make a statement. Mr Jeremy Browne: We have not had discussions with the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) on human rights in Venezuela. However, we do work closely with the UN on the ground. We have helped refugees on the Venezuela-Colombian border in joint projects with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and are in regular contact with them. Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the incidence of anti-Semitism in [22009] Venezuela; and if he will make a statement. Mr Jeremy Browne: There have been anti-Semitic incidents in the past including an attack on a synagogue in January 2009. Our embassy in Caracas monitors this issue and has reported that there have not been any similar incidents of anti-Semitism since. We understand that President Chavez met members of the Jewish community in September this year.

HEALTH Ambulance Services Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents were recorded of ambulances experiencing difficulty in reaching patients in emergency need in Greater London between 19.00 on Tuesday 2 November 2010 and 19.00 on Wednesday [22915] 3 November 2010. Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to raise this directly with London Ambulance Service NHS trust. Ambulance services are currently commissioned by primary care trusts, which have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate services are provided to their populations. Each ambulance service should therefore plan to provide appropriate resources to meet local demand.

Mr Simon Burns: The information has been placed in the Library. Dental Services: Training Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he gave to the training provided for newly-qualified dentists when formulating his proposals for the new contract for NHS dentistry. [22329]

Mr Simon Burns: We are committed, following consultation and piloting, to introducing a new dentistry contract with a focus on improving quality, achieving good dental health and increasing access to national health service dentistry. We will be consulting patients, the NHS and the dental profession including the postgraduate dental deans who are responsible for quality assuring the vocational training, which newly qualified dental graduates, are required to undertake before they may practise in the NHS. Since this training is undertaken in primary care dental practices, the dentists should be able to familiarise themselves with the new contractual arrangements at an early stage in their careers. Health Education: Young People Pat Glass: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for providing teenagers with access to information and advice on [22598] making healthy lifestyle choices in schools. Anne Milton: We will outline our plans for helping teenagers to make healthy choices in the forthcoming public health white paper. In addition, the Department for Education wants all young people to benefit from high quality personal social health and economic teaching and is currently considering how best to ensure this. Health Visitors: Stoke on Trent Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding he has allocated to the provision of health visitors in Stoke-on-Trent in (a) 2010-11 and [22835] (b) 2011-12. Anne Milton: Health visitors have a key role to play in leading and delivering the Healthy Child Programme and wider health services to children and families locally and in ensuring that links are made where appropriate

237W

Written Answers

with primary care practitioners. The work that they do is central to support the health and development of all children, in particular the most vulnerable. We announced on 21 October 2010, a national recruitment drive to create 4,200 new health visitor posts and build a rejuvenated profession, across the country, including the Stoke-on-Trent area. Hospitals: Smoking Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely effect of implementation of a ban on smoking in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric wards of hospitals; and if he [22693] will make a statement. Paul Burstow: There is clear evidence that the smokefree legislation is working very well and almost all enclosed workspaces and public places including mental health units are free from second hand smoke and the dangers to health which arise from exposure to secondhand smoke. Public support for the smokefree law is high and continues to grow. Even a majority of smokers now support the law. We will keep working on the evidence base for tobacco control and will say more about our plans in the public health white paper. There are significant health inequalities associated with having a mental illness. 70%, of those resident in mental health units smoke compared to 21%, of the general population. Statistics show that the desire to stop smoking is as strong in those with mental illnesses as it is in those who do not. People with severe mental illness die on average 20 years sooner than the average and the majority of these deaths are smoking related. It is right that the incidence of smoking related early death is addressed across the population regardless of race, religion, social status, physical or mental health. Hospitals: Waiting Lists Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for an MRI scan for patients from referral to scan in each primary care trust [22217] area in each year since 1997. Mr Simon Burns: Waiting times for imaging diagnostic procedures were first collected in April 2006. The average waiting time for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for patients from referral to scan in each primary care trust at the end of March in each year since 2006 is in the following table: Median in-patient waiting time for MRI scans (weeks) Time periods March 2007-August 2010 (commissioner based) Month ending March each year Primary care trusts (PCTs) Newcastle PCT

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2.7

2.3

2.1

1.9

238W

Median in-patient waiting time for MRI scans (weeks) Time periods March 2007-August 2010 (commissioner based) Month ending March each year Primary care trusts (PCTs)

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Middlesbrough PCT

2.6

2.3

1.5

1.8

County Durham PCT

3.6

2.4

1.9

1.8

Redcar and Cleveland PCT

2.5

2.5

1.3

1.2

Northumberland Care Trust

2.5

1.8

1.7

1.3 2.0

Salford PCT

3.7

1.0

1.2

Stockport PCT

5.7

2.3

1.6

1.3

Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT

4.3

1.2

1.4

1.3

Blackpool PCT

3.4

1.9

1.6

1.8

Bolton PCT

3.5

1.5

1.5

1.6

Warrington PCT

4.3

0.9

1.2

1.7

Knowsley PCT

3.3

1.9

1.4

1.6

Oldham PCT

4.5

2.4

1.6

1.5

Bury PCT

3.6

2.0

2.1

1.6

Tameside and Glossop PCT

3.7

2.1

1.9

2.3

Cumbria Teaching PCT

3.9

2.2

2.0

2.2

North Lancashire Teaching PCT

3.3

2.4

1.7

1.6

Central Lancashire PCT

3.6

1.7

1.5

1.4

East Lancashire Teaching PCT

3.0

2.1

1.7

1.8

Sefton PCT

3.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

Wirral PCT

2.7

2.1

1.6

2.1

Liverpool PCT

4.1

2.3

1.9

1.9

Halton and St Helens PCT

2.6

1.0

1.2

1.1

Western Cheshire PCT

2.1

n/a

1.4

1.9

Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT

4.4

1.3

1.7

1.5

Heywood, Middleton And Rochdale PCT

3.5

2.1

2.8

1.8

Trafford PCT

3.6

2.1

2.0

2.1

Manchester PCT

3.8

2.2

1.9

1.8

Blackburn with Darwen Teaching Care Trust Plus

3.9

2.2

1.5

2.0

North Lincolnshire PCT

3.1

2.3

1.0

1.5

Rotherham PCT

2.3

2.5

1.9

2.0

Calderdale PCT

2.8

1.6

1.5

1.6

Barnsley PCT

2.4

1.5

1.4

1.6

Leeds PCT

2.0

2.1

1.6

2.1

Kirklees PCT

3.9

1.8

1.2

1.6

Wakefield District PCT

5.1

1.8

1.5

1.7

Sheffield PCT

2.9

2.1

1.0

0.9

Doncaster PCT

2.9

1.6

1.7

1.0

North Yorkshire and York PCT

2.8

2.4

1.6

1.6

East Riding of Yorkshire PCT

4.4

2.4

1.6

2.0

Hull Teaching PCT

5.0

2.4

1.7

2.4

Bradford and Airedale Teaching PCT

3.7

2.1

1.9

0.7

2.6

2.3

1.0

1.1

North Tyneside PCT

1.9

1.9

1.5

1.5

Hartlepool PCT

3.8

2.3

1.1

2.1

Stockton-on-Tees Teaching PCT

3.9

2.4

1.5

2.4

North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus

Darlington PCT

2.9

2.3

1.9

1.5

Nottingham City PCT

2.9

2.3

1.5

2.3

Gateshead PCT

2.1

1.6

1.9

2.0

Bassetlaw PCT

3.0

1.7

1.7

1.0

Derbyshire County PCT

2.2

1.8

1.4

1.6

Derby City PCT

1.6

2.4

1.5

1.9

South Tyneside PCT

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.7

Sunderland Teaching PCT

4.4

2.6

2.7

1.6

239W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

240W

Median in-patient waiting time for MRI scans (weeks)

Median in-patient waiting time for MRI scans (weeks)

Time periods March 2007-August 2010 (commissioner based)

Time periods March 2007-August 2010 (commissioner based)

Month ending March each year Primary care trusts (PCTs)

Month ending March each year Primary care trusts (PCTs)

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Nottinghamshire County Teaching PCT

2.7

1.8

1.3

1.7

Newham PCT

2.9

2.4

1.7

1.6

4.0

2.4

1.7

1.2

Lincolnshire Teaching PCT

3.8

1.8

1.4

1.7

Haringey Teaching PCT

2.8

1.8

1.4

2.2

1.7

1.2

1.5

Hammersmith and Fulham PCT

2.6

Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT

Ealing PCT

4.6

2.4

1.3

1.3

Leicester City PCT

2.1

1.9

1.2

1.4

Hounslow PCT

6.0

3.1

2.2

1.0

Northamptonshire Teaching PCT

3.8

2.3

1.6

1.8

Brent Teaching PCT

4.8

2.1

1.7

1.6

Harrow PCT

4.6

2.2

1.8

1.6

Camden PCT

2.7

2.5

2.0

1.4

Islington PCT

4.3

2.7

2.3

1.5

4.3

1.8

1.9

2.3

4.1

2.5

1.4

1.6

Herefordshire PCT

2.3

4.3

1.3

1.8

South Birmingham PCT

3.2

2.3

1.9

2.9

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Shropshire County PCT

2.4

2.1

1.9

1.8

Croydon PCT

Walsall Teaching PCT

3.3

1.5

1.9

1.2

Kensington and Chelsea PCT

Coventry Teaching PCT

3.4

2.0

1.4

1.5

Westminster PCT

4.0

2.7

1.7

0.9

Lambeth PCT

3.1

2.1

1.8

1.7

Telford and Wrekin PCT

3.7

Wolverhampton City PCT

2.6

Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT

2.6

1.7

Dudley PCT

3.0

Sandwell PCT

2.7

Birmingham East and North PCT North Staffordshire PCT

2.6 1.8

1.7 1.5

1.8

Southwark PCT

3.1

2.1

2.0

2.0

Lewisham PCT

2.8

2.4

1.5

1.8

1.4

Wandsworth PCT

4.1

2.1

1.9

1.2

1.6

2.1

Richmond and Twickenham PCT

5.9

3.0

1.7

1.1

2.2

1.0

2.2

Sutton and Merton PCT

3.8

2.1

1.7

1.0

2.1

1.5

1.8

3.2

2.4

1.8

2.1

3.6

2.7

2.1

1.9

Redbridge PCT

4.4

2.0

1.6

1.7

Waltham Forest PCT

4.4

2.3

1.8

1.3

Bexley Care Trust

2.9

1.8

1.5

1.4

Medway PCT

2.4

1.5

1.3

2.3

Brighton and Hove City PCT

2.8

1.8

1.0

1.4

Stoke on Trent PCT

3.9

3.0

1.8

2.0

South Staffordshire PCT

4.0

2.1

1.7

2.2

Surrey PCT

3.4

1.8

1.9

1.5

Worcestershire PCT

3.1

1.8

1.5

1.9

West Sussex PCT

3.3

2.1

1.9

1.6

Warwickshire PCT

3.6

2.2

1.6

1.6

2.5

1.3

2.0

3.1

2.6

1.3

2.1

East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT

2.6

Solihull Care Trust

4.3

2.6

1.8

2.6

Luton PCT

4.8

1.9

1.1

1.5

South East Essex PCT

2.0

n/a

1.4

1.7

Hastings and Rother PCT

Bedfordshire PCT

4.3

2.5

1.7

2.0

West Kent PCT

3.9

3.1

1.8

1.9

Peterborough PCT

3.4

2.2

2.3

2.0

Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT

4.0

2.0

1.6

1.6

Cambridgeshire PCT

2.6

1.6

1.7

2.0

Norfolk PCT

4.4

2.8

2.0

2.6

Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT

3.5

2.6

2.5

Milton Keynes PCT

2.4

1.6

1.3

0.9

1.8

Portsmouth City Teaching PCT

4.7

2.4

1.4

2.6

Southampton City PCT

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.5

Hampshire PCT

3.5

2.1

1.5

2.2

Buckinghamshire PCT

4.1

2.2

1.4

1.7

Oxfordshire PCT

2.8

2.3

1.8

1.9 2.4

Suffolk PCT

3.5

2.4

1.5

2.0

West Essex PCT

4.6

3.0

2.4

2.3

North East Essex PCT

2.7

2.1

1.9

1.4

Mid Essex PCT

2.8

1.7

1.0

0.9

South West Essex PCT

4.3

2.2

1.0

1.5

Berkshire West PCT

2.4

1.1

2.6

East and North Hertfordshire PCT

3.7

2.2

1.9

2.0

Berkshire East PCT

3.3

2.6

2.1

2.5

2.5

3.5

1.5

1.6

West Hertfordshire PCT

4.7

2.1

1.7

1.4

Isle of Wight NHS PCT

2.2

1.1

1.7

2.2

1.7

1.2

1.5

South Gloucestershire PCT

3.6

Hertfordshire PCT Havering PCT

4.9

2.4

1.6

2.2

1.5

1.7

1.9

4.8

2.1

1.5

1.4

Plymouth Teaching PCT

3.3

Kingston PCT Bromley PCT

3.3

3.4

0.9

0.9

Bath and North East Somerset PCT

6.0

1.2

1.7

1.4

Greenwich Teaching PCT

2.4

1.8

1.4

1.6

Swindon PCT

5.1

1.4

2.4

3.3

3.8

2.2

1.9

2.1

Barnet PCT

4.3

1.9

1.5

1.4

North Somerset PCT

Hillingdon PCT

3.7

2.0

1.5

1.8

Gloucestershire PCT

3.2

1.6

1.6

1.2

Enfield PCT

4.5

1.9

1.7

1.2

Bristol PCT

3.7

1.9

1.5

2.0

Barking and Dagenham PCT

4.5

2.2

1.6

2.0

Wiltshire PCT

4.6

1.6

1.8

1.6

Somerset PCT

3.2

1.4

1.3

1.3

City and Hackney Teaching PCT

2.5

2.6

1.5

1.4

Dorset PCT

3.5

2.6

1.3

1.5

2.5

1.4

1.5

2.1

2.2

1.7

1.9

Bournemouth and Poole Teaching PCT

2.6

Tower Hamlets PCT

241W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

5.3

2.3

1.1

1.8

Meat Hygiene Service

Month ending March each year

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly PCT

242W

labelling and food fraud. The programme is currently working with partners in Europe and the United States of America to produce a method to reliably detect undeclared pork and beef proteins used to retain added water in chicken products. The Commission is aware and supportive of this collaborative project.

Median in-patient waiting time for MRI scans (weeks) Time periods March 2007-August 2010 (commissioner based) Primary care trusts (PCTs)

Written Answers

Devon PCT

3.3

1.5

1.3

1.9

Torbay Care Trust

2.9

2.0

1.3

1.5

Notes: 1. Numbers reflect the median wait of those still waiting for MRI scan at month end. 2. Medians not calculated where waiting list is under 50. Source: Monthly Diagnostic (DM01) return to Department of Health

Influenza: Vaccination Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses of influenza vaccine are available for [23049] use in NHS facilities. Anne Milton: Based on information supplied by vaccine manufacturers to the Department, 13.4 million doses of seasonal influenza vaccine had been distributed in the United Kingdom for both national health service and private use by 29 October 2010. This compares to 13.2 million doses at the equivalent point last year. Vaccine manufacturers advise that there are about 275,000 further doses still available for distribution. Meat Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to prevent the importation of chicken injected with pork and beef waste; and if he [22730] will make a statement. Anne Milton: There is no evidence of pork and beef waste products being added to chicken meat, however ingredients can be legally added from other meat species, provided they have been produced in accordance with United Kingdom food law to ensure food safety. The Secretary of State has no powers to prevent importation of chicken with added water and proteins. This is not a food safety issue but rather a food labelling issue as meat products that have been injected with hydrolysed animal proteins, water, or other added ingredients can be marketed legally provided all the necessary information is given to the consumer. Food labelling rules are agreed at European Union level and prohibit false or misleading labelling. Labelling rules require that certain meat products that resemble a cut or slice of meat must mention in the name of the food any ingredients which originate from a different species to the rest of the meat. Local authorities ensure that food on sale in the UK complies with these labelling rules. Sampling is routinely carried by local authorities to check for added water and added protein in chicken. Where there is evidence of non-compliance in this respect, enforcement action is taken. The local authorities carry out enforcement action according to the statutory Food Law Code of Practice; this ensures that local authority practice across the UK is consistent with UK / EU food law. The Government’s Food Authenticity research programme develops analytical methods for food enforcement laboratories to help combat misleading

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he plans to make for funding of the functions formerly undertaken by the Meat Hygiene Service in each of the next three years. [22496] Anne Milton: The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) merged with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on 1 April 2010, the FSA continues to undertake the functions of the MHS. The FSA is currently developing a new policy for charging for these functions and will be launching a 12 week public consultation later this month detailing its proposals. The responses to this public consultation will be taken into consideration by the FSA in determining the final policy on charging for these functions. Ministers will also be consulted on the FSA’s final policy before it is implemented. Any increases in charges to the meat industry arising from the new policy will not take effect until January 2012 at the earliest. Meat: Labelling Gordon Birtwistle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues on the [22728] preparation and packaging of halal meat. Anne Milton: There are no guidelines issued from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) specifically on the ‘preparation’ and ‘packaging’ of Halal meat. Meat intended to be described as Halal must be slaughtered in accordance with United Kingdom food law. This ensures the food is fit for human consumption. The FSA recently reissued guidance (first published in 2003) for local authority food enforcement officers on Halal food issues to help local authorities make sure that food businesses comply with food labelling rules which are agreed at European Union level and prohibit false or misleading labelling. A copy has been placed in the Library. Medical Treatments: Exports Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received on the adequacy of supply of medicinal products in the NHS; [22335] and if he will make a statement; (2) what representations he has received on amendment of the Medicines Act 1968 to prevent the export of medicinal products that are in short supply in [22336] the UK; and if he will make a statement; (3) if he will bring forward legislative proposals in his forthcoming Health Bill to prevent the export of medicinal products that are in short supply in the UK. [22337]

243W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Paul Burstow: Ministers have had representations from supply chain organisations, health care professionals and patients, on the issue of medicines supply including issues relating to the Medicines Act. The Department, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders are working collaboratively to better understand and mitigate the impact of supply difficulties so that patients receive the medicines they need. The purpose of the 2010 Health and Social Care Bill is to take forward the changes set out in the Government White Paper, ‘Liberating the NHS’, which require primary legislation. The free movement of goods, including medicines, between member states of the European Union is a fundamental principle of the single market upon which the European Union is built, and therefore legislation to this end would be inappropriate. The Government will not take forward proposals to prevent the export of any medicinal products. Mental Health

Written Answers

Savitex prescriptions issued by PCTs in England, dispensed, in the community, in the UK, 2009-10 PCT Ashton, Leigh and Wigan

Paul Burstow: Discussions are under way on the strategy and views are being gathered from a range of partners, including professional organisations and voluntary sector groups, as well as individual service users and carers. The Future Vision Coalition, and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, each representing a large number of organisations, are members of the Mental Health Strategy Programme Board. The Department consulted widely on New Horizons, the previous Government’s mental health strategy and coalition Ministers agreed that they would not rehearse again positions that are already widely understood. Instead, we have engaged with leading organisations and individuals, including people who use services. We are also seeking input specifically on the new strategy from other Government Departments and externally. Multiple Sclerosis: Drugs Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of (a) primary care trusts permitting the use of Sativex, (b) NHS patients receiving Sativex and (c) NHS patients refused Sativex in the latest period for which figures are [22218] available.

1 23

Bedfordshire

12

Berkshire East

13

Berkshire West

42

Bexley Care Trust

8

Blackpool

17

Bournemouth and Poole Teaching

12

Brent Teaching Brighton and Hove City

1 21

Buckinghamshire

24

Calderdale

12

Cambridgeshire

15

Camden

4

Central and Eastern Cheshire

21

Central Lancashire

38

City and Hackney Teaching

12

Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

7 34

Coventry Teaching

12

Croydon

10

Cumbria Teaching

52

Darlington

3

Derby City

5

Derbyshire County

18

Devon

17

Dorset

48

Dudley

5

Ealing

12

East and North Hertfordshire

11

East Lancashire Teaching

10

East Riding of Yorkshire

2

Eastern and Coastal Kent

23

Gloucestershire

22

Great Yarmouth and Waveney

21

Greenwich Teaching

15

Halton and St Helens

9

Hammersmith and Fulham Hampshire

5 72

Hastings and Rother

4

Havering

1

Herefordshire

17

Hillingdon

1

Hounslow

2

Hull Teaching

1

Isle of Wight

6

Islington

30

Kensington and Chelsea

33

Kirklees

1

Knowsley

3

Lambeth

13

Leeds

9

Leicester City

4

Leicestershire County and Rutland Lewisham

Mr Simon Burns: Information on the number of patient requests for funding for the use of Sativex which have been approved or refused by their local primary care trust (PCT) is not collected. However, information on the number of prescription items dispensed is held. Of the 152 PCTs in England, in the period 2009-10, 116 issued prescription items for Sativex were dispensed in the community in the United Kingdom. These are detailed in the following table.

Number

Barnet

County Durham

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 9 September 2010, Official Report, column 66W, on mental illness (1) what consultation his Department has undertaken on its new [23086] mental health strategy; (2) what opportunity (a) charities and (b) individuals will have to contribute to his new mental [23105] health strategy.

244W

Lincolnshire Luton

19 9 26 8

Manchester

35

Mid Essex

31

Milton Keynes

14

Newcastle

2

Newham

8

Norfolk

34

North East Essex

16

245W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Savitex prescriptions issued by PCTs in England, dispensed, in the community, in the UK, 2009-10 PCT

Number

North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus North Lancashire Teaching

48 2

North Staffordshire

22

North Tyneside

11

North Yorkshire and York

73

Northamptonshire Teaching

56

Northumberland Care Trust

38

Nottinghamshire County Teaching

13

Oxfordshire

17 3

Portsmouth City Teaching

19

Redbridge

2

Richmond and Twickenham

1

Sandwell

8

Sefton

4

Sheffield

25

Shropshire County

14

Solihull Care Trust

5

Somerset

1

South Birmingham

22

South East Essex

20

South Gloucestershire

17

South Staffordshire

32

South Tyneside

13

South West Essex

1

Southampton City

4

Stockport

4

Stoke on Trent

3

Suffolk

22

Sunderland Teaching

246W

Mr Simon Burns: The information is in the following tables: NHS Counter Fraud Service investigations opened in 2009-10

3

North Lincolnshire

Plymouth Teaching

Written Answers

All investigations Related to staff employed by the national health service

482 279

Outcomes of investigations related to staff employed by the NHS Prosecution and conviction Unsuccessful prosecution Non-criminal sanction or closed with no fraud found Remaining open

32 1 147 99

NHS: Manpower Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of staff employed by the NHS who are provided with private health insurance as part of their remuneration [22662] package. Mr Simon Burns: Private health insurance does not form part of the national terms and conditions of service for any national health service staff group. NHS employers may offer private health insurance to NHS staff as part of a locally determined reward package; information on this is not held centrally.

5

Surrey

73

Sutton and Merton

NHS: Negligence

1

Swindon

1

Telford and Wrekin

15

Torbay Care Trust

8

Tower Hamlets

15

Trafford

1

Walsall Teaching

9

Waltham Forest

7

Wandsworth Teaching

5

Warrington

2

Warwickshire

7

West Essex

4

West Hertfordshire

35

West Kent

61

West Sussex

52

Western Cheshire

4

Wiltshire

2

Wirral

8

Wolverhampton City

24

Worcestershire

7

Not attributed to a PCT

1

Total

1,866

Source: Prescribing Analysis and CosT tool (PACT) system.

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the present level of compensation for medical negligence in maternity cases is; and whether he plans [22332] to increase it. Mr Simon Burns: The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) collects data by specialty. Although maternity is not listed as a specialty, obstetrics specialty data are collected. The total obstetrics damages paid out in 2009-10 was £238,970,055. The full data are available from the fact sheet (No. five) in the publication section of the NHSLA website: http://www.nhsla.com/NR/rdonlyres/7BDA0851-E6AC-4E50BAC1-CB32E28932E8/0/NHSLAFactsheet5200910.xls

The worksheet to use is “Payments made 09-10 Obstetrics”. The Government do not currently limit levels of compensation in medical negligence. The amount paid in compensation is determined by the courts, or is based on previous court rulings when settled by the parties concerned.

NHS: Fraud

Organs: Donors

Dr Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of cases relating to NHS staff were investigated by the NHS Counter Fraud Squad in the latest period for which figures are available; and how [22312] many such cases resulted in prosecution.

Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organ donors were registered in Dartford constituency (a) in each of the last five years and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are [22330] available.

247W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

248W

Written Answers

Anne Milton: The information requested is shown in the following table.

Social Workers: Training

Number of registrations on the Organ Donor Register (ODR)

Dr Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on continuous professional development for social workers during their working time. [22313]

Total on ODR at beginning of year

New registrations during year

Total on ODR at end of year

2005

12,248

1,471

13,719

2006

13,719

1,473

15,192

2007

15,192

1,282

16,474

2008

16,474

1,323

17,797

2009

17,797

1,385

2010

19,182

Dartford constituency

1

1,290

19,182 2

20,472

1

Total number of new registrations in Dartford constituency for 2010 as at 3 November 2010. Total number of people on the Organ Donor Register (ODR) in Dartford constituency as at 3 November 2010.

2

Paul Burstow: Evidence of continuing professional development (CPD) is a requirement of professional registration and CPD is now an essential component of the regulated social work profession. The Social Work Reform Board will be advising Government on the continuing professional development of social workers as part of its wider programme of reforming social work in spring next year. Tobacco: Sales

Prescriptions: Fees and Charges Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on NHS charges for treatment of patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction; [22331] and if he will make a statement. Mr Simon Burns: Patients presenting at a national health service dental practice would be liable for a band 1 charge of £16.50 for examination, diagnosis and referral if appropriate, unless they were exempt from charges. Any treatment provided in a primary care dental practice would be subject to a further dental charge but, if the patient was referred to a dental or medical specialist in secondary care the treatment would be free of charge. The full list of charges can be found on the NHS Choices website at: www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/ 1781.aspx?categoryid=74&subcategoryid=742

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what options for the permanent display of tobacco in shops which take into account (a) public health priorities and (b) burdens on business he has [22567] considered; and if he will make a statement. Anne Milton: The Government are considering all the options around tobacco displays and will ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between public health priorities and burdens on business. It would be premature at this stage to offer details of options being considered. Tuberculosis: Greater London Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis have been diagnosed in London in each of the last three [23048] years.

Primary Care Trusts Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which body will have jurisdiction over GP misconduct inquiries following the abolition of primary care trusts. [22514] Anne Milton: The General Medical Council has responsibility for investigating the fitness to practise of doctors. That will not be affected by the abolition of primary care trusts (PCTs). PCTs have responsibility for managing admission, suspension and removal from Performers Lists. Where suspension or removal is considered but it is not a fitness to practise issue the PCT will initiate an investigation. Detailed arrangements for the management of Performers Lists following the abolition of PCTs are currently being considered by Ministers and departmental officials. Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he plans to put in place for the repayment of money owed by primary care trusts [22517] who are in deficit following their abolition. Mr Simon Burns: The Department is working with the strategic health authorities to address circumstances where primary care trusts (PCTs) owe money, with the expectation that any deficits will be fully resolved by the end of 2012-13. The issue of PCTs deficits and debt will be covered in further detail in the NHS Operating Framework for 2011-12.

Anne Milton: The information requested is shown in the following table. Number of cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis in London, 2007-09 Resistant to any first line drug1 Number of cases

As a percentage of total cases2

Total2

2007

162

9.2

1,762

2008

158

8.4

1,871

2009

192

10.5

1,826

1

Resistant to at least one of the first line anti-tuberculosis drugs (isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol and pyrazinamide). 2 Culture confirmed tuberculosis cases with drug susceptibility testing results for at least isoniazid and rifampicin. Source: Health Protection Agency

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Asia-Europe Meeting Valerie Vaz: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the outcome was of his discussions at the Asia-Europe [22017] Meeting on 4 and 5 October 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister: The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) provides an excellent opportunity for substantive discussions with key Asian and European partners representing 58% of the world’s population and 50% of global gross domestic product.

249W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

In discussion at the summit, I set out the argument for global co-operation on fiscal reduction, international institutional reform and business-led growth in open markets during the discussion on global economic governance. I also discussed North Korea, Iran, the middle east and Burma and called for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. These issues were reflected in the communiqué. The communiqué also sets out a high degree of agreement among the leaders on developing more effective global economic governance and sustainable development, as well as fighting terrorism and the co-ordination of disaster relief efforts. In the margins of the summit I held bilateral meetings with leaders from Indonesia, Pakistan, Australia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Vietnam. I discussed a broad range of issues including the steps being taken by the UK Government to address the deficit and create growth, the Government’s determination to boost trade in general and in particular relations with emerging markets. I also outlined UK expectations ahead of the G20 summit in November. I also had meetings with European leaders, including those from the European Council and Commission, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Issues discussed included security, EU budgets and economic stability in the eurozone. Constituencies Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations his Department has received in favour of the proposal (a) for a cross-Solent parliamentary constituency and (b) that (i) one and (ii) two hon. Members represent the Isle of [22841] Wight.

Written Answers

250W

The total cost of his domestic travel will be made available at the end of the financial year once the Department’s resource accounts have been fully audited and laid before Parliament. Members: Correspondence Tom Greatrex: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West of [22645] 17 September 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister: I apologise for the delay in replying to the hon. Member’s letter. My reply was sent on 5 November. Social Mobility Jon Trickett: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the likely effect on levels of social mobility of the outcomes of the spending review. [22370] The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government have set out a new programme of work for improving social mobility and will consider the impact of the spending review when developing their cross-governmental social mobility strategy. In particular, the 15 hours per week of free early years education to disadvantaged two-year-olds, the pupil premium and the National Scholarship Scheme are all specifically geared towards targeted support to children from lower income backgrounds. The social mobility strategy will be published this winter.

CABINET OFFICE Civil Servants: East Ayrshire

Mr Harper: The Cabinet Office does not record correspondence in a way that would enable us to readily identify whether the authors were for or against particular issues. Departmental Official Hospitality Ian Austin: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on hospitality for events he hosted in [21794] (a) September and (b) October 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister: The cost of the Deputy Prime Minister’s expenditure on hospitality will be made available at the end of the financial year once the Department’s resource accounts have been fully audited and laid before Parliament. Departmental Travel Ian Austin: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on his official travel in (a) September [21867] and (b) October 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister: The cost of the Deputy Prime Minister’s overseas visits is published by the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/transparency/dpmoverseas-travel.csv

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many full-time equivalent civil service jobs are located in (a) East Ayrshire and (b) Kilmarnock [22636] and Loudoun constituency. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated 5 November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many full-time equivalent Civil Service jobs are located in (a) East Ayrshire and (b) Kilmarnock and Loundoun. (22636) Civil Service Statistics are published annually by the Office for National Statistics on the National Statistics website. The latest published statistics are for March 2009: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cs0110.pdf Statistics for 2010 will be published 19 November 2010. Figures for the number of civil servants employed in East Ayrshire are attached at Annex A. Figures for Kilmarnock and Loundoun cannot be provided. Annex A: Civil service employment; number of civil servants in East Ayrshire1— All employees 31 March 2009 Number of civil servants in East Ayrshire 1

Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Source: Annual Civil Service Employment Survey

Full-time equivalent 510

251W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Civil Servants: Labour Turnover John Mann: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the turnover among civil service staff was [22864] in each of the last three years. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated 5 November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning what the turnover among Civil Service staff was in each of the last three years. (22864) The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes detailed information on the composition of the Civil Service each year as part of the Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES). The latest published statistics are for March 2009: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cs0110.pdf Civil Service Statistics does not explicitly contain details on the turnover of Civil Service staff. However, the publication does show the number of leavers from the Civil Service each year along with the total number of staff in post. Based on this information, Annex A provides an estimated turnover rate among Civil Service staff in each of the last three years. Annex A: Civil service employment—civil service turnover 2007, 2008 and 20091, all employees Headcount Leavers

Average ‘staff in post’2

Estimated turnover rate (percentage)

20093

39,010

524,790

7.4

3

50,770

528,490

9.6

20074

45,630

542,690

8.4

2008 1

Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. 2 Average ’staff in post’ based on number of staff in post at the commencement and end of the survey reference period. 3 Survey reference date 31 March. 4 Survey reference date 30 September. Source: Annual Civil Service Employment Survey.

Departmental Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much funding to meet staff redundancy costs was identified in his Department’s settlement letter in respect of the comprehensive spending review. [21511]

Mr Maude: All pressures on Departments’ budgets were taken into account as part of the spending review and settlements were allocated accordingly. The full costs of redundancies will be met within the Cabinet Office’s spending review resource DEL settlement. Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the costs to his Department of staff redundancy in each of the next [21513] four years. Mr Maude: No estimate of redundancy costs has been made at this stage. Employment Ms Buck: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of all non-pensioner households are in employment in each region of the United Kingdom. [22099]

Written Answers

252W

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of all non-pensioner households are in employment in each region of the United Kingdom. 22099. Percentages of working households by region are published in table 1(iii) of the ’Work and worklessness among households 2010’ Statistical Bulletin, and can be accessed via the ONS website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/work0910.pdf A working household is defined as a household that contains at least one person aged 16 to 64, where all individuals aged 16 and over are in employment. Estimates in this table relate to the period April-June 2010.

Employment: Bexley Mr Evennett: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the number of people in the London borough of Bexley who work in [21755] the (a) public and (b) private sector. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the number of people in the London Borough of Bexley who work in the (a) public and (b) private sector. (21755) The Office for National Statistics (ONS) preferred source of statistics for public sector employment is the Quarterly Public Sector Employment Survey (QPSES) and external sources, however figures from this source are not available for parliamentary constituencies. Alternatively public sector employment statistics for local areas can be calculated from the Annual Population Survey (APS). Individuals in the APS are classified to the public or private sector according to their responses to the survey. Consequently, the classification of an individual’s sector may differ from how they would be classified in QPSES statistics. According to APS figures, in the 12 month period April 2009 to March 2010, 76,000 of the working population in the London Borough of Bexley were employed in the private sector and 28,000 employed in the public sector. As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject to a margin of uncertainty. National and local area estimates for many labour market statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant count are available on the NOMIS website at: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Wolverhampton Mr McFadden: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people in Wolverhampton South East constituency were on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months in the latest period for which figures [21762] are available. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

253W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Wolverhampton South East constituency were on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months in the latest period for which figures are available. (21762) The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles the number of claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) from the Jobcentre Plus administrative system. There were 1,065 people resident in Wolverhampton South East constituency in receipt of JSA for over 12 months in September 2010. National and local area estimates for many labour market statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant count are available on the NOMIS website at: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk

Members: Correspondence Tom Greatrex: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he plans to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West of 15 July 2010 and 16 August 2010 on the Civil Service [14883] Compensation Scheme. Mr Maude: I replied to the correspondence from the hon. Member regarding the Civil Service Compensation Scheme on 4 November. I apologise for the delay in responding. Migration

254W

Written Answers

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 November 2010: In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints the Child Support Agency received in each of the last five years; and how many of these were unresolved at the latest date for which figures are available. [21376] The table shows the number of complaints received in each of the last five years and the number of uncleared complaints at the end of each period. It is not possible to track individual complaints on a cohort basis. Complaints received 2005-06

62,100

2006-07

47,900

2007-08

37,600

2008-09

27,800

2009-10

25,100

Notes: 1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100. 2. From April 2007, the Agency introduced a new complaints resolution process, which simplified the process from three stages to two stages. 3. Figures for 2008-09 include complaints received by the Child Support Agency prior to 1 November 2008, and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission from the 1 November 2008.

In the year to September 2010, over 99% of complaints were fully resolved and/or had a resolution plan in place within 15 days of receipt. There are currently 1,900 uncleared complaints. I hope you find this answer helpful.

Council Tax Benefits Mr Carswell: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what changes there have been in the net level of [22392] migration since May 2010. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what changes there have been in the net level of immigration since May 2010 (22392). ONS has not published UK migration statistics for the requested time period. The latest provisional long term international migration estimates relate to the year ending December 2009 and were published in August 2010. These rolling annual estimates are updated on a quarterly basis. Provisional estimates for the year ending March 2010 are due for publication on 25 November.

WORK AND PENSIONS Children: Maintenance Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints the Child Support Agency received in each of the last five years; and how many of these were unresolved on the most recent date [21376] for which figures are available. Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and I have seen the response.

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) pensioner, (b) working and (c) other households are in receipt of council tax [21038] benefit in each local authority area. Steve Webb: The information has been placed in the Library. Departmental Drinking Water Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department has spent on [17545] bottled water since March 2009. Chris Grayling: From March 2009 to August 2010 the Department spent £31,735 on providing bottled water, excluding the cost of water coolers, in its offices. The Department stopped the provision of bought-in bottled water for meetings in July 2008. Since then the Department has been using an on-site system in three large sites, which bottles tap water and uses reusable one litre bottles. Between May 2010 and August 2010, the Department reduced expenditure by 85%. Departmental Official Hospitality Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department spent on hospitality for events hosted by each of its Ministers in [21792] (a) September and (b) October 2010. Chris Grayling: No money has been spent by this Department in relation to hospitality events hosted by its Ministers during September or October 2010.

255W

Written Answers

256W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

London and (b) the North West in each of the last five financial years. [21460]

Departmental Public Expenditure David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his Department’s capital expenditure per head was in (a) London and (b) the [21450] North West in each of the last five years; (2) how much and what proportion of his Department’s capital expenditure was allocated to (a)

Chris Grayling: Departmental capital expenditure per head in (a) London and (b) the North West in each of the last five years is shown in table 1. The proportion of Departmental capital expenditure allocated to (a) London and (b) the North West in each of the last five financial years, and the departmental totals, are shown in table 2.

Table 1 £ 2005-06 London 6.27

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

North West

London

North West

London

North West

London

North West

London

North West

7.38

3.31

4.08

1.19

1.51

0.81

1.05

3.58

4.48

Table 2 2005-06

2006-07

London

North West

2007-08

London

North West

2008-09

London

North West

2009-10

London

North West

London

North West

12.9 (%)

13.9 (%)

11.5 (%)

12.9 (%)

10.2 (%)

11.8 (%)

9.7 (%)

11.3 (%)

9.6 (%)

10.9 (%)

Total DWP Capital DEL (£ million)

354

—

207

—

84

—

91

—

275

—

Total DWP Capital AME1 (£ million)

101

—

185

—

140

—

136

—

171

—

1

Capital AME figures relate to net lending on the Social Fund

Figures are sourced from the Treasury’s Country and Regional Analysis, which is a yearly exercise that departments participate in and which allocates departmental spending to regions based on who benefits from that spending, not necessarily where the spending takes place. The exercise culminates in the publication of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses Command Paper (PESA 2010, CM 7890). Chapters 9 and 10, linked below, contain guidance on what spending is covered and best practice on how departments should allocate spending to regions. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_pesa10.htm#cra http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ pespub_country_regional_analysis.htm

Departmental Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much funding to meet staff redundancy costs was identified in his Department’s settlement letter in respect of the Comprehensive [21559] Spending Review; (2) what estimate he has made of the number of redundancies arising from the spending reductions proposed in the Comprehensive Spending Review in respect of (a) his Department, (b) its nondepartmental public bodies and (c) other public bodies which are dependent on his Department for funding; [21560]

(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of staff redundancy in each of the next [21561] four years. Chris Grayling: The impact of the spending review settlement on future staffing levels and the position on the need for any redundancies is complex. While the

Department’s core budget will be reduced by 26% in real terms over the four years to 2014-15 the Department will receive substantial extra resources to deliver a range of new measures. This position is likely to result in staffing being reduced in some areas of the Department and increased in others, and at different rates. More detailed work will now be undertaken to allocate the overall settlement to the different parts of our business and assess the resulting staffing levels. This detailed planning will need to take account of likely staff turnover rates and the potential for internal and external redeployment before assessing the need for any redundancies in the Department and its non-departmental public bodies. All pressures on the Department’s budgets were taken into account as part of the spending review and settlements were allocated accordingly. The full costs of any redundancies, should these be unavoidable, will be met from within the Department’s departmental expenditure limit (DEL) settlement. Disability Aids: Care Homes Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department provides guidance to adults living in residential care who have entered into loan agreements to pay for the cost of mobility aids. [22845] Maria Miller: Disability living allowance is paid to assist people with the extra cost of disability. It is for each individual to decide how to spend their benefit. The Department does not issue any guidance to individuals on how any benefit award should be spent including loan agreements or mobility aids.

257W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Disability Living Allowance Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people receiving disability living allowance who will have the amount of benefit they receive reduced in each [21979] of the next three years. Maria Miller: The Budget announced that from 2013-14 we would reform disability living allowance by introducing a new, more objective assessment to ensure support is focused on those with greatest need and distributed on a consistent, transparent basis, while continuing to tackle the inequalities that can arise from severe disability. We are developing the new assessment in collaboration with a group of independent health and disability specialists and representatives of disabled people. We intend to run a formal, public consultation exercise on our proposals in the coming months. The spending review announced that from 2012 we would withdraw payment of, but not entitlement to, the mobility component of disability living allowance to publicly funded residents in care homes once they have been there for 28 days. Local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all a resident’s assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, so an individual’s care support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. This measure will remove an overlap of public funds while ensuring that resources continue to be targeted at disabled people with the greatest needs. Disability living allowance mobility component recipients in residential care will continue to retain entitlement and payments will be reinstated should they leave residential care, subject to satisfying the normal conditions of entitlement. We estimate there are currently around 60,000 people in publicly funded care homes who are in receipt of the mobility component of DLA. Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation he undertook with (a) charities, (b) third sector organisations and (c) other disability organisations prior to his decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance for those who live in residential care homes; [22842] and if he will make a statement. Maria Miller: Local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all a resident’s assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, so an individual’s care support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. This measure will remove an overlap of public funds while ensuring that resources continue to be targeted at disabled people with the greatest needs. As part of the spending review all organisations are given the opportunity to contribute to the priorities of the spending review. Across Government, consultation on specific spending review measures was not undertaken. All measures are subject to the parliamentary process, and we are committed to the involvement of charities, third sector organisations and other disability organisations in the ongoing development of policy in these areas.

Written Answers

258W

Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of the number of people living in residential care in Scotland who receive the mobility component of disability living allowance. [22843] Maria Miller: Information that estimates the number of disability living allowance claimants in residential care homes in Scotland is not available. Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact assessment he has undertaken on the likely effects on those living in residential care of the proposed removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance. [22844]

Maria Miller: The equality impact assessment for removing the mobility component of disability living allowance from state-funded care home residents after 28 days is still being completed and will be published shortly. Consideration was given to the equality impacts of the measure when the proposal was being developed. The measure will largely affect disabled people of working age. We anticipate minimal impact on gender, race, sexual orientation and religion/belief. Local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all a resident’s assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, so an individual’s care support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. This measure will remove an overlap of public funds while ensuring that resources continue to be targeted at disabled people with the greatest needs. Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of the number of people living in residential care whose mobility costs are met from the public purse who receive the mobility component of disability living [22846] allowance. Maria Miller: We estimate that approximately 60,000 people who claim disability living allowance and live in residential care currently receive a mobility component in Great Britain. This figure does not include people who are fully self funding their stay in a residential care home. Local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all a resident’s assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, so an individual’s care support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. This measure will remove an overlap of public funds while ensuring that resources continue to be targeted at disabled people with the greatest needs. Employment and Support Allowance Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the time limit on contributory employment and support allowance payments will apply to claimants who find employment within a year [20650] but do not retain it.

259W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Chris Grayling: As part of the spending review announcement, we propose to introduce a time limit of one year for those claiming contributory employment and support allowance and who are placed in the workrelated activity group. All other groups claiming employment and support allowance are not affected by this measure. We are presently considering the detailed rules that will apply to time limiting contributory ESA, including those around linking rules. Employment Schemes Andrew Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has plans to introduce a financial limit on prime contractors’ spending on management and administration costs in contracts [22906] under the Work Programme. Chris Grayling: As part of the procurement process we will be fully sighted on proposed bidder costs including their proposed management and administration costs. The Department will not be seeking to limit or cap any provider’s spending as this may constrain delivery ability/ options available to Prime Providers. However, we will be undertaking a detailed evaluation process for each provider’s proposal so that we can ensure that contracts are awarded on a value for money basis.

Written Answers

260W

Housing Benefit: Landlords Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to ensure that the full monetary value of housing benefit paid to tenants is received by landlords; and if he will make a statement. [20827] Steve Webb: Housing benefit in the private rented sector is normally paid to the tenant but there are safeguards in place to ensure that they do not lose their tenancy if they fall, or are at risk of falling, into arrears. If the tenant has rent arrears of eight weeks or more the local authority should make payments to the landlord unless it is in the tenant’s overriding interest not to do so. For tenants whose benefit is assessed according to the local housing allowance rules, the local authority can make payments to the landlord if it considers the customer is unable or unlikely to manage their rental payments. Other tenants in the private rented sector and those who have tenancies with registered social landlords can choose to have their benefit paid to the landlord. The local authority can also decide to make payment to the landlord if they consider it to be in the customer’s best interests. For local authority tenants housing benefit takes the form of a rebate against their rent account. Industrial Health and Safety

Housing Benefit: Argyll and Bute Mr Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many tenants in Argyll and Bute broad rental market area were paid local housing allowance in each of the last 12 months; and how much was paid to such tenants in that allowance in each such year. [22847]

Steve Webb: The information is not available at the broad rental market area level. The information for Argyll and Bute local authority is shown in the table. Housing benefit recipients in Argyll and Bute local authority Of which, assessed Housing benefit under the local housing recipients allowance arrangements August 2009 6,280 1,480 September 2009 6,270 1,470 October 2009 6,260 1,470 November 2009 6,250 1,480 December 2009 6,310 1,500 January 2010 6,370 1,530 February 2010 6,430 1,560 March 2010 6,460 1,590 April 2010 6,490 1,600 May 2010 6,480 1,570 June 2010 6,440 1,560 July 2010 6,430 1,560 Source: Single Housing Benefit Extract. Figures reported are as at the second Thursday of the month, and are rounded to the nearest 10 recipients.

Based on the local authority final subsidy returns for the financial year 2009-10, the local housing allowance expenditure in Argyll and Bute was £6,217,918.

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria are used to make the assessment of a low hazard business in respect of [22346] health and safety. Chris Grayling: Lord Young’s report to the Prime Minister of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture includes recommendations aimed at low hazard business. It points to offices, shops and classrooms as examples of workplaces which can be of lower risk on the basis that the risk of injury or death is minimal. The latest figures show that only around 3% of all workplace injuries in Great Britain involve offices and that no office workers died as a result of accidents at work in 2009. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has developed guidance and example risk assessments primarily aimed at lower risk businesses. HSE has been guided by the definition of risk as a concept embodying a combination of likelihood and consequence. Therefore, low risk activities are those that have a low likelihood and minor consequences. Mental Health Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of recommendations relevant to his Department’s policy responsibilities contained in the Foresight report on Mental Capacity and Well-Being by the Government Office for Science; if he will ensure that his Department takes steps to promote well-being; if he will ensure that his Department’s policy development process takes account of psychological research into subjective [22909] well-being; and if he will make a statement.

261W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Chris Grayling: The expertise and vision of the Foresight report has informed our approach to health and work. The relationship between health, work and well-being is right at the heart of the welfare reforms we are implementing, which is why we have designed the new Work Programme to allow employment support providers to tailor help to individual needs, and foster self efficacy and mental capital. Because promoting and protecting well-being goes beyond the remit of one Department, DWP also contributes to a cross-Government programme of action to promote well-being and improve health at work. It is in all of our interests to stop people falling out of work and onto benefits through ill health. Failure to act results in heavy costs to individuals, employers, the economy and society and can contribute to working-age ill health, avoidable sickness absence and job loss through ill health. As announced in the June Budget, the Cabinet Office and ONS are taking work on measuring societal well-being forward—in particular regarding the lessons for the UK from the Stiglitz, Sen and Fenoussi report. We have in the past supported the use of subjective well-being measures in research on deprivation and its impact on individual. The DWP is working closely with other Departments on exploring how to take account of subjective well-being in specific policy interventions and measuring overall economic performance. National Insurance Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individual national [22048] insurance numbers there are. Chris Grayling: The latest available figures (2010) show a total of 82.13 million national insurance number (NINo) records on the Department’s Customer Information System (CIS). These consist of: 62.98 million Live NINo Accounts 19.15 million NINo Accounts with a date of death applied. Note: The figures provided are from the Customer Information (Live) Database in April 2010 and are subject to rounding. The figures are Management Information (MI) collected for the purpose of managing DWP Business, and therefore have not been subjected to the rigorous quality assurance that is applied to DWP official statistics.

Social Security Benefits: Fraud Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to his Department’s publication Tackling Fraud and Error in the Benefit and Tax Credits Systems, October 2010, what factors other than previous convictions for fraud would lead to an application for a benefit being considered particularly at risk of being fraudulent or in error. [22013]

Chris Grayling: The Department’s new joint strategy with HMRC for tackling welfare fraud and error contains a wide range of measures to: prevent fraud and error from entering the system in the first place; detect and correct mistakes where they do happen; deliver tough

Written Answers

262W

punishments for those who defraud the system; and deter those who would try to abuse the system in the future. With regard to factors other than previous convictions for fraud which could identify cases at risk of being fraudulent or in error, we will develop these through analysis of common characteristics in past fraud and error cases alongside application of the most effective risk profiling techniques used within and outside Government. Veterinary Services: Regulation Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance his Department issues on the application of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to veterinary surgeons working in (a) pig and poultry abattoirs and (b) meat cutting plants. [22497] Chris Grayling: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published generic guidance, both written and web-based, on the application of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and on a proportionate approach to managing health and safety risks. HSE has worked closely with a number of organisations representing the veterinary profession in recent years, including the British Veterinary Association (BVA), including by: Providing speakers on a wide-range of relevant health and safety topics for training courses; Assisting in developing a health and safety manual for the veterinary profession; and Writing articles on issues such as zoonoses, cattle handling and risks to pregnant workers for the BVA’s journal ’In Practice’.

HSE has also contributed to the development of guidance by other organisations relevant to the work of veterinary surgeons, such as the British Meat Processors Association’s Guidance Notes on ’Safety when handling cattle in slaughterhouses’, ’Q fever’ and ’Personal protective equipment in the meat industry’. Vocational Training: Merseyside Mr George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployed people received employment training and advice from contracted service providers in each local authority area in the Merseyside sub-region in each of the last five years; and how many of these found employment within (a) one month, (b) three months and (c) six months of receiving such services in each such year. [20012]

Chris Grayling: Information to answer the full request is not available. The Department offers a range of contracted employment provision to support jobseekers in finding employment. It is not possible to identify participants on all of the contracted provision offered by the Department due to the wide range of support available and the ways in which starts to these programmes have been recorded. However, we can identify individuals who have been recorded by DWP computer systems as participating on contracted provision offered through the following schemes: New Deal for Young People,

263W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

New Deal for the Long Term Unemployed, Private Sector-Led New Deal, Employment Zones, Flexible New Deal, Programme Centres, Jobcentre Plus Support Contracts, Backing Young Britain, Young Person’s Guarantee and the 6 month offer. These represent the majority of provision aimed specifically at jobseekers.

264W

Table 1: Number of people that received at least one spell of employment training or advice from a contracted service provider in each of the Merseyside local authorities during each of the last five years Knowsley

20101

1

Liverpool

1

2,200

7,240

St Helens

1

2,040

Sefton

Wirral

1

1

2,370

3,300

The information can be found in the following tables: Table 1: Number of people that received at least one spell of employment training or advice from a contracted service provider in each of the Merseyside local authorities during each of the last five years Knowsley

Liverpool

St Helens

Sefton

Wirral

2006

920

4,320

780

1,110

1,800

2007

1,100

5,540

1,110

1,350

2,150

2008

1,190

5,280

1,020

1,480

2,150

2009

1,910

7,270

1,730

2,320

3,000

1 Data for 2010 are partial. Some data is complete to August 2010 while the remainder is complete to the end of September 2010. Notes: 1. Geographies are based on individuals’ latest known address rather than their address at the point of entry to provision. 2. If an individual attended more than one type of contracted provision in any year, they are only counted once. 3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 4. Figures include contracted provision available through the following schemes: New Deal for Young People, New Deal for the Long Term Unemployed, Private Sector-Led New Deal, Employment Zones, Flexible New Deal, Programme Centres, Jobcentre Plus Support Contracts, Backing Young Britain, Young Person’s Guarantee and the six month offer. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Delivery Directorate: New Deal for Young People database August 2010, New Deal for Long Term Unemployed database August 2010, Employment Zones database August 2010, Opportunity Types database September 2010

Tables 2: Of those who started at least one spell of contracted employment provision, the number who found employment within one month, three months and six months of first start on provision in each of the last five years Table 2a: Knowsley Started employment

1

2010

2006

2007

2008

2009

60

100

110

110

1

Within three months of first provision start

170

240

280

370

1

Within six months of first provision start

290

390

440

620

1

Within one month of first provision start

160

370

530

Table 2b: Liverpool Started employment

1

2006

2007

2008

2009

Within one month of first provision start

170

270

260

350

Within three months of first provision start

600

870

870

1,220

1

1,060

Within six months of first provision start

1,070

1,580

1,490

2,080

1

1,560

Started employment

2006

2007

2008

2009

40

70

60

100

1

Within three months of first provision start

130

260

190

320

1

Within six months of first provision start

210

430

340

540

1

2010 1

450

Table 2c: St Helens

Within one month of first provision start

1

2010 110 300 440

Table 2d: Sefton Started employment

1

2006

2007

2008

2009

40

90

90

160

1

Within three months of first provision start

160

250

260

460

1

Within six months of first provision start

290

440

470

760

1

Within one month of first provision start

2010 150 340 500

Table 2e: Wirral Started employment Within one month of first provision start

2006

2007

2008

2009

120

140

130

160

1

2010 1

180

265W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

266W

Table 2e: Wirral Started employment

1

2006

2007

2008

2009

Within three months of first provision start

300

380

410

500

1

Within six months of first provision start

490

660

640

860

1

2010 470 680

1

Data for 2010 are only partially complete. Some employment programme data is complete to August 2010 while the remainder is complete to the end of September 2010. P45 records may be included in the WPLS several months after a job actually started, as such, figures for employment in 2010 should be treated as incomplete. Notes: 1. Employment starts are derived from P45/P46 records within the Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study. As such, employment attracting earnings below the income tax threshold, and self employment are not included. In some cases, incomplete records mean that we are unable to match individuals to employment spells. 2. Volumes of P45s contained in the Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study have altered over time due to changes to HMRC processes. These may drive underlying trends year-on-year. 3. If an individual attended more than one type of contracted provision in any year, employment records were only sought which matched to the first time they started contracted employment provision within that year. 4. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 5. Figures include contracted provision available through the following schemes: New Deal for Young People, New Deal for the Long Term Unemployed, Private Sector-Led New Deal, Employment Zones, Flexible New Deal, Programme Centres, Jobcentre Plus Support Contracts, Backing Young Britain, Young Person’s Guarantee and the six month offer. 6. Geographies are based on individuals’ latest known address rather than their address at the point of entry to provision. Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Delivery Directorate: New Deal for Young People database August 2010, New Deal for Long Term Unemployed database August 2010, Employment Zones database August 2010, Opportunity Types database September 2010, Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study, September 2010

Welfare State: Reform

Building Schools for the Future Programme

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what disability impact assessment he plans to undertake of the proposals for welfare reforms [21770] contained in the spending review.

Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) in respect of which Building Schools for the Future projects classified as (a) stopped and (b) under discussion damage has been caused to existing school buildings as a result of (i) fire and (ii) flooding in the last 24 months; [8496] (2) in respect of which Building Schools for the Future projects classified as (a) stopped and (b) under discussion one or more (i) classrooms, (ii) dining facilities, (iii) staff common rooms and (iv) offices in the school are housed in temporary or pre-fabricated [8497] accommodation.

Maria Miller: The Government are strongly committed to the principle of promoting equality. We take our duty to consider the impact of policy decisions on different groups of people very seriously. The Department for Work and Pensions assesses the equality impacts of any new policies or changes to existing policies and practice. To that end, there are a well established set of processes to help policy makers develop equality impact assessments based on a strong evidence base. The welfare reform measures contained in the spending review that require primary legislation will be included in the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill. Alongside the publication of the Bill my Department will publish a full equality impact assessment of its contents, which will include an assessment of the impact of the Bill measures on disabled people.

EDUCATION Academies James Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received on enabling secondary schools rated as good by Ofsted [18640] to apply for academy status. Mr Gibb: We have received a great deal of interest from schools in converting to become an academy. The Department’s website contains a list of schools, both those judged outstanding by Ofsted and otherwise, which have registered their interest. Currently, only schools judged outstanding overall can apply, but we are keen to extend the benefit of academy status to many more schools. An announcement will be made shortly about when the next group of schools will be invited to apply.

Mr Gibb [holding answer 14 July 2010]: This information is not held centrally, nor is it readily available, and to gather it would require a detailed review by Partnerships for Schools (PfS) of each local authority’s plans for its Building Schools for the Future investment. It would not be possible for PfS to gather this information in a form that is fully comprehensive without incurring disproportionate cost. We are aware that Campsmount Technology College in Doncaster and Carleton High School in Wakefield, were both damaged by fire. Both of these schools will no longer proceed under the Building Schools for the Future programme. However, the independent Capital Review team is working with building companies on a pilot proposal to rebuild Campsmount Technology College in Doncaster. There is a good prospect that the new school could be rebuilt ahead of the original schedule as the accelerated procurement timetable has been met, and cost savings are being identified by the private sector through the bidding process. Children in Care Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many section 51 (Children Act) refuge beds are available for children under the age of [21427] 16 years. Tim Loughton [holding answer 4 November 2010]: Local authorities are responsible for deciding on the provision of refuge beds in the light of local need. We do not collect information centrally on the number of beds available.

267W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Children: Databases Mr David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what function the reformed ContactPoint database will have in respect of vulnerable children which is not undertaken by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre; and what steps he plans to take to ensure that only details of children already identified as being at risk are stored on the database. [20900]

Tim Loughton [holding answer 1 November 2010]: In line with our longstanding policy commitment, ContactPoint was switched off on 6 August 2010. The database is in the process of being permanently decommissioned and the data securely destroyed. Accordingly, the ContactPoint database is not being reformed. We are however exploring the feasibility of an alternative approach to help key professionals support and protect our most vulnerable children, particularly when these children move areas or access services in more than one area. Wherever practicable, we will seek to re-use investment made to date. We will provide an update in due course. Children: Human Trafficking

268W

responsible for putting in place an individualised care plan covering the full range of the child’s needs. The social worker will also make an assessment of the type of placement which best matches the needs of the child, including the need to safeguard them from contact with traffickers. Colchester Academy Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to make an announcement on funding for a new building for the Colchester Academy, formerly Sir Charles Lucas Arts College. [21191] Mr Gibb [holding answer 2 November 2010]: The Secretary of State is currently reviewing the capital funding position for Colchester Academy and aims to confirm this no later than the end of this year. Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many officials in his Department have been (a) subject to disciplinary action, (b) removed from post, (c) transferred to another position and (d) dismissed for matters relating to their (i) disciplinary record and (ii) performance in each year since 1997. [18751]

Mr Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account his Department takes of the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Trafficking in determining the level of support provided to guardians of child victims of human [21739] trafficking. Tim Loughton [holding answer 4 November 2010]: Responsibility for the care, protection and accommodation of child trafficking victims rests with local authorities under their duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children, and in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Human Trafficking. Separated and vulnerable children from abroad have the same entitlements as UK born or resident children. Where a child is assessed as trafficked and becomes looked after by a local authority, a social worker will be

Tim Loughton: The Department for Education was formed on 12 May 2010. The information covers its predecessors, The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Staff may be the subject of formal disciplinary and capability procedures (i) without the imposition of any penalty or (ii) with the imposition of a penalty (such as a written warning, downgrading, and dismissal). Data held on formal disciplinary action taken by the Department against its employees is available from 2005/06 and is set out as follows. Information before this time can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information where the number of employees is less than five has been suppressed on the grounds of confidentiality.

Discipline (misconduct and poor attendance) Number of employees subject to formal disciplinary action

Number of employees removed from post due to disciplinary action

Number of employees transferred to another position due to disciplinary action

Number of employees dismissed from the Department due to disciplinary action

2009-10

6

1

—

1

—

1

—

2008-09

5

1

—

1

—

1

—

2007-08

9

1

—

1

—

1

—

2006-07

7

1

—

1

—

1

—

9

1

—

1

—

1

—

2005-06 1

Fewer than 5. Capability (poor performance) Number of employees subject to formal capability action

Number of employees removed from post due to capability action

Number of employees transferred to another position due to capability action

Number of employees dismissed from the Department due to capability action

5

1

—

1

—

1

—

2008-09

11

1

—

1

—

1

—

2007-08

13

1

—

1

—

1

—

2006-07

12

1

—

1

—

1

—

2005-06

6

1

—

1

—

1

—

2009-10

1

Fewer than 5.

269W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers

270W

Departmental Redundancy Pay

Education Maintenance Allowance: Rotherham

Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what severance payments have been paid to (a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in his Department who left office after the last general [15403] election.

Mr MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students normally resident in Rotherham receive education maintenance allowance.

Tim Loughton [holding answer 16 September 2010]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr Maude) on 5 July 2010, Official Report, column 55W. The Government are committed to publishing annually the total cost of special advisers in the form of a written ministerial statement by the Prime Minister. The total cost of severance paid out to special advisers who left office after the last general election will be published in due course.

Mr Gibb: This is a matter for the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) which operates the education maintenance allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener the YPLA’s chief executive, will write to the hon. Member for Rotherham with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries.

Education Maintenance Allowance Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what eligibility criteria he plans to use for the education maintenance allowance, or its replacement, in 2011-12; and whether the criteria will vary depending on the number of children in a family [20049] unit. Mr Gibb [holding answer 28 October 2010]: The education maintenance allowance scheme will close at the end of the 2010/11 Academic Year and no new applications will be processed from 1 January 2011. It will be replaced by an enhanced Discretionary Learner Support Fund. Decisions about which young people should receive financial support from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will be made by schools, colleges and training providers, who are in a better position than Government to determine the needs of individual students. They will target support to those young people who most need it to continue in learning. Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he plans to make to the operation of education maintenance allowance in [20145] 2010-11; and if he will make a statement.

[18427]

Education Maintenance Allowance: Sunderland Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in (a) Houghton and Sunderland South constituency and (b) Sunderland claimed education maintenance allowance in each year [22907] for which figures are available. Mr Gibb: This is a matter for the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) who operate the education maintenance allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener the YPLA’s chief executive, will write to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Education: Internet Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on online schooling communities; and if he will make a [18657] statement. Mr Gibb [holding answer 21 October 2010]: The Department has no specific policy on online virtual schooling, but recognises that it can contribute to pupils’ education.

Mr Gibb [holding answer 28 October 2010]: No new applications for the education maintenance allowance will be processed from 1 January 2011 and the scheme will close at the end of the 2010/11 academic year.

Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the merits of online schooling communities; and if he will make a statement. [18840]

Education Maintenance Allowance: Kingston Upon Thames

Mr Gibb [holding answer 21 October 2010]: Models of Innovation in Learning Online was a Government funded evaluation from 2008. The main finding from this was that students are positive about online education but not enthusiastic about schooling that is entirely based online.

Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of 16 to 18-year-olds in receipt of education maintenance allowance in Kingston Upon Hull East constituency who will no longer receive payments as a result of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. [21192] Mr Gibb [holding answer 2 November 2010]: This is a matter for the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) who operate the education maintenance allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener, the YPLA’s chief executive, will write to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Educational Psychology Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what statutory duties educational [21353] psychologists perform for local authorities. Sarah Teather: Local authorities are required by statute to seek the written advice of an educational psychologist in order to make an assessment of a child’s special educational needs.

271W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department’s review of special educational needs services will include training and funding arrangements for educational psychologists; [21355] and if he will make a statement. Sarah Teather: Educational psychologists make an extremely important contribution to services for children and families. They play an important part in the special educational needs system, in relation to the existing statementing process and also in relation to the support for parents and schools. We will consider the role of educational psychologists, and the arrangements for funding their training, within the context of the forthcoming Green Paper on special educational needs and the Government spending review. Free School Meals: Tottenham Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils at each (a) primary and (b) secondary school in Tottenham [20596] constituency is eligible for free school meals. Mr Gibb: The requested information is shown in the table. Maintained primary1 and state-funded secondary1,2 schools: school meal arrangements3,4 as at January 2010: Schools in Tottenham parliamentary constituency Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

School name

Phase of education

Belmont Junior School

Primary

Belmont Infant School

Primary

25.6

Coleraine Park Primary School

Primary

36.5

Devonshire Hill Primary School

Primary

44.3

Earlsmead Primary School

Primary

45.8

Lancasterian Primary School

Primary

45.7

South Haringey Junior School

Primary

34.9

South Haringey Infant and Nursery School

Primary

32.6

Stamford Hill Primary School

Primary

40.7

West Green Primary School

Primary

48.6

Tiverton Primary School

Primary

36.6

26.6

Welbourne Primary School

Primary

39.7

Lea Valley Primary School

Primary

53.8

Ferry Lane Primary School

Primary

36.1

Crowland Primary School

Primary

29.4

Broadwater Farm Primary School

Primary

45.8

Bruce Grove Primary School

Primary

41.4

Risley Avenue Primary School

Primary

52.9

Downhills Primary School

Primary

45.3

Seven Sisters Primary School

Primary

33.1

Mulberry Primary School

Primary

43.4

St Paul’s and All Hallows C of E Infant School

Primary

25.2

The Green C of E Primary School

Primary

31.7

St Ann’s C of E Primary School

Primary

32.3

St Paul’s and All Hallows C of E Junior School

Primary

23.5

Written Answers

272W

Maintained primary1 and state-funded secondary1,2 schools: school meal arrangements3,4 as at January 2010: Schools in Tottenham parliamentary constituency Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

School name

Phase of education

St Francis de Sales RC Junior School

Primary

31.8

St Ignatius RC Primary School

Primary

32.2

St Mary’s Priory RC Junior School

Primary

30.6

St Mary’s Priory RC Infant School

Primary

30.6

St Francis de Sales RC Infant School

Primary

34.7

St John Vianney RC Primary School

Primary

25.5

Chestnuts Primary School

Primary

27.4

North Haringey Primary School

Primary

40.7

Northumberland Park Community School

Secondary

53,2

Gladesmore Community School

Secondary

63.1

Park View Academy

Secondary

39.0

Haringey Sixth Form Centre

Secondary

The John Loughborough School

Secondary

5

—

22.9

1

Includes middle schools as deemed. There are no city technology colleges or academies in Tottenham parliamentary constituency. 3 Includes sole and dual main registrations. 4 Pupils eligible for free school meals who have full time attendance and are aged 15 or under, or pupils who have part-time attendance and are aged between five and 15. 5 Not applicable. This school has no pupils eligible for free school meals who have full-time attendance and are aged 15 or under, or pupils who have parttime attendance and are aged between five and 15. Source: School Census 2

Free Schools Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications to open free schools in the academic years (a) 2011/12 and (b) 2012/13 his Department has received; what proportion of such applications are from religious and faith-based group; [22454] and if he will make a statement. Mr Gibb [holding answer 8 November 2010]: The Department for Education has received over 130 free school proposals from a variety of different proposers, including religious and faith-based groups. Of these, most are aiming to open in September 2011. Others give a range of hoped for opening dates, so a precise breakdown is not possible. On 5 November, the names of the first 25 Free School proposals approved to progress to the business case and plan stage were published on the Free Schools website. Of these, eight have a religious dimension, although they have not necessarily been proposed by faith groups. GCE A-level Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many students identified as (a) Black African, (b) Black Caribbean, (c) Black Other and (d) White British gained (i) three A* grades or more, (ii) three A grades or more and (iii) 2 A and 1 B grade or more at A-level in each year since 1999; [17076]

273W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

(2) when he plans to answer question 17076, on [20887] A-level results, tabled on 8 October 2010. Mr Gibb: A* grades for A-levels were first awarded in 2010 and these results have not yet been matched to pupil characteristics and so are not provided. The figures

274W

requested for three A grades or more and two A and one B grade or more are in the following tables. Figures matching A-level attainment in year 13 to ethnicity, recorded in year 11, are not readily available prior to 2005.

Year 13 students1 from selected ethnic groups2 who achieved three A grades or more at A-level, 2005 to 2009 Black African

Black Caribbean

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

2005

74

2006

84

2007

Black Other

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

1,728

18

1,798

24

157

3,513

2008

181

2009

209

White British

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

1,060

11

326

8,742

105,348

1,089

13

352

9,740

107,629

47

1,969

24

636

14,260

153,911

4,037

52

2,138

22

737

15,259

158,561

4,469

51

2,147

32

732

15,885

161,505

Source: National Pupil Database. Year 13 students1 from selected ethnic groups2 who achieved two A and one B grade or more at A-level, 2005 to 2009 Black African

Black Caribbean

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

2005

116

2006

159

2007

Black Other

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

1,728

40

1,798

56

293

3,513

2008

320

2009

379

White British

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

Number achieving

Number of A-level students

1,060

22

326

15,044

105,348

1,089

21

352

16,589

107,629

101

1,969

51

636

24,227

153,911

4,037

122

2,138

53

737

25,854

158,561

4,469

143

2,147

61

732

27,144

161,505

1

Students in maintained schools and FE colleges are included. 2 Ethnicity as recorded for those who were in maintained schools in year 11. Source: National Pupil Database.

New Schools Network Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations his Department has received from applicants to the free schools programme on the (a) quality and (b) timeliness of the service provided by the New Schools Network; and if he will [22452] make a statement. Mr Gibb [holding answer 8 November 2010]: The Department for Education has received positive feedback about the New Schools Network from free school proposers, in relation to both the quality and timeliness of the service it provides. Ofsted: Inspections Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps he has taken to reduce the level of administration associated with Ofsted [18591] inspections; (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Ofsted inspections as a means of evaluating [18592] education outcomes. Mr Gibb: Inspection is most effective where it is sharply focused on core issues and targeted at the schools, colleges and other children’s services in most need of improvement. We intend, through our reforms, to reduce inspection related burdens and enhance the contribution that inspection makes to accountability and improvement. In terms of school inspection, we plan to streamline and re-focus arrangements around the core areas of achievement; teaching; leadership; and behaviour and safety, and free up outstanding schools

from routine inspection. We have already signalled that the self-evaluation form, which presents a significant administrative burden on schools, will be removed from the end of this academic year. Further details on this programme of reform will be provided in the forthcoming Education White Paper. Primary Education: Teachers Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of (a) recruitment levels and (b) retention rates of male primary school teachers in each year since 2000. [21383]

Tim Loughton: Tables 1 and 2 give the numbers of full and part-time male entrants to local authority maintained primary (and nursery) schools in each year since 20001. Table 3 shows the retention rates of male primary (and nursery) school teachers in local authority maintained schools in England. The retention rates are based on the percentage of teachers entering service, in maintained nursery and primary schools, in a particular year who are still in service a number of years later. Information on the recruitment and retention of teachers is available from the Database of Teacher Records (DTR). Please note that the DTR is maintained primarily for the administration of teachers’ pensions. Although all teachers should be included on the DTR, some records are missing; in particular, part-time teachers are undercounted by around 15%. The most recent data is for the year 2009 as the DTR has a one year time lag. 1

This information is published annually in the School Workforce in England statistical first release, additional table C1.

275W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

276W

Table 1: Full-time qualified teacher entrants1 in local authority maintained nursery and primary schools by gender and type of flow: Year 31 March 2000/01 to 31 March 2008-09, Coverage: England, Teacher flows (inflow) 1999001

2000-011

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007/08

2008-09

1,100

900

1,010

1,110

1,240

1,250

1,400

1,420

1,370

1,390

New to maintained sector3

300

400

380

300

310

320

340

370

470

480

Returner to maintained sector4

400

600

650

500

470

540

390

450

380

400

1,800

1,900

2,040

1,910

2,010

2,110

2,130

2,240

2,220

2,270

Newly qualified entrants2

8,000

7,100

7,650

8,000

8,230

7,990

8,920

8,700

8,730

8,810

New to maintained sector3

2,100

2,700

2,660

2,010

2,050

2,360

2,480

2,510

3,030

3,360

Returner to maintained sector4

2,300

3,300

3,560

3,000

2,480

3,070

2,040

2,380

1,860

2,090

Total entrants5,6

12,500

13,200

13,880

13,010

12,760

13,430

13,440

13,590

13,610

14,260

Nursery and primary men Newly qualified entrants2

Total entrants5,6 Women

1

Rounded to the nearest 10 except in 1999/00 and 2000/01 where totals have been rounded to the nearest 100. Teacher qualified in the previous year. . Teacher has no known service in the English maintained schools sector, and qualified before the previous year. 4 Teacher was not in service in the previous March, but has previous service in the English maintained schools sector. 5 Does not include joiners from part-time service. It does include joiners from the FE, HE and independent sectors and Wales. 6 Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding. Note: 2008-09 provisional estimates. Source: Database of Teacher Records 2 3

Table 2: Part-time1 qualified teacher entrants2 in local authority maintained nursery and primary schools by gender and type of flow: Year: 31 March 2000/01 to 31 March 2008/09, Coverage: England teacher flows (inflow) 1999/001

2000/011

2001/02

2002/0

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007-08

2008-09

—

—

10

10

30

40

50

50

30

40

New to maintained sector4

100

100

80

80

100

110

170

170

200

190

Returner to maintained sector5

100

200

190

140

160

160

160

150

160

100

Total entrants 6,7

200

300

280

230

280

310

370

370

390

330

300

200

210

260

430

430

520

480

540

490

New to maintained sector4

1,400

1,700

1,650

1,640

2,070

2,140

2,740

2,850

3,070

3,060

Returner to maintained sector5

1,900

2,500

2,640

1,930

1,990

2,600

2,080

1,830

1,600

1,610

Total entrants6,7

3,500

4,400

4,510

3,830

4,490

5,160

5,340

5,170

5,210

5,160

Nursery and Primary Men Newly qualified entrants3

Women Newly qualified entrants

277W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

278W

1

10-20% of part-time teachers may not be included in the data. Rounded to the nearest 10 except in-1999/00 and 2000/01 where totals have been rounded to the nearest 100. Teacher qualified in the previous year. 4 Teacher has no known service in the English maintained schools sector, and qualified before the previous year. 5 Teacher was not in service in the previous March, but has previous service in the English maintained schools sector. 6 Does not include joiners from full-time service. It does include joiners from the FE, HE and independent sectors and Wales. 7 Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding. Negligible Note: 2008-09 provisional estimates. ‘—’ = Negligible Source: Database of Teacher Records 2 3

Table 3: Percentage of full and part-time1 qualified male teachers who entered service2 (in maintained nursery and primary schools) in a particular year and who were still teaching a number of years later. Year entered service3

Total number of entrants2

Percentage of teachers in regular service in the maintained schools sector in England after: 1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

7 years

8 years

9years

1999-2000

2,100

83

75

69

65

61

59

57

56

52

2000-01

2,190

83

74

68

63

60

57

55

53

—

2001-02

2,400

82

74

66

62

59

57

55

—

—

2002-03

2,220

82

73

68

64

61

57

—

—

—

2003-04

2,410

83

74

67

64

62

—

—

—

—

2004-05

2,420

84

77

72

67

—

—

—

—

—

2005-06

2,630

80

76

68

—

—

—

—

—

—

2006-07

2,610

83

76

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2007-08

2,610

81

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2008-09

2,600

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

82

75

69

65

62

59

57

56

52

Average percentage of full and parttime teachers who were still in service a number of years after they entered service 1

Teachers in part-time service are under-recorded on the DTR by between 10 and 20%. Includes all types of entrants: newly qualified entrants (qualified during the previous academic year), new to the maintained sector (teachers qualified before the previous year who have no known service in the maintained sector) and returners to the maintained sector (teachers who were not in service in the previous year, but have previous service in the maintained sector). 3 Financial year during which the teachers entered service. 4 To calculate the average, information from the last three years was used where possible. (The averages for eight and nine years in service were calculated using the last two years and one year respectively). Notes: 1. The length of service may not have been continuous; for example, not all of those shown as teaching eight years after entering service in 2000-01 may have taught continuously for eight years, some may have taken periods of time outside of the maintained sector. 2. 2007-08 and 2008-09 are provisional; entrant numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Source: Database of Teacher Records (DTR) 2

Pupil Exclusions: Violence Chris Skidmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what number and proportion of fixedperiod exclusions in maintained schools were for acts [20227] of violence in each year since 1997. Mr Gibb: The available data, on the number and proportion of fixed period exclusions for physical assault against both pupils and adults, are shown in the table.

Reasons for exclusion were collected for the first time for the school year 2003/04 via the Termly Exclusions Survey. In 2005/06 data were collected via the School Census for secondary schools only. From 2006/07 the collection was extended to include primary and special schools. Any violence against school staff is totally unacceptable. Head teachers may decide that permanent exclusion is appropriate in some cases, but opt to use a fixed-term exclusion or other disciplinary penalty for less major incidents such as obstruction or jostling.

Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3. Number and proportion of fixed period exclusions that were for physical assault—England Physical assault against a pupil

Physical assault against an adult

Total physical assaults against a pupil or an adult

Total exclusions (any reasons)

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

2003/04

69,020

20.0

15,990

4.6

85,010

24.7

344,510

100

2004/05

80,700

20.7

18,480

4.7

99,180

25.5

389,560

100

2005/06

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2006/07

79,130

18.6

18,530

4.4

97,660

23.0

425,280

100

2007/08

71,280

18.6

17,810

4.6

89,100

23.2

383,520

100

279W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

280W

Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3. Number and proportion of fixed period exclusions that were for physical assault—England Physical assault against a pupil

Physical assault against an adult

Total physical assaults against a pupil or an adult

Total exclusions (any reasons)

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

Number of fixed period exclusions

Percentage of all fixed period exclusions4

69,020

19.0

17,120

4.7

86,130

23.7

362,870

100

2008/09

‘—’ Comparable data not available. Data were only collected for secondary schools in 2005/06. 1 Includes middle schools as deemed. 2 Includes city technology colleges and academies. 3 Excludes non-maintained special schools and general hospital schools. 4 The number of exclusions by reason expressed as a percentage of the total number of exclusions. Note: Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Source: School Census and Termly Exclusions Survey

Pupils: Languages Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary school children in each local authority area did not speak English as their first language in the latest period for which figures are [22683] available. Mr Gibb [holding answer 8 November 2010]: The latest information on first language in primary schools can be found in table 13a of the Statistical First Release ‘Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics: January 2010’ which can be accessed at: http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000925/ index.shtml

Mr Gibb: Estimates of participation in education and training for 16 and 17-year-olds in each local authority in England are published by the Department in a Statistical First Release (SFR) each June. The full SFR can be found on the Department’s website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000938/ index.shtml

and data by local authority is contained in the fifth set of tables listed on this page. These latest estimates show that 2,100 young people of academic age 16 in Kent were not in education or work-based learning at the end of 2008. These data do not go below local authority level and so figures for Maidstone and the Weald are not available.

Runaway Children

School Leaving: Watford

Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what emergency accommodation is available in each local authority area for children who go [21428] missing from home.

Richard Harrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people in Watford constituency left full-time education at the age of (a) 16 and (b) 18 [22436] years in each year since 2000.

Tim Loughton [holding answer 4 November 2010]: This information is not held centrally. There is a range of emergency accommodation currently on offer across the country which is provided by local authorities. It is for local authorities themselves to decide on the most appropriate and effective form of emergency accommodation provision in their area for all young people who find themselves without a safe place to stay.

Mr Gibb [holding answer 8 November 2010]: Estimates of participation in education and training for 16 and 17-year-olds in each local authority in England are published by the Department in a Statistical First Release (SFR) each June. The full SFR can be found on the Department’s website:

School Leaving: Kent

and data by local authority is contained in the fifth set of tables listed on this page. The latest estimates show that 1,500 young people of academic age 16 in Hertfordshire were not in full-time education at the end of 2008, from a population of 14,500. The full time-series is provided in the following table.

Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of students educated in Maidstone and the Weald constituency who left education at the age of 16 in each [21486] of the last three years.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000938/ index.shtml

Table: Participation in full-time education of academic age 16 year olds in Hertfordshire

1

In full-time education Not in full-time education2 Population3 1

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

10,800

10,400

10,700

10,900

11,300

11,600

12,300

12,600

13,000

1,700

2,400

2,200

2,500

2,400

2,200

1,800

1,800

1,500

13,000

13,000

12,900

13,300

13,700

13,800

14,100

14,400

14,500

Participation is assigned to the local authority in which the young person is resident from 2001 onwards; in 2000 participation in maintained schools, City Technology Colleges and academies was assigned according to the address of the school. Figures are not available disaggregated into parliamentary constituencies or for academic age 18 year olds. 2 Numbers not in full-time education are based on subtracting unrounded full-time participation from unrounded population; hence estimates for participation in full-time education plus not in full-time education might not add up to the published population figure due to rounding. 3 Population estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 from 2002 onwards; prior to 2002 population is rounded to the nearest 1,000 in accordance with Office for National Statistics (ONS) guidelines at the time.

281W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Schools Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the future of online schooling communities; and if he will make a [19674] statement. Mr Gibb [holding answer 26 October 2010]: The Department currently has no specific plans on online schooling communities. Schools: Food Supply Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to increase the proportion of domestically produced food supplied to [20566] schools. Mr Gibb: Maintained schools and local authorities are free to choose the food products they buy and from where they purchase them, so long as the meals provided comply with the statutory school food standards for healthy food and they comply with procurement regulations. Schools and local authorities have been provided with advice about efficient, sustainable food procurement practices that use seasonal produce but such purchasing decisions will continue to be taken locally and should take account of sustainability issues, best quality and value for money. The coalition Government are committed to developing Government Buying Standards (GBS) for the public procurement of food and food services, which will mean that Government Departments will have to buy food that meets minimum sustainability standards. The standards will reflect the Government’s overarching commitment to procure food that meets British or equivalent standards subject to no overall increase in costs. Once developed, the GBS will be mandatory for central Government Departments and their agencies and will be promoted to the wider public sector, including schools. A stakeholder review of these standards will take place shortly. Schools: Hearing Impairment Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many hearing impaired units there are in mainstream schools (a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands; and to how many children such units [21146] provide services. Sarah Teather: Information on the number of hearing impaired units within mainstream schools and the number of pupils who attend them is not collected centrally; however, work is underway to enhance Edubase (the Department’s register of all educational establishments in England and Wales). Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his most recent estimate is of the number of British sign language-qualified teachers teaching deaf children in mainstream schools (a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands; and what qualifications such teachers are required to have. [21147]

Sarah Teather: We do not routinely collect data regarding the number of British sign language qualified teachers teaching deaf children in mainstream schools either nationally or by region. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that teachers of hearing impaired and deaf

Written Answers

282W

children possess the appropriate mandatory qualification to undertake the role. It is a matter for local authorities to ensure that they have enough qualified teachers to meet their statutory commitments. The school work force census should, from November 2011, collect data on additional qualifications held by teachers. This will allow us to ascertain the numbers of teachers who possess the mandatory qualification for teaching children with sensory impairments. This approach is subject to the outcome of a review of data collection activity. At the end of the year the Government plan to publish a Green Paper on special educational needs and disabilities, which will explore how we can improve support for all children with special educational needs and disabilities, including those who are deaf or hearing impaired. It is a priority to improve the educational outcomes for all children and we recognise the important role specialists, such as Teachers of the Deaf, play in meeting this goal. Schools: Transport Mrs Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department and its predecessors have spent on (a) taxis to school and (b) other personalised forms of school transport in (i) St Albans and (ii) Hertfordshire in each of the last five years. [16779] Tim Loughton: The Department and its predecessors have not centrally recorded expenditure to this level of detail and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The relevant local authority may be able to provide you with the information that you require. Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the administrative cost to (a) his Department, (b) local authorities and (c) schools of producing school travel plans in each year since 2005; and if he will make a [18845] statement. Mr Gibb: School travel plans are produced by schools to help them embed sustainable school travel. Since 2004, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport have provided funding to local authorities and schools under the Travelling to School Initiative, to support sustainable school travel, largely by encouraging schools to develop school travel plans. We have not collected information about the administrative costs to the Department, local authorities and schools, although we estimate that the cost to the Department is in the region of £3,500 per year. The Department has made funding available to local authorities to pay for school travel advisers to support schools in producing school travel plans. The amounts paid jointly by both the Department for Education and the Department for Transport since 2005 are set out as follows: Grant paid to local authorities to fund school travel advisers £ 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

6,714,000 6,714,000 6,714,000

283W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Grant paid to local authorities to fund school travel advisers £ 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

6,714,000 6,714,000 6,714,000

Students: Disadvantaged Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce a pupil premium for young people (a) attending college, (b) in sixth forms [20144] and (c) in apprenticeships. Mr Gibb [holding answer 28 October 2010]: The 16-18 funding formula already has an element that ensures young people from disadvantaged backgrounds attending schools and colleges, or who are funded as an apprentice, receive a funding premium. The formula has two elements which provide students with a funding supplement. These are the funding linked to the disadvantage uplift within the formula and that for additional learning support. Details of the 16-18 funding formula for schools and colleges can be found on the website of the Young People’s Learning Agency at: http://readingroom.ypla.gov.uk/ypla/ funding_rates_and_formula_v2.2.pdf

and that for apprenticeships on the Skills Funding Agency website at: http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/sfa/ Apprenticeship-funding-requirements-2010_11-v1.pdf

Teachers Pensions Julie Hilling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to ensure that the changes to the Teacher’s Pension Scheme proposed in the report by Lord Hutton on the future of public [19079] sector pensions are not implemented. Mr Gibb: The coalition Government accept the conclusions in Lord Hutton’s interim report on public service pensions, in particular: the importance of providing good quality pensions to public servants; the rejection of a race to the bottom in pension provision; the case for further reforms of public service pension schemes; and that members of public service schemes should pay more towards their pension benefits, in particular through the implementation of progressive changes to the level of employee contribution that will be phased in from April 2012.

The coalition Government will await Lord Hutton’s final recommendation, due in advance of Budget 2011, before considering the form and content of defined benefits going forward and the precise level of progressive contribution required. The nature and implementation of changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme will be the subject of detailed discussions in the coming months with teacher union and employer representatives.

Written Answers

284W

Mr Gibb: The quality of teachers and their professional development are of the upmost importance and this is why we want to encourage more school-led professional development. We want to support teachers to progress further academically and to deepen their subject knowledge, and we are committed to developing a strong culture of professional development where more teachers acquire postgraduate qualifications. We are still considering what place the Masters in Teaching and Learning (MTL) might have in supporting teachers to achieve this. Written Questions: Government Responses Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to answer question 14256, on the Children, Schools and Families Bill, tabled by the hon. Member for Southend West on 8 September [20257] 2010; and if he will make a statement. Mr Gibb: A response was issued to my hon. Friend on 4 November 2010, Official Report, columns 920-21W.

TREASURY AgustaWestland: Government Assistance Ian Lucas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what mechanisms he plans to disburse the proposed £32 million support for AgustaWestland announced in [23021] the spending review. Danny Alexander: The final form of the assistance is subject to detailed ongoing negotiations with the company. Anglo Irish Bank John Mann: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to support small investors in the UK who have lost money due to the [22867] collapse of the Anglo-Irish bank. Mr Hoban: Retail depositors in Anglo Irish Bank have not lost any money. The bank continues to operate, and depositors continue to be protected by the Irish Depositor Guarantee scheme and an unlimited guarantee from the Irish Government. The Irish Government have announced that an assessor will be appointed by the Minister for Finance to assess whether compensation should be paid to former shareholders of Anglo Irish Bank. Cheques

Teachers: Training

Mr Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with British banks on allowing their customers to retain the right to continue to use cheques; and if he will make a [22731] statement.

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the future of masters’ programmes for continuing professional development [21615] of teachers.

Mr Hoban: The banking industry has given a clear public assurance, through the Payments Council, that cheque facilities will not be withdrawn unless and until suitable alternatives are in place.

285W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers

286W

Child Benefit: Disability

Equitable Life Assurance Society: Compensation

Kate Hoey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what means his Department plans to determine the categories of children to be classified as disabled when considering whether claimants of child benefit who pay income tax at the higher rate will be exempt from the proposed withdrawal of that benefit; [22468] (2) when he plans to announce the categories of children to be classified as disabled when considering whether claimants of child benefit who pay income tax at the higher rate will be exempt from the proposed [22469] withdrawal of that benefit; (3) whether claimants who pay income tax at the higher rate whose children become disabled will be able [22471] to reapply for child benefit.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the merits of bringing forward proposals to make payments to Equitable Life members who purchased their policies prior to September 1992. [22270]

Mr Gauke: From January 2013, child benefit will be withdrawn from all families containing a higher rate taxpayer. Disabled children may be eligible for disability living allowance, which provides additional universal financial support to those with disabilities. Disabled children and their families will continue to receive support through the provision of short breaks. The Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability Green Paper, due to be published in the autumn, will set out proposals intended to further improve the support system. Crown Currency Exchange Helen Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Financial Services Authority (FSA) was contacted with concerns about the operations of Crown Currency Exchange Ltd before its collapse; and which (a) organisations and [23072] (b) individuals contacted the FSA. Mr Hoban: The Financial Services Authority’s (FSA’s) day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. I have asked the FSA to write to the hon. Member on the issue he raises. Departmental Redundancy Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much funding to meet staff redundancy costs was identified in his Department’s settlement letter in respect of the comprehensive [21553] spending review; (2) what estimate he has made of the number of redundancies arising from the spending reductions proposed in the comprehensive spending review in respect of (a) his Department and (b) its non[21554] departmental public bodies; (3) what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of staff redundancy in each of the next [21555] four years. Justine Greening: All pressures on HM Treasury’s budget were taken into account as part of the spending review and the settlement was allocated accordingly. Detailed decisions regarding any redundancies and consequent cost that may be required in HM Treasury or its non-departmental public bodies will be taken over the coming months.

Mr Hoban: With Profits Annuitants (WPAs) who took out policies before 1 September 1992 did so before any maladministration could have affected their decisions, so therefore have not been included in the Government’s proposed payment scheme. The Government are committed to implementing the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation to introduce a fair and transparent payments scheme to Equitable Life policyholders for their relative loss as a result of regulatory failure. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the financial loss to Equitable Life policyholders who purchased their policies prior to September 1992. [22271]

Mr Hoban: Policyholders who purchased their policies prior to September 1992 did so before any maladministration could have affected their decisions. As such they do not have a relative financial loss for that period. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of Equitable Life policyholders who purchased their policy prior to September 1992 who were affected by [22382] the maladministration of Equitable Life. Mr Hoban: With profits annuitants (WPAs) who took out policies before 1 September 1992 fall outside of the Government’s proposed payment scheme. Therefore we do not hold data on this group of policyholders. EU Budget Miss McIntosh: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the process for agreeing the EU Financial Perspective for 2014 to 2020; and if he will [22540] make a statement. Justine Greening: The European Commission will put forward its proposals for the next EU budget financial perspective in 2011. However, the Government are greatly concerned about growing UK contributions to the EU budget. As such, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have been working closely with other member states to ensure the EU budget contributes to the difficult fiscal consolidation being undertaken across the EU. In particular, at the October European Council: First, the UK won backing from 12 other member states—including Germany and France—to put a stop to the 6% increase in the 2011 EU Budget that was being proposed by the European Parliament. A UK-led joint letter underlined that “we are clear that we cannot accept any more than” the 2.9% increase being proposed by the Council.

287W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Second, the UK has secured an important new principle for the EU budget in future years. From now on the EU budget will reflect the spending cuts being made by national governments. To quote the conclusions text: “Heads of State or Government stressed that, at the same time as fiscal discipline is reinforced in the European Union, it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path.” As such, because of UK action on the EU budget, we have now agreed that the EU budget must reflect the difficult choices we are making in our own countries.

Financial Services: Regulation Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment the Financial Services Authority has made of the foreign exchange industry; and what progress he has made on his examination of [22289] the case of Crown Currency Exchange. Mr Hoban: The administrators are reviewing the trading operations of Crown Currency Exchange, its financial position and the conduct of its directors. Once the administrators have reported, the Government will look closely at this case to see what lessons need to be learned from the failure of the company. The Financial Services Authority’s (FSA’s) day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. However, I understand that the FSA has met the administrators of Crown Currency Exchange and awaits the administrators’ report. Research and Development Tax Credit Chi Onwurah: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 1 November 2010, Official Report, column 668W, on the Research and Development Tax Credit, (1) what proportion of research tax credits he expects to be paid to (a) manufacturing and (b) financial services in each year [23106] to 2014-15; (2) what proportion of receipts from corporation tax is derived from (a) manufacturing and (b) financial [23107] services. Mr Gauke: Information on the amount of research and development tax credit paid is not broken down by industrial sector. Historical figures for corporation tax receipts paid by several broadly-defined business sectors are regularly updated and published in Table 11.1, on the HMRC National Statistics website. These include manufacturing and financial services excluding life receipts. The latest update is available here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11.1.pdf

Revenue and Customs: Christchurch Mr Chope: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities are available to taxpayers in Christchurch constituency to talk to a member of HM Revenue and Customs staff about their tax affairs in [22904] person.

288W

Mr Gauke: HMRC does not have an office in the Christchurch constituency. However HMRC does have an inquiry centre approximately four miles away in Bournemouth where customers who need advice on their tax affairs can make an appointment. To do this customers can either telephone one of HMRC’s helplines, depending on the nature of their query, or go to the inquiry centre in person. It is open from 8.30 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday and the address is: Holland House Oxford Road Bournemouth BH8 8DZ

The helpline numbers are available on HMRC’s website at: www.hmrc.gov.uk

Revenue and Customs: Databases Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the (a) merits and (b) cost of introducing a real-time information system to the National Insurance and PAYE Service computer system. [22377] Mr Gauke: In July this year, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) published a discussion paper improving the operation of pay-as-you-earn (PAYE). The paper sought views on changes to PAYE, including a move to collect information about tax and other calculations in real time. This was the first stage of a consultation process to seek views and opinions from all interested parties regarding the benefit that real time information would bring to PAYE. Responses to the discussion paper indicate that there is strong support for the collection of real-time earnings information. A consultation paper will be issued in due course. Real time information will enable better data to be transmitted to the National Insurance and PAYE Service (NPS). It will also deregulate employers and improve the accuracy of PAYE and tax credits for individuals and HMRC. £100 million was allocated in the spending review to further improve the operation of PAYE, and build on the investments already made in NPS, using real time information. Social Security Benefits Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much and what proportion of the estimate in the Social Security Forecast for Annual Managed Expenditure he expects to spend on (a) the basic state pension, (b) jobseeker’s allowance, (c) employment and support allowance, (d) housing benefit, (e) council tax benefit and (f) pension credit in each year to 2015. [19905] Chris Grayling: I have been asked to reply. Forecasts presented are in nominal terms, and therefore the main factor driving trends in the forecasts over the period shown is the uprating of benefits. Forecasts also reflect demographic changes, June Budget and spending review policy measures, and the ongoing effects of employment and support allowance replacing incapacity

289W

Written Answers

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

benefit. The jobseeker’s allowance forecast includes additional claimants due to this, and also to the lone parent obligation.

290W

The information requested is shown in the following tables.

Annually managed expenditure, Great Britain £ million, nominal

Basic state pension

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16 70,841

53,653

55,821

59,028

61,513

63,946

67,199

Jobseekers allowance

4,690

4,568

4,974

5,080

5,028

4,871

4,579

Employment and support allowance

1,268

2,749

4,899

6,491

8,174

9,861

10,665

Housing benefit

19,978

21,536

21,913

21,735

20,825

21,499

22,042

Council tax benefit

4,698

5,004

4,891

4,906

4,403

4,470

4,597

Pension credit

8,133

7,960

7,572

7,340

7,069

6,942

6,865

147,430

152,246

156,226

158,728

159,762

164,403

170,669

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Total annually managed expenditure

As proportion of total (percentage)

Basic state pension

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Jobseekers allowance

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Employment and support allowance

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

14

14

14

14

13

13

13

Council tax benefit

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Pension credit

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Housing benefit

Total annually managed expenditure Note: Figures cover Great Britain only. Source: June Budget forecasts with spending review measures

Tax Evasion

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Anne Marie Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he made of the cost to the economy of tax evasion in the latest period for which [20648] figures are available.

Banks: Loans

Mr Gauke: HMRC published the latest available estimates of the tax gap in September 2010 in “Measuring Tax Gaps 2010” http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/measuring-tax-gaps2010.htm.pdf

This included an illustrative split of the 2007-08 tax gap by taxpayer behaviour, based on management assumptions and judgment. This indicated that the amount of tax (income tax and NICs, corporation tax and VAT) lost to evasion is around 17.5% of the total, with the hidden economy accounting for a further 7.5%. Taxation: Environment Protection Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of the budget deficit to be reduced by revenue from green taxes in each of the next three [22882] years. Justine Greening: The coalition Government are committed to increasing the share of revenue drawn from green taxes. All taxes are kept under review and announcements on tax policy are made at the Budget. Forecasts for receipts from taxes are set out in table C11 of Budget 2010.

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 16 September 2010, Official Report, column 1255W, on banks: loans, what steps he plans to take to increase the availability of credit finance to small and medium-sized enterprises. [22132] Mr Prisk: The coalition Government have articulated their ambition to ensure the flow of credit to viable SMEs. The Government have published their response to the consultation on business finance issues, “Financing a private sector recovery”. It is available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/businessfinance

There are various measures in place to support access to finance for SMEs. I aim to continue to support and improve the diversity of sources and access to finance for SMEs that meet their needs. Such sources of finance were announced by the Chancellor in the budget and later enhanced by the Government’s response to the consultation “Financing a private sector recovery”: A four year extension to the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) making around £2 billion available to viable small companies without a credit history or lacking sufficient collateral. An increased commitment of the Enterprise Capital Fund by £200 million to support small businesses with the highest growth potential, providing more than £300 million of investment into the equity gap after both Government and private sector funding are combined. Welcoming a joint bid from business angels and the Government’s SME investment arm, Capital for Enterprise Ltd., for a co-investment fund as part of the Regional Growth Fund. If successful, this

291W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

would support angel investments into high growth potential early stage SMEs, particularly in areas worst affected by public spending cuts. Welcoming the banks’ announcement of a new £1.5 billion Business Growth Fund, to provide equity funding of between £2 million and £10 million for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with strong growth potential. The Government will also work with the British Bankers’ Association’s Business Finance Taskforce and banks on a range of commitments set out in their response to the Green Paper and which will assist small businesses with access to finance issues. These include mentoring and a new lending code.

Broadband: Redditch Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of the funding allocated to broadband programmes in the Comprehensive Spending Review will be spent on programmes located in Redditch constituency. [22234] Mr Vaizey: The information for non departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. To date no allocation of funds has been made for projects in the Redditch constituency, or any other constituency. Business: Loans Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that small businesses have access to finance in the Comprehensive Spending Review period. [22989]

Mr Prisk: The Government’s response to the Green Paper ‘Financing a Private Sector Recovery’ was published on 1 November 2010. Among other measures, we have confirmed our intention to continue the Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme until 2014-15, providing up to £600 million of additional lending to around 6,000 small and medium enterprises next year alone and over £2 billion in total over the next four years, subject to demand. We have also undertaken to continue the programme of Enterprise Capital Funds by increasing our commitment by £200 million over the next four years, providing more than £300 million of investment for early stage innovative SMEs. Business: Newton Abbot Anne Marie Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will take steps to increase access to finance for small and medium-sized [21430] enterprises in Newton Abbot constituency. Mr Prisk: The coalition Government have articulated its ambition to ensure the flow of credit to viable SMEs. The Government’s has published its response to the consultation on business finance issues, ″Financing a private sector recovery″. It is available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/businessfinance

There are various measures in place to support access to finance for SMEs. I aim to continue to support and improve the diversity of sources and access to finance for SMEs that meet their needs. Such sources of finance

Written Answers

292W

available to SMEs including those in your constituency of Newton Abbot were announced by the Chancellor in the budget and later enhanced by the Government’s response to the consultation ″Financing a private sector recovery″: A four year extension to the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) making around £2 billion available to viable small companies without a credit history or insufficient collateral. As at the 28 October, 11 businesses in the constituency of Newton Abbot have been offered EFG backed loans with a value of £69,000 all of which have been drawn. An increased commitment of the Enterprise Capital Fund by £200 million to support small businesses with the highest growth potential, providing more than £300 million of investment into the equity gap after both Government and private sector funding are combined. Welcoming a joint bid from business angels and the Government’s SME investment arm, Capital for Enterprise Ltd., for a co-investment fund as part of the Regional Growth Fund. If successful, this would support angel investments into high growth potential early stage SMEs, particularly in areas worst affected by public spending cuts. Welcoming the banks’ announcement of a new £1.5 billion Business Growth Fund, to provide equity funding of between £2 million and £10 million for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with strong growth potential. The Government will also work with the British Bankers’ Association’s Business Finance Taskforce and banks on a range of commitments set out in their response to the green paper and which will assist small businesses with access to finance issues. These include mentoring and a new lending code.

Business: North East Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of jobs (a) created and (b) safeguarded as result of securing grants from the Grant for Business investment scheme in 2009-10; and what estimate he has made of the average cost to the public [22964] purse of each such job in the North East. Mr Prisk: In 2009/10 332 offers were made and accepted under the Grant for Business Investment scheme. These were expected to create a total of 6,542 new jobs and safeguard 4,111 jobs. In the north-east the average cost to the public sector of each such job is £5,412. Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what factors he took into account when taking the decision to withdraw the Grant for Business investment scheme; how many applications were made to the Grant for Business investment scheme in the North East in 2009-10; how many offers of funding were made; and what the total [22965] monetary value of such offers was. Mr Prisk: As is made clear in the Local Growth White Paper (Cm 7961), while the Grant for Business Investment scheme provided by the regional development agencies will cease with their closure, large scale cases will be considered, on an exceptional basis, by this Department. This decision took into account a wide range of relevant factors, including particularly the planned closure of the regional development agencies, the need to reduce the budget deficit and the likely future availability of other types of support for business.

293W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

In the north-east 142 applications for support under the Grant for Business Investment scheme were received in 2009/10. Over the same period 73 offers of support were made and accepted. The total value of these offers was £17,524,000. Business: Northumberland Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to assist small and medium-sized enterprises in (a) Wansbeck constituency and (b) Northumberland [22925] county. Mr Prisk: A number of measures which are being undertaken with the purpose of stimulating growth which are particularly targeting support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). As the regional development agencies are decommissioned I will introduce a new and flexible delivery system which will include a national website, a national contact centre and access to mentors which should help SMEs to grow. I also intend to establish a network of Growth Hubs in England to support businesses with high growth potential. The Government will provide highly focused support to SMEs through a renewed and streamlined portfolio of business improvement products through Solutions for Business to be launched by this Department by April 2011. We are establishing Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) as set out in the White Paper on Local Growth. This will involve local business and civic leaders working together to drive economic growth and create new jobs in their communities. Discussions are under way on the formation of a LEP that will include Northumberland. Business: West Midlands Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department is taking to assist the development of small and medium-sized businesses in (a) the West [22786] Midlands and (b) Coventry. Mr Prisk: A number of measures which are being undertaken with the purpose of stimulating growth which are particularly targeting support for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). As the regional development agencies are decommissioned I will introduce a new and flexible delivery system which will include a national website, a national contact centre and access to mentors which should help SMEs to grow. I also intend to establish a network of Growth Hubs in England to support businesses with high growth potential. The Government will provide highly focused support to SMEs through a renewed and streamlined portfolio of business improvement products through Solutions for Business to be launched by this Department by April 2011. We are establishing Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) as set out in the White Paper on Local Growth. Coventry will be covered by a new LEP for Coventry and Warwickshire. This will involve local business and civic leaders working together to drive economic growth and create new jobs in their communities.

Written Answers

294W

Copyright Tribunal Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many staff are employed by the Copyright Tribunal; and how much was spent on salary costs in the last year for which figures are available. [21845] Mr Davey [holding answer 4 November 2010]: The Copyright Tribunal is not an employer in its own right. The members of the tribunal, both legally qualified and lay members, are either offering their services as part of their existing judicial duties and hence remunerated through their existing judicial salaries, or are paid on a per diem basis for attendance. The tribunal’s administrative and secretarial needs are met by one part-time employee of the Intellectual Property Office. Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many redundancies he expects there to be at the Copyright Tribunal as a result of the implementation of the Government’s proposals for public bodies reform; and what he expects the (a) severance and (b) pension [21847] arrangements to be for employees. Mr Davey: The Copyright Tribunal is not an employer in its own right and hence there are no redundancies envisaged. It will retain the expertise of its legally qualified and lay members after its transfer to the Tribunal Service. The Copyright Tribunal’s Secretariat resource will transfer along with the Tribunal. Copyright Tribunal: Buildings Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the address is of each property (a) leased and (b) owned by the Copyright Tribunal; and what the annual rental costs of those buildings were in each of the last three years. [21829]

Mr Davey: The Copyright Tribunal does not own or lease any buildings. Its secretariat is co-located within the Intellectual Property Office’s leased space at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3HF. The IPO also supplies hearing and meeting rooms as required by the tribunal and this forms part of the cost recharged to the tribunal. Debts: Complaints Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps have been taken since publication by the Office of Fair Trading of its Debt Management Guidance Compliance Review to increase awareness in the debt management sector of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s rules on resolving [22632] consumer complaints. Mr Davey: The compliance review has highlighted problems within this industry. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) set out the immediate steps it has taken in the report, including warning 129 non-compliant audited debt management firms, that they face losing their consumer credit licences unless they take immediate action to address identified areas of non-compliance,

295W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

including bringing their consumer complaints handling procedures into line with the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (FOS) rules. The OFT also disseminated its report to approximately 1,200 licensed providers of debt advice. On 2 November 2010, a senior director from the OFT gave a speech to over 200 representatives from the debt management industry at the main trade body’s (Debt Resolution Forum) annual conference which sent a strong and clear message to the industry about the improvements it must make in the coming year, including addressing the OFT’s concerns about poor levels of compliance with the FOS regime. In addition, the OFT plans to update its guidance and will continue to work with the two main trade bodies, the Debt Managers Standards Association (DEMSA) and the Debt Resolution Forum (DRF) to support their initiatives to introduce higher standards into the industry. Debts: Licensing Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has had with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on the process by which those debt management firms which do not provide independently audited evidence that they have brought their operations into compliance with OFT debt management guidance by the end of [22633] 2010 would have their licences revoked. Mr Davey: The primary focus in 2010 for the team that investigates traders engaged in debt management activities at the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has been its review of compliance with its Debt Management Guidance (published on 28 September 2010) and taking subsequent enforcement action to warn 129 debt management firms about non-compliant business practices identified during the OFT’s review. The firms were instructed to produce independently audited evidence confirming action that they have taken to address the identified areas of non compliance by the middle of December, and of the 129 firms, 30 have indicated that they will surrender their licences, 85 firms have agreed to comply and the OFT have initiated revocation action against 15 traders, but these figures may well change. Dentistry: Higher Education Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what financial support [22328] his Department provides for dental students. Mr Willetts: For the first four years of their course, undergraduate dentistry students receive financial support from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. This is administered by Student Finance England. Those

Written Answers

296W

with household incomes of up to £50,020 are entitled to a non-repayable maintenance grant, of which those with household incomes of £25,000 or less are entitled to the maximum grant amount of £2,906. Further means-tested grant support is available to those with caring responsibilities. All students are eligible for loans to cover their tuition fees and provide help towards their living costs. Those facing financial hardship can also apply for help from the discretionary Access to Learning Fund through their university. From the fifth year of their course, undergraduate dentistry students receive financial support from the Department of Health (DH). This includes an NHS Bursary and a reduced maintenance loan. DH will also pay the tuition fees of these students for these years. On top of this, the Government provide funding to universities via HEFCE. For the 2009/10 academic year, undergraduate dentistry degrees attracted £5,327 per student for the first year of the course; and attracted £14,242 per student for the remaining years of the course. Departmental Reviews Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what departmental policy reviews his Department has undertaken since 6 May 2010; on what date each such review (a) was announced and (b) is expected to publish its findings; what estimate he has made of the cost of each such review; who has been appointed to lead each such review; to what remuneration each review leader is entitled; how many (i) full-time equivalent civil servants and (ii) seconded staff are working on each such review; from which organisations such staff have been seconded; and how much on average such seconded staff will be paid for their work on the review. [21891] Mr Davey: The Department has undertaken six departmental policy reviews since 6 May 2006. Information on the estimated cost of each review is not held by the Department. Individuals recruited externally to chair reviews have been appointed in an advisory capacity and are not salaried staff. None of the external chairs have received remuneration, with the exception of Richard Hooper who received £19,183. Where BIS staff led reviews, they were recruited from within the Department and were not entitled to further payments for their work in addition to their normal salary. No staff have been seconded to the Department for Business to work on the reviews specifically. The following table sets out the information the hon. Member have asked for which the Department holds on these reviews.

Anticipated date of report

External Lead for each review

How many civil servants are working on the review (fulltime equivalents)

Subject

Date review announced

Update of 2008 Independent Review of the Postal Services Sector

24 June 2010

Report was published on 10 September 2010

Richard Hooper

0.5

Consumer Credit and Personal Insolvency Review

13 July 2010

Early 2011

Led internally by BIS

2.7

Offender Learning

20 July 2010

November 2010

Led internally by BIS

1.2

297W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

298W

Written Answers

Anticipated date of report

External Lead for each review

How many civil servants are working on the review (fulltime equivalents)

Subject

Date review announced

Review of the Design Council

16 July 2010

The review was published on 14 October

Martin Temple CBE, chair of EEF and a board member of the Design Council

Women on Boards

6 August 2010

February 2011

Lord Davies

1

1

Red-tape burdens that fall on small civil society organisations

17 August

Report to Ministers in early 2011

Lord Hodgson

1

1

1

2.5

From BIS

Education: Finance Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the likely effect of the implementation of the proposal to maintain the level of spending on science on the level of spending on (a) further and (b) higher education in the comprehensive spending review [22848] period; and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: The different areas of Government spending were assessed on their own merits. The Government recognise the fundamental role of science and research in rebalancing the economy and restoring economic growth. This is why, despite enormous pressure on public spending, the overall level of funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms. Around two-thirds of science and research public funding is spent in universities, so the comprehensive spending review settlement for science and research has a substantial positive impact on higher education. Green Investment Bank

Government are confident that the asset sales they are considering will be sufficient to provide significant additional funding above the £1 billion allocated to the Green Investment from departmental budgets. It will make further announcements on this funding stream in due course. Hallowe’en Lanterns Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent discussions his Department has had with manufacturers of Hallowe’en lanterns to ensure lanterns are constructed from materials which are biodegradeable. [22883] Mr Davey: I believe you are referring to sky (Chinese) lanterns rather then lanterns specifically for Halloween. My Department has had no discussions with the manufacturers who are numerous and located in Asia. However, in August, officials did write to all UK local authority trading standards offices asking them to contact importers and retailers of lanterns to ensure that only sky lanterns which are bio-degradable be placed on the market. Immigration Controls: Science

Mr Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when he expects the proposed [22104] Green Investment Bank to be operational. Mr Prisk: The Government aim to complete the design of the Green Investment Bank (GIB) and conduct further market testing by spring 2011. Although a precise timeline for the GIB becoming operational cannot be provided at this stage, the GIB will begin making investments as it receives funding from asset sales and departmental budgets. Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of 20 October 2010, Official Report, column 985, on the Green Investment Bank, which Government assets he plans to sell to provide funding for the proposed Green Investment Bank; how much funding he expects to be raised from each asset sale; and what proportion of the funding accruing from each asset sale will be allocated to the Green [23114] Investment Bank.

Gregg McClymont: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent representations he has received from representatives of the academic and research community on the likely effects of the proposed immigration cap on the science [22916] sector. Mr Willetts: I have had many discussions, both formal and informal, with a wide range of stakeholders on this subject. Last week I convened a meeting with representatives of the higher education, further education and research sectors. Additionally, I have received correspondence on the subject from many interested parties. Manufacturing Industries: Public Expenditure Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills from what budgets the £200 million a year to be allocated to manufacturing and business development as referred to in paragraph 2.51 of the Spending Review 2010, will be drawn. [20553]

Mr Prisk: To give information on expected proceeds from individual asset sales would prejudice the Government’s commercial position in ongoing and future sale processes. However, at an aggregate level, the

Mr Davey: This funding is a new line of expenditure negotiated with HM Treasury as part of the spending review.

299W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Written Answers

300W

Manufacturing Insight

One NorthEast: Assets

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has for the future [22905] of Manufacturing Insight.

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the residual (a) assets and (b) liabilities are of One NorthEast. [22963]

Mr Prisk: The Government are fully committed to raising the profile of manufacturing and we are considering the best way of achieving this. Later this year, we will be publishing a Manufacturing Framework which will outline ways of working with industry to promote UK manufacturing; to ensure the vital role of manufacturing in the UK economy is recognised.

Mr Prisk: We are in the early stages of RDA closure and transition. Until this process is complete we will not know what the residual assets and liabilities of each RDA will be.

Mass Media John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to encourage the growth of diverse business types in the [22995] media sector. Mr Prisk: The media industry has an important part to play in our plans for a more balanced and sustainable British economy, and will benefit from the Government’s policies to create macro-economic stability; to help markets work more effectively; to focus on enabling private sector growth and investment; and to ensure that everyone in the UK has access to opportunities. National Vocational Qualifications Paul Uppal: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether the Skills Funding Agency plans to provide funding for the Business Improvement Techniques NVQ in each of the [21726] next three years. Mr Hayes: Since 2008 sector skills councils and awarding organisations have been preparing qualifications for the new Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF). The QCF is being developed as part of the wider reform of vocational qualifications and allows vocational qualifications to be designed using the latest and most up-to-date employment standards, with active input from employers through their skills councils. SEMTA, the Skills Council for Engineering, has redeveloped the previous NVQ in Business Improvement Techniques for the QCF, and following the review against Skills Funding Agency public funding guidelines, the new QCF NVQ Business Improvement Techniques has been confirmed for funding by the Skills Funding Agency for this academic year. However the agency has raised concerns at the size of the QCF qualifications and their assessment strategy and what this would mean for learners and providers. Colleagues in Scotland have also raised similar concerns. On this basis, the agency has agreed to fund the Business Improvement Techniques to 31 July 2011 only and, during this period, will seek further feedback from providers and awarding organisations on both qualification size and assessment strategy. By January 2011 the agency will be able to assess the feedback received, and also take account of the work which the UK Commission for Employment and Skills has been doing with SEMTA with regard to robustness of their process for vocational qualification reform. At this point the agency will then confirm future funding arrangements for this qualification.

Particle Accelerators Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the potential creation of strangelets in the operation of (i) apparatus in the UK producing high-energy ion collision and (ii) [22661] the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Mr Willetts: The Secretary of State has not commissioned any research into this matter, as the UK has no equipment capable of producing strangelets, even if they exist. CERN has conducted its own safety assessments. The Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), a group of independent scientists, concluded in 2002-03 that there was no conceivable risk from the collisions at the LHC. Their assessment was re-examined by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing Council, and they confirmed these conclusions, which include the assessment that the LHC is not capable of producing strangelets. In 2008 and in the light of new experimental data and theoretical understanding, the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) updated the 2003 analysis. The LSAG reaffirmed and extended the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. The LSAG noted that the LHC will produce, under controlled conditions, events that have already taken place many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. Patents: EC Law Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will discuss with his EU counterparts the enforcement of cost orders emanating from patent judgments by the EU Office for [20974] Harmonization in the Internal Market. Mr Davey: The Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), situated in Alicante in Spain, registers trade marks and designs registrations, but not patents. Adversarial proceedings before this office do attract cost awards against losing parties according to a scale set out in Rule 94 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. There is no duty on the OHIM to enforce such costs, which is a matter for the parties concerned under civil law provisions. I am aware that such orders, which involve relatively low sums of money, are not routinely honoured or vigorously pursued. Though I have no plans to discuss this with my EU counterparts I will be asking my officials to determine whether non- payment is a source of particular disquiet to legal professionals and to successful litigants.

301W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

Public Expenditure David Mowat: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what his Department’s capital expenditure per head was in (a) London and (b) the North West in each of the last five years. [21454]

Mr Davey: The data requested are shown in the following table, based on the HM Treasury country and regional analysis used for the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses Command Paper (PESA 2010, Cm. 7890).

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

London

£ North-west

57.04 49.77 54.62 60.13 79.82

-1.29 24.86 25.20 31.14 45.32

Regional Development Agencies Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the liabilities of regional development agencies on his Department’s budgets for [22087] local regeneration projects. Mr Prisk [holding answer 4 November 2010]: The Department does not directly fund local regeneration projects but has overall responsibility for the regional development agencies single pot which includes funding from other Departments for this activity. The majority of RDA liabilities are represented by existing legal commitments in respect of local economic development and regeneration projects

Written Answers

302W

As introduced, the draft clauses of the Public Bodies Bill confer a power to make a transfer scheme for property, rights and liabilities in connection with an order abolishing a regional development agency. Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with reference to paragraph 2.44 of the Local Growth White Paper, Cm 7961, what the governance framework is for the disposal of regional development agency assets and liabilities. [22875] Mr Prisk: Until new legislation comes into force, RDA assets and liabilities will be disposed of by the relevant RDA within the existing statutory framework (The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998) which in practice means that disposal decisions will continue to reflect the RDAs’ statutory purposes particularly the need to further the economic development and regeneration within the relevant area while ensuring maximum public value in line with HM Treasury guidance on Managing Public Money. Disposals will be overseen by the relevant RDA Board and within that RDA’s assurance framework and will take place within a strong governance framework for RDA closure led by BIS with CLG and HM Treasury membership of the Transition Board. Regional Development Agencies: Our Life Mark Menzies: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what payments were made by the regional development agencies to Our Life in the financial year 2010-11; and for what purpose in [22445] each such case. Mr Prisk [holding answer 8 November 2010]: None of the Regional Development Agencies have made payments to Our Life so far in the financial year 2010-11. Regional Growth Fund

Regional Development Agencies: Assets Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the receipts to accrue to his Department from the disposal of the assets of regional development [22873] agencies. Mr Prisk: It is not possible at present to estimate the extent of receipts arising from the disposal of the assets of the regional development agencies as decisions have yet to be made on the scope and timing of any sale. Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of the assets of regional development agencies he plans to transfer or dispose of before the notification of Royal [22874] Assent to the Public Bodies Bill. Mr Prisk: We will be working closely with the regional development agencies in respect of the transferring or disposal of their assets and liabilities. This work will be in line with the principles outlined in paragraphs 2.45 to 2.47 of the Local Growth White Paper and will take account of the existing statutory framework of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and, with the exception of the London Development Agency, the provisions of the Public Bodies Bill.

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of the Regional Growth Fund he plans to allocate to (a) housing and (b) transport projects. [22461] Mr Prisk: The objectives and criteria for the Regional Growth Fund are set out in the Local Growth White Paper, ‘Local growth: realising every place’s potential’, which was published on 28 October and introduced to Parliament by an oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made on that day, Official Report, column reference 408. The Regional Growth Fund is a challenge fund and not ring-fenced or pre-allocated in any way to keep it flexible and responsive to the economic development needs of the country. The support offered for particular sectors or types of economic activity will depend on the strength of bids to the fund to deliver its core objectives of creating private sector jobs and growth. Decisions on successful proposals will be based on recommendations by the independent Advisory Panel, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine. Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will direct the Regional Growth Fund to commit an annual sum to

303W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

research and development funding no less than the annual sum committed to regional development [22504] agencies for such purposes. Mr Prisk: The objectives and criteria for the Regional Growth Fund are set out in the Local Growth White Paper, ‘Local growth: realising every place’s potential’, which was published on 28 October and introduced to Parliament by an oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made on that day, Official Report, column reference 408. The Regional Growth Fund is a challenge fund and not ring-fenced or pre- allocated in any way to keep it flexible and responsive to the economic development needs of the country. The support offered for particular sectors or types of economic activity will depend on the strength of bids to the fund to deliver its core objectives of creating private sector jobs and growth. Decisions on successful proposals will be based on recommendations by the independent Advisory Panel, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine. Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether any of the funds allocated by his Department as part of the comprehensive spending review will be drawn from the [23020] budget of the regional growth fund. Mr Prisk: Decisions on bids made to the regional growth fund will be decided by a ministerial group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and will be informed by recommendations on the effective deployment of the fund made by an independent advisory panel chaired by Lord Heseltine. The funding for the regional growth fund is separate from the spending review settlement given to this Department and from the Department’s allocations to its partners. Research Councils: Finance Gregg McClymont: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when he plans to announce the budget allocation for each research council for the comprehensive spending review period; [22840] and if he will make a statement. Mr Willetts: In the recent spending review the Chancellor announced that the Government will spend £4.6 billion on science and research programmes in each of the next four years within a ring-fenced budget. Capital and administration spending on science and research have not yet been decided. In the coming weeks, Ministers will make decisions on the balance of funding between research councils, HEFCE’s research and knowledge transfer activities, the national academies and other programmes. We expect this will be completed by Christmas. Detailed decisions on specific projects will be taken by funding bodies, in line with the Haldane Principle. Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 2 November 2010, Official Report, column 754W, on research councils: finance, how much funding the (a) Confederation of British Industry and (b) Council for Science and Technology provided to the research [23058] councils in each of the last five years.

Written Answers

304W

Mr Willetts: The Confederation of British Industry represent the views of the private sector, they do not provide direct funding for research councils. The Council for Science and Technology is a governmental advisory group and does not provide any funding for research councils. Royal Mail and Post Office: Redundancy Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the proportion of jobs he expects to be lost in (a) Royal Mail and (b) the Post Office as a result of his proposals for future ownership of Royal Mail. [22772]

Mr Davey: To secure its future, whether in the public or private sector, Royal Mail has to improve its efficiency and this will regrettably mean a further loss of jobs in the company. The Business Transformation agreement between the company and the CWU recognises this. The number of job losses will be an operational matter for the company. Under proposals set out in the Postal Service Bill, we have made it clear that Post Office Ltd (POL) is not for sale. The employment of staff in post offices is a matter for Post Office Ltd for Crown post offices, and for individual sub-postmasters in their own sub-post offices. As with Royal Mail, POL has to ensure that it operates efficiently, but the Government have committed that there will be no further programmes of post office closures. Royal Mail: Stoke on Trent Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he has made an assessment of the likely effects on Stoke-on-Trent Royal Mail centre of the proposed consolidation of [22771] service provision within Royal Mail. Mr Davey: The provision of postal services in the Stoke-on-Trent area is an operational matter for Royal Mail. The company is taking forward a business transformation plan, agreed with the CWU, which will see a restructuring of its mail centres and other operational changes. Royal Mail has to improve its efficiency so that it can secure its future in a market where letters volumes continue to decline. Its half year results, which reported a £66 million loss in the letters’ business, emphasised the need for change. I have asked the chief executive at Royal Mail to write to you and provide an update on any operational changes in the Stoke-on-Trent area and a copy will be placed in the House Libraries. Science: Finance Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much of his Department’s capital budget for science for 2011-12 has been allocated to the funding of (a) long-term and [23061] (b) international partnerships and projects. Mr Willetts: The allocations of capital budgets for science and research, following the recent spending review have not yet been decided.

305W

Written Answers

9 NOVEMBER 2010

In the coming months, Ministers will make decisions on the balance of funding between the individual research councils, HEFCE’s research and knowledge transfer activities, the national academies and other programmes. Detailed decisions on funding for long-term and international partnerships and projects will be taken by funding bodies in line with the Haldane Principle.

Written Answers

306W

No estimates are made by the police or agencies about the numbers of students radicalised.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES Females: Offenders

Students: Radicalism Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent estimate he has made of the number of students in further and higher education institutions who have been [19403] radicalised. Mr Hayes: BIS does not make estimates on the numbers of students radicalised. We have evidence that radicalisation or recruitment takes place in some of our campuses. The problem is not widespread but is obviously very serious where it occurs. We work closely with the police and institutions to help them manage the risk of this occurring. The issue of radicalisation in higher and further education, and the extent to which the Government can offer more support to the most vulnerable institutions, will be looked at in detail in the review of ‘Prevent’, the preventative strand of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, ‘Contest’.

Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how much the Government Equalities Office spent under each budget heading on holding events on women offenders in 2009-10; and how many staff were involved in organising these events. [22067] Lynne Featherstone: In 2009-10 the Government Equalities Office (GEO) held a series of one-day stakeholder events with local service providers in England and Wales as part of the Department’s contribution to the Government’s strategy to divert women from crime following Baroness Corston’s report on women in the criminal justice system. The events brought together key agencies together, from across the third and statutory sector, in order to consider how best to utilise the gender equality duty to meet the distinct needs of women offenders. The total cost of hosting these 10 events was £184,510.70 and the total number of GEO full-time equivalent staff involved in their organisation was 1.5.

ORAL ANSWERS Tuesday 9 November 2010 Col. No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... Afghanistan ........................................................... BBC World Service ................................................ Burma.................................................................... Defence Capabilities............................................... EU Treaties ............................................................ European Union .................................................... Gaza Blockade.......................................................

123 133 125 129 135 123 135 125

Col. No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE— continued Moldova ................................................................ Non-proliferation Treaty........................................ Northern Cyprus ................................................... Overseas Territories ............................................... Topical Questions .................................................. Trade Promotion....................................................

137 130 127 131 137 128

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Tuesday 9 November 2010

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS............. Debt Relief Orders ................................................ Exports to Iran ...................................................... Extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council (10 November 2010)........................................... Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (Supplement to Statement)................................. Post Office Network...............................................

Col. No.

Col. No.

7WS 7WS 7WS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 10WS Government Olympic Executive (Quarterly Report) .............................................................. 10WS

8WS

DEFENCE................................................................. 11WS Northern Grouping Initiative................................. 11WS

9WS 8WS

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 12WS Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s Report on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (Government Response)..................................... 12WS

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 12WS Prevent Review/New Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation......................................... 12WS TRANSPORT ........................................................... 13WS High Speed 1.......................................................... 13WS TREASURY .............................................................. 10WS Improving Tax Policy (Finance Bill 2011) .............. 10WS

WRITTEN ANSWERS Tuesday 9 November 2010 Col. No.

Col. No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... Google ................................................................... Human Trafficking: Prosecutions........................... Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Prosecutions....................................................... Rape: Prosecutions................................................. Sovereignty of Parliament......................................

218W 218W 218W

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Banks: Loans ......................................................... Broadband: Redditch ............................................. Business: Loans...................................................... Business: Newton Abbot........................................ Business: North East.............................................. Business: Northumberland..................................... Business: West Midlands........................................ Copyright Tribunal ................................................ Copyright Tribunal: Buildings ............................... Debts: Complaints ................................................. Debts: Licensing .................................................... Dentistry: Higher Education.................................. Departmental Reviews ........................................... Education: Finance ................................................ Green Investment Bank ......................................... Hallowe’en Lanterns .............................................. Immigration Controls: Science............................... Manufacturing Industries: Public Expenditure ...... Manufacturing Insight ...........................................

290W 290W 291W 291W 291W 292W 293W 293W 294W 294W 294W 295W 295W 296W 297W 297W 298W 298W 298W 299W

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS—continued Mass Media ........................................................... 299W National Vocational Qualifications ........................ 299W One NorthEast: Assets........................................... 300W Particle Accelerators .............................................. 300W Patents: EC Law..................................................... 300W Public Expenditure................................................. 301W Regional Development Agencies............................ 301W Regional Development Agencies: Assets ................ 301W Regional Development Agencies: Our Life ............ 302W Regional Growth Fund .......................................... 302W Research Councils: Finance ................................... 303W Royal Mail and Post Office: Redundancy............... 304W Royal Mail: Stoke on Trent .................................... 304W Science: Finance..................................................... 304W Students: Radicalism.............................................. 305W

218W 220W 220W

CABINET OFFICE................................................... Civil Servants: East Ayrshire.................................. Civil Servants: Labour Turnover ............................ Departmental Redundancy .................................... Employment .......................................................... Employment: Bexley .............................................. Jobseeker’s Allowance: Wolverhampton................. Members: Correspondence .................................... Migration...............................................................

250W 250W 251W 251W 251W 252W 252W 253W 253W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 225W Anti-Semitism ........................................................ 225W

Col. No.

Col. No.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— continued Global Peace and Unity Conference ...................... 225W

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 225W Departmental Official Hospitality.......................... 225W Renewable Energy: Shetland .................................. 225W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... BBC: Broadband.................................................... Olympic Games 2012 ............................................. Olympic Games 2012: Counterfeit Manufacturing. Olympic Games 2012: Low Income Families ......... Redundancy ...........................................................

222W 222W 223W 223W 224W 224W

DEFENCE................................................................. Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations .................. Army: Northern Ireland......................................... Atomic Weapons Establishment............................. Chinook Helicopters.............................................. Defence: Communication....................................... Defence: Procurement............................................ Defence Support Group: Redundancy ................... European Strike Fighter......................................... Guided Weapons.................................................... Nuclear Weapons: Expenditure.............................. Service Personnel: Reductions................................ Strategic Defence and Security Review .................. Trident Submarines................................................ Warships ................................................................

200W 200W 200W 200W 201W 201W 201W 201W 202W 202W 202W 202W 203W 203W 203W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... Departmental Official Hospitality.......................... Departmental Pay .................................................. Departmental Public Expenditure.......................... Departmental Redundancy .................................... Dogs: Breeding ...................................................... Fisheries................................................................. Flood Control: Finance ......................................... Food ...................................................................... Forestry Commission: Land................................... Landfill: Refrigerators............................................ National Parks Authorities .................................... Nature Conservation: Crime .................................. Rural Areas: Liquefied Petroleum Gas................... Rural Development Agency ...................................

184W 184W 184W 184W 184W 186W 186W 186W 187W 187W 187W 188W 188W 188W 188W

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ................................. Asia-Europe Meeting............................................. Constituencies........................................................ Departmental Official Hospitality.......................... Departmental Travel .............................................. Members: Correspondence .................................... Social Mobility ......................................................

248W 248W 249W 249W 249W 250W 250W

EDUCATION............................................................ Academies.............................................................. Building Schools for the Future Programme .......... Children: Databases ............................................... Children: Human Trafficking................................. Children in Care..................................................... Colchester Academy .............................................. Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings................. Departmental Redundancy Pay ............................. Education: Internet ................................................ Education Maintenance Allowance........................ Education Maintenance Allowance: Kingston Upon Thames .................................................... Education Maintenance Allowance: Rotherham .... Education Maintenance Allowance: Sunderland.... Educational Psychology ......................................... Free School Meals: Tottenham .............................. Free Schools........................................................... GCE A-level........................................................... New Schools Network............................................ Ofsted: Inspections ................................................ Primary Education: Teachers ................................. Pupil Exclusions: Violence ..................................... Pupils: Languages .................................................. Runaway Children.................................................. School Leaving: Kent ............................................. School Leaving: Watford........................................ Schools .................................................................. Schools: Food Supply ............................................ Schools: Hearing Impairment ................................ Schools: Transport ................................................. Students: Disadvantaged........................................ Teachers Pensions .................................................. Teachers: Training.................................................. Written Questions: Government Responses ...........

265W 265W 266W 267W 267W 266W 268W 268W 269W 270W 269W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... British Nationals Abroad: Bereavement ................. China: Human Rights............................................ Colombia ............................................................... Colombia: Trade Unions........................................ Democratic Republic of Congo: Minerals.............. Departmental Early Retirement ............................. EU Law.................................................................. EU Treaties ............................................................ European External Action Service ......................... European Union .................................................... Foreign Nationals: Bereavement ............................ Iran: Higher Education .......................................... Iran: Iraq ............................................................... Iran: Nuclear Power ............................................... Iraq: Prisoners ....................................................... Israel: Sanctions..................................................... Lebanon: Anti-Israeli Missile................................. Mental Health........................................................ North Korea: Nuclear Power ................................. Pakistan ................................................................. Taiwan: EU External Trade ................................... Terrorism: Expenditure .......................................... Turkey.................................................................... UK Membership of EU......................................... University Teaching: Italy ...................................... Venezuela: Human Rights...................................... Weapons Shipment: Lagos ..................................... Yemen .................................................................... Zimbabwe ..............................................................

226W 228W 228W 228W 228W 229W 229W 230W 226W 230W 230W 231W 231W 231W 232W 232W 232W 233W 233W 233W 226W 234W 234W 227W 234W 227W 234W 226W 227W 226W

HEALTH................................................................... Ambulance Services ............................................... Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Health Services .............................................................. Dental Services: Training ....................................... Health Education: Young People ........................... Health Visitors: Stoke on Trent.............................. Hospitals: Smoking................................................ Hospitals: Waiting Lists ......................................... Influenza: Vaccination ........................................... Meat ...................................................................... Meat Hygiene Service............................................. Meat: Labelling...................................................... Medical Treatments: Exports ................................. Mental Health........................................................ Multiple Sclerosis: Drugs ....................................... NHS: Fraud ........................................................... NHS: Manpower ................................................... NHS: Negligence ...................................................

235W 235W

269W 270W 270W 270W 271W 272W 272W 273W 273W 274W 277W 279W 279W 279W 280W 281W 281W 281W 282W 283W 283W 283W 284W

236W 236W 236W 236W 237W 237W 241W 241W 242W 242W 242W 243W 243W 245W 246W 246W

Col. No.

HEALTH—continued Organs: Donors ..................................................... Prescriptions: Fees and Charges............................. Primary Care Trusts............................................... Social Workers: Training ........................................ Tobacco: Sales........................................................ Tuberculosis: Greater London ...............................

246W 247W 247W 248W 248W 248W

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... Animal Experiments: Primates............................... Crime: Statistics ..................................................... Entry Clearances: Diplomatic Service .................... European Arrest Warrants ..................................... European Investigation Order ................................ Identity and Passport Service: Newport (Gwent) ... Illegal Immigrants: Deportation ............................ Immigration Controls ............................................ Immigration Controls: English Language .............. Mental Health........................................................ Police ..................................................................... Police: Unidentified Bodies .................................... UK Border Agency: Airlines..................................

189W 189W 189W 189W 190W 192W 193W 194W 193W 193W 195W 196W 199W 199W

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. Accommodation .................................................... Early Day Motions ................................................ Genetically Modified Organisms: Food ................. House of Commons: Pay ....................................... Official Report: Finance ......................................... UK Youth Parliament ............................................

220W 220W 221W 221W 221W 222W 222W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... Developing Countries: Climate Change ................. St Helena: Airfields................................................ Sub-Saharan Africa: Cotton ..................................

217W 217W 217W 218W

JUSTICE................................................................... Arrest Warrants ..................................................... Chief Coroner........................................................ Community Orders ................................................ Criminal Injuries Compensation ............................ Departmental Redundancy .................................... Driving Offences .................................................... Employment Tribunals Service............................... Foreign Nationals: Bereavement ............................ Grandparents......................................................... HM Courts Service: Wales ..................................... Information Commissioner.................................... Judges: Public Appointments ................................. Prison Sentences .................................................... Prisons: Employment .............................................

204W 204W 205W 206W 206W 207W 204W 208W 211W 211W 211W 212W 216W 216W 216W

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 181W Cycling: Finance .................................................... 181W

Col. No.

TRANSPORT—continued Departmental Reorganisation ................................ Driving: Licensing.................................................. Freight ................................................................... Liquid Petroleum Gas ............................................ Railways: Wiltshire ................................................ Taxis: Licensing ..................................................... UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ......................................................... TREASURY .............................................................. AgustaWestland: Government Assistance .............. Anglo Irish Bank ................................................... Cheques ................................................................. Child Benefit: Disability......................................... Crown Currency Exchange .................................... Departmental Redundancy .................................... Equitable Life Assurance Society: Compensation .. EU Budget ............................................................. Financial Services: Regulation ............................... Research and Development Tax Credit .................. Revenue and Customs: Christchurch ..................... Revenue and Customs: Databases .......................... Social Security Benefits.......................................... Tax Evasion ........................................................... Taxation: Environment Protection .........................

181W 182W 182W 182W 183W 183W 183W 284W 284W 284W 284W 285W 285W 285W 286W 286W 287W 287W 287W 288W 288W 289W 289W

WALES...................................................................... 181W Departmental Publications .................................... 181W WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 306W Females: Offenders................................................. 306W WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Children: Maintenance .......................................... Council Tax Benefits .............................................. Departmental Drinking Water ............................... Departmental Official Hospitality.......................... Departmental Public Expenditure.......................... Departmental Redundancy .................................... Disability Aids: Care Homes.................................. Disability Living Allowance ................................... Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes ............. Employment and Support Allowance .................... Employment Schemes ............................................ Housing Benefit: Argyll and Bute .......................... Housing Benefit: Landlords ................................... Industrial Health and Safety .................................. Mental Health........................................................ National Insurance ................................................ Social Security Benefits: Fraud .............................. Veterinary Services: Regulation.............................. Vocational Training: Merseyside ............................ Welfare State: Reform ............................................

253W 253W 254W 254W 254W 255W 255W 256W 257W 257W 258W 259W 259W 260W 260W 260W 261W 261W 262W 262W 265W

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Tuesday 16 November 2010 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £525. WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords, £6. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440. Lords, £225. Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN compiled by the House of Commons, giving details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. The Annual Subscription includes also automatic despatch of the Sessional Information Digest. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscriptions: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 518 No. 67

Tuesday 9 November 2010

CONTENTS Tuesday 9 November 2010 Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 123] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Armed Forces Charter [Col. 145] Motion for leave to bring in Bill—(Thomas Docherty)—agreed to Bill presented, and read the First time Opposition Day [5th allotted day] Housing Benefit [Col. 147] Motion—(Mr Douglas Alexander)—on a Division, negatived Clostridium Difficile [Col. 260] Debate on motion for Adjournment Westminster Hall Vulnerable People [Col. 1WH] Consumer Credit Regulation [Col. 21WH] UK Film Industry [Col. 48WH] Food Security (Africa) [Col. 56WH] Government Policy (NEETs) [Col. 65WH] Debates on motion for Adjournment Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 7WS] Written Answers to Questions [Col. 181W] [see index inside back page]