House of Commons
Thursday 17 May 2007
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked—
Marine Bill
Our manifesto commitment was for a Bill in this Parliament, and I am confident that we will deliver that. Our White Paper, the precursor to the Bill, was published in March.
I am grateful to the Minister, but could he possibly expand a little on the reasons for the delay? Several environmental groups are campaigning for the Bill, and the Minister must be more forthcoming as to what the problem is. Does he think it important that the devolved Administrations should introduce a piece of legislation to run in parallel with his proposed Bill?
There is not a problem. Governments are elected for five years, and we are just two years into this Parliament. I fully appreciate that many organisations, individuals and Members of this House would like a Bill as soon as possible, but I want to ensure that we get a good Bill instead of moving unnecessarily fast. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of the engagement of the devolved Administrations. I hope that the new Administrations in Scotland and Wales will engage positively in furthering the legislation and that it will not get bogged down in unnecessary discussions about the devolutionary settlement.
Langstone harbour in my constituency has a thriving commercial wharf that imports about 500,000 tonnes of recycled aggregate. There is a sewage treatment plant at the top of the harbour and a storm water outfall at its mouth. The harbour is an important breeding ground for gulls and terns, and has a thriving marine leisure industry. Does my hon. Friend accept that we will need a strong regulatory body in the Bill in order to manage those conflicting interests?
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The situation that she describes in her constituency is a good example of why we badly need to modernise our marine legislation. She correctly outlines the diverse interests and pressures on the marine environment and why it is so important that we develop the marine Bill in a comprehensive way to deliver all the economic and environmental benefits to places such as Portsmouth, for which she fights so strongly.
Will the Government use the marine Bill as an opportunity to review the operation of the Crown Estate Commissioners as owners of the seabed? May I suggest to the Minister that there is a contradiction between a sustainable management regime for marine resources and the owner and operator of the seabed being a landlord whose statutory duty is to maximise the financial return to the Treasury?
We all want sustainable development of our marine environment. We want a Bill that does not damage economic prospects, particularly in areas such as renewable energy, but that at the same time preserves the environment. I see no conflict whatever as regards the role of the Crown Estate Commissioners; in fact, we have worked closely with them on the development of the marine White Paper, and I am sure that we will continue to do so as the legislation comes before the House.
Do not we need fully to protect our inland waters? The Marine Conservation Society points out that full protection from damaging, and potentially damaging, activities is in place in the UK only around Lundy island—an area of about 3 sq km, or 0.002 per cent. of the area that needs protection. Will the Minister liaise closely with the society to promote and extend the very limited area of protection that we have at the moment?
Yes; the society gave a warm welcome to the White Paper when it was published. The Bill will make it easier to develop a network of marine protected areas around our coasts such as that which my hon. Friend describes. That does not mean that we are being inactive in the meantime, but the new legislative tools that the Bill will provide will help us to give the protection that he seeks.
Given the continuing decline in species and habitats in UK waters and the hugely complicated and ineffectual measures that are in place to protect them, may I confirm for the Minister that we strongly support the introduction of a marine Bill? Indeed, we have done so for several years. The consultation on the marine White Paper ends on 8 June. Surely that allows enough time for a marine Bill to be introduced in the next Queen’s Speech. I know that we need to get it right, but no one could accuse the Government of acting with undue haste.
Equally the hon. Gentleman will understand that no Government ever give a commitment about what will be in the Queen’s Speech before any measure is actually in the Queen’s Speech, so he would not expect me to do that. He is wrong to paint a picture of catastrophic decline in all our marine environment. Some of it is doing especially well. Of course, some fish stocks are over-exploited and we take steps to tackle that wherever can. However, the seas around many parts of our coastline are in better shape than at any time since before the industrial revolution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
Broiler Chickens
I am pleased to tell the House that, after several years of talks, agreement was reached at an EU Council meeting last Monday week on new rules to improve the welfare of meat chickens. The United Kingdom played a crucial role in securing that agreement and in preventing a minority of countries, led by France, from watering it down.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I had a bit of a taste for broiler chickens, but I prefer free range. Will free-range chickens be subject to the EU directive and regulation?
They will be, but they already exceed the requirements because, by their nature, free-range chickens do not live in the sort of stocking densities that the regulation is designed to secure. The regulation is about protecting chickens that are not free range to ensure that the stocking densities are good and other welfare considerations are met. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that the UK has the highest proportion of free-range and organic chicken production of any EU member state. I am sure that he and the House welcome that.
May I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) about free-range chickens? On chickens that cannot roam around farms but remain in very large sheds with artificial light, I understand that the European Commission was recently going to make a statement about requiring UK farms to increase the pulse of stun guns, given that many of those chickens are not fully stunned and therefore suffer.
I am afraid that I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about stun guns. We constantly review the welfare of not only chickens but all animals at slaughter. We have made considerable progress in recent years, but I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not mind, to clarify the detail of the required voltage of the stun guns.
The Minister will understand that the welfare of broiler chickens and animals in general is affected by good investment in appropriate agricultural buildings. What representations did the Department make about the removal of the agricultural buildings allowance, especially the short phasing-out period of four years? It will clearly affect farming’s ability to invest in good-quality buildings for high standards of animal welfare.
The right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will know that we already have high standards of broiler welfare in this country. Our poultry industry was keen for there to be a level playing field throughout the European Union—that is one of the reasons for its support of the agreement. It will not affect our industry and the quality of its buildings. However, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman refers to an independent report by Lyons. It is not part of my responsibility, but I shall look into the matter and write to him.
Emissions Trading
Our compliance with the EU emissions trading scheme has been excellent and is worth some 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005 to2007. Phase 2 is set to deliver an additional 29 million tonnes of carbon reduction every year. The scheme is a key part of our strategy for tackling CO2 emissions to meet our long-term goal of at least a 60 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels by 2050. We are also working with other countries that want to develop similar approaches.
Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to encourage more countries to join the EU emissions trading scheme?
I certainly will. This morning, I had meetings with the premiers of two Australian states—South Australia and Victoria. They are pushing hard for the development of Australian schemes that are based on the cap and trade system that we have used in Europe. It was interesting to hear from them that they want an Australian scheme, or a state-by-state scheme in Australia, to follow the European model. They want not necessarily to join the EU scheme but to create the possibility of enabling the schemes to be linked. That is a positive development. In the United States, as well as Australia and elsewhere, an urgent debate is taking place about how those countries develop their own schemes and expand the range of industries that are involved. I know that my hon. Friend is interested in that.
My constituents tell me that they are a little cynical about the trading schemes. They are anxious that people might be able to use them in order to make a few bob or get rich quick. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents on this matter and can he assure me that people who abuse the system will be dealt with severely?
My hon. Friend raises two important points. The first guarantee is by making sure that there is a proper carbon price. She will know that at the moment the carbon price for phase 1 of the emissions trading scheme is €1 or below, which is not the sort of price that we need. However, it is very significant that for the period 2008 to 2012 carbon is trading at €19.5 to €20 a tonne—a much steadier and more significant price.
Secondly, my hon. Friend refers to the importance of offsetting schemes genuinely reducing the amount of carbon dioxide. She will agree that Government standards are important in that area, although the Government obviously do not run all the schemes. When we in DEFRA produced a standard earlier this year, on which we are currently consulting, we found that 56 of the 60 available schemes did not currently meet the standards that we wanted. Only four did; all the details are on the DEFRA website. We certainly want to move to a situation in which anyone offsetting their emissions knows with confidence that it will lead to genuine emissions reduction around the world.
May I suggest to the Secretary of State that any carbon trading scheme will and should benefit indirectly those who efficiently manufacture methods and systems that enable us to deliver renewable energy very cheaply? May I therefore thank through him the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment for yesterday meeting me and representatives of Converteam, a renewables manufacturer in my constituency? Will the Secretary of State undertake to do all he can with the Government to ensure that those who are able to produce renewables technologies efficiently are encouraged by the standards that the Government set and by any other support that can be given?
I am always delighted to congratulate my ministerial team on the excellence of their meetings and their performance. I also like to congratulate British companies that are developing in new markets. It is striking that environmental industries are now one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, with 500,000 people currently working in environmental industries as compared with just 175,000 five years ago. I will not pre-empt next week’s discussions on energy, which I am sure will be heated—not too heated, I hope—and robust. However, the point about incentives for new technologies is being discussed in the context of the renewables obligation, and I very much hope that we can ensure that this country is at the forefront of renewables technology.
Given that the range of estimates for the social and environmental cost of carbon is anything from a minimum in the Stern review of €25 up to €70 or so, and even though we have seen a welcome tightening of the price, as the Secretary of State says, at €18 in the second phase, the reality is that as we came into the Chamber this morning the current price for the current phase was 31 cents per tonne, which sends out a pretty appalling signal. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Council needs to try to tighten the price in the current phase as well as deal with the next phase? Is, indeed, the tightness of the next phase adequate, and what measures is he urging on his colleagues in the Council to improve the scheme?
The tightness of the next phase will be clear only when all allocations have been agreed with all countries. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that has not yet been done, so it would be ridiculous for me to reach a conclusion now. What I can say is that the European Commission’s determination to ensure that, for every country, the allocation is, first, below the current level of emissions and, secondly, in line with the Kyoto commitments is exactly the sort of tough negotiation and decision making that we wanted from the Commission and that has been urged on it on a cross-party basis over the past few years. I think that it is a good example. The Commission, which oversaw the first phase of the scheme where there were genuine problems, deserves credit for delivering what is now the world’s most effective carbon market—the second phase of the EU emissions trading scheme. Given that it covers half of all emissions in this country, the fact that we have a tighter scheme with the price going only in one direction should be applauded.
Will the Secretary of State continue to resist the attempts of some European countries to oppose the tighter national allocation plans on carbon levels in phase 2? Will he also examine the potential for a sector-by-sector scheme to recognise the different basic carbon potential for different sectors of industry, so that one does not suffer in relation to another?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The short answer to the first part of his question is yes. We need to keep urging the European Commission to take a tough line with any country that is trying to have slack allocations. He will be aware that this Government have decided that any sector exposed to international competition should be protected from any burdens that are imposed. However, his point about sectoral agreements is important, particularly in the light of the international negotiations that will reach a peak in June at the G8 plus 5 meeting and in December at the United Nations meeting in Indonesia. One of the items that the Government have put on the agenda is to consider, if developing countries are not yet ready to take on binding emissions reduction targets, sectoral schemes that can take a global role in ensuring that all sectors are playing their appropriate part in emissions reduction.
In the light of the United States’ failure to sanction a federal emissions trading scheme, and of Angela Merkel’s frank admission yesterday that pre-negotiations with the United States on the G8 summit are going very badly, with the United States not even accepting the 2°C target for global warming, has the Minister asked the Prime Minister to use his farewell love-in with George W. Bush to pressure him to accept the 2°C target? Will he also back the German Government in insisting on that target?
The Prime Minister does not need my instructions, because he has his own determination to work with the United States and seek to persuade its Administration that a central role by America in the global drive to reduce emissions is essential, and that America has not only a lot to contribute but a lot to gain from being part of the emissions reduction drive. We have two or three weeks before the G8 plus 5 summit. The fact that American states and cities are moving as fast as they are, and that American business is now demanding a federal response, makes it right to say that it is a matter of when, not if, the United States becomes part of the global deal, and the sooner the better.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the scheme must be credible and tied to the Kyoto targets. What consideration has been given in Europe to using auctions for the allowances in the next phase, and to having a back-stop price related to the cost of carbon abatement?
My hon. Friend speaks with some expertise on these matters. Significant consideration has been given to auctioning, although it is for each national Government to decide the level of auctioning that will take place. In this country, it will be 7 per cent. There is a widespread view that the use of auctioning is an important part of the future of the scheme, and it is significant that the European Commission should now be encouraging nation states to take that forward. Phase 3 of the scheme will be under discussion soon and, given the united UK position across business, non-governmental organisations and Government on the EU ETS manifesto, I believe that we shall see further discussion of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
Packaging
Legislation requiring an increasing proportion of packaging to be recycled and outlawing excessive packaging is helping to reduce packaging. The supermarkets have agreed voluntary measures to reduce packaging. We will announce further measures shortly when we publish our new waste strategy.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I have received correspondence from a constituent, Chris James, who has recently come back from a family holiday in America, where he compared shopping in Wal-mart in America with shopping in his local supermarket in Swansea. He was particularly struck by the fact that in America there was so little packaging and that all the fresh produce was displayed with a minimum of packaging. When he got back home, he noticed a significant difference in the amount that he had to dispose of or recycle. Will the Minister speak to the supermarkets with a view to reaching an agreement on some kind of standardisation for packaging? We need to encourage them to take these steps.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: the experience of her constituent in the United States mirrors that of many people who travel to other countries and find that produce is not so heavily packaged as they are used to here. We are in constant touch with the supermarkets on this issue, and we have seen a new will on their part to address the problem. One or two of them have not only signed up to the agreement to which I referred, but are going further in reducing and minimising packaging. We shall pay close attention to that issue when we publish our new waste strategy shortly.
The Minister will know, however, that supermarkets are not exactly forthcoming in dealing with regulations: we need only think of the way that they are hammering the dairy industry and the farming industry generally. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) raises an important point, because we do suffer from far too much packaging. I commend to the House the initiative of Waitrose in not handing out plastic bags for the next week or two. That is a good start, because our streets are littered with totally unnecessary plastic bags.
Personally, I would rather that Waitrose never handed out a disposable bag again, and I think that all other retailers should adopt the same policy. Those in this country that have adopted the policy have seen a dramatic fall in the issue of one-way disposable bags—not just plastic but other bags. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that, a couple of months ago, we got the supermarkets to sign up to an agreement to reduce the environmental impact of all disposable bags by 25 per cent. over the next two years. Consumers also have a role, and he and other Members may like to reflect on their behaviour as consumers in relation to packaging and bags, to complain to retailers and to make it clear that packaging is sometimes excessive.
The issue is reducing not just the amount of packaging but the materials used in that packaging. Many councils will not recycle much plastic packaging. Is there pressure on supermarkets to think about using the type of packaging that can be easily recycled in preference to that which cannot?
Yes, there is. A slight misconception exists, because the vast majority of plastics used by supermarkets are recyclable, but the recycling of plastics around the country, from local authority to local authority, is patchy. Some local authorities that got the recycling bug later have concentrated on other materials that help them improve their figures more quickly. We are mindful of the issue, and we will consider it closely when we publish our new waste strategy.
As well as wanting the physical volume of packaging reduced, consumers want to know the carbon footprint of packaged products that they buy. So far, however, that approach seems totally beyond the ambition of the Government. Part of the problem, as the Green Alliance has noted, is that no single body is driving progress in this area. Will the Minister therefore consider constructively the submission of the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment to the Conservative quality of life policy review—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if the Minister calmed down a little and listened to the question; it is Question Time, after all. Can that submission calling for an independent packaging watchdog be considered constructively, so that real progress can be made in this area?
I always want to consider interesting and constructive ideas. It may have passed the hon. Gentleman’s notice, although not that of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made such an announcement at the Oxford farming conference earlier this year. The difficulty in relation to the carbon footprint of different foodstuffs is that we simply do not have the evidence base yet to introduce a credible system that would be adopted by all the retailers. Retailers are also interested in the issue, and we are working with all of them to try to agree a standard measurement, so that we avoid the problem, which was mentioned earlier, of having a plethora of carbon offsetting schemes but no real standard in which consumers can have confidence. We have wanted to introduce such a scheme for a long time, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now jumped on the bandwagon.
Standards are one thing—and I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his Oxford speech—but we still need an independent regulator with real teeth. We have the Waste and Resources Action Programme, for example, but that is working with the industry, not policing it. Currently, responsibility is split between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Who will be responsible for enforcement and making sure that progress happens?
The hon. Gentleman is calling for more red tape. We are confident that, just as we have used independent advice to come up with a standard for carbon offsetting, it would be perfectly possible to use independent advice, based on independent research, to come up with a good carbon footprint scheme for foodstuffs. However, we do not need a new independent regulatory body to police it. That is a ludicrous idea. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for—
No, not the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I have forgotten the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I am not allowed to use his name in the Chamber. Anyway, I think he would be very concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we need yet another regulatory body to regulate something that—[Hon. Members: “Wokingham!] Yes, I meant the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He would be very concerned about the idea of establishing yet another regulatory body to regulate something that we are perfectly capable of regulating ourselves.
May I declare an interest, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the packaging manufacturing industry? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the requirements and needs for some of the packaging that we use. I agree with my hon. Friends that fresh produce should not need packaging—except, of course, when consumers want to shop weekly at a supermarket, and want the produce that they buy to last for more than two or three days. Therefore, there is a requirement for certain types of packaging for the purposes of hygiene and labelling, and to keep produce fresh. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices and try to find time for a full-scale debate in the House, in Government time, so that some of these issues can be discussed and we can avoid some of the recent campaigns in, for instance, the Daily Mail—
Order. It sounds as though we are having a full debate now.
You have made very well the point that I was about to make, Mr. Speaker. We have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of packaging, and quite right too.
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House, and some in the media, that some packaging is good for the environment. Food does not go to waste that would otherwise go to waste, which in itself would be wasteful. However, other Members are right to say that there needs to be a balance. Enough of us come across enough examples of produce that is over-packaged to make it important for retailers and legislators to address the issue.
Climate Change (Air Travel)
The best way available in which to tackle the climate-change impact of aviation is to bring it within the EU emissions trading scheme. However, we continue to explore and discuss the use of other economic instruments, within Government, with stakeholders and with other countries.
Let me say first that I am very sad that the Secretary of State decided not to stand for the leadership of his party. [Interruption.] I think there are other members of the Labour party who think the same, but let me turn to more substantive issues. Does the Minister agree that emissions from aviation are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, rising potentially from 5 per cent. today to a possible 25 per cent. by 2030? What changes does he think should be introduced to make aviation play its part in helping to tackle rising carbon dioxide emissions?
I agree that aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, but it is not just a question of carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the non-carbon dioxide impact of aviation is two to four times as great as the carbon dioxide impact. That is why the Government have been leading the way in bringing aviation into the EU emissions trading scheme, and why we strongly back the proposals that have emerged from the European Commission, which by 2020 could save 183 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
I think that it will be the Labour movement that, in time, will be sad that the Secretary of State did not stand for the leadership of the Labour party.
In February this year the Government increased air passenger duty, but it has been described by one of the Government’s own members as
“a blunt instrument…not…designed for environmental ends.”
Can the Minister tell us when the Government will tackle the issue properly?
I accept that air passenger duty may not be the most effective policy instrument when it comes to influencing environmental behaviour, but it is one of the best we have. It is certainly far better than the Tory proposal to impose VAT on domestic flights. The simple fact is that the rise in APD announced in the last pre-Budget report will produce more carbon savings in a month than the Conservative proposals will in a year.
The growth in air travel has had a very good impact on the economy of such places as Greater Manchester, which has a rapidly expanding international airport, but has also had a massive impact on carbon emissions. The Minister briefly mentioned the UK’s efforts to have air transport included in the EU emissions trading scheme. Could he update the House as to where the Government are on this?
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aviation to the UK economy and he gives a good example of the growth and success of Manchester airport. As a Government, we must have a sustainable policy on aviation. We should not be against aviation any more than we are against the cement industry, aggregates, construction, telecommunications or chemicals. Clearly it is important for aviation, like other sectors of the economy, to take responsibility for reducing its carbon emissions, which is why putting aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme is the best way forward. We have been responding to the European Commission’s proposals on aviation and we hope to see significant progress later this year, in accordance with the timetable laid out by the Commission.
Irrespective of whether the Government choose—I hope they will—to use other policy instruments in advance of the EU emissions trading scheme, which is still some years off, and given that the UK already submits information on emissions from international bunker fuels under the Kyoto provisions, should not emissions from both aviation and shipping be included in the Climate Change Bill from the beginning?
Domestic aviation is included in the UK’s greenhouse gas inventory. International aviation and shipping are not, because there is no international agreement on definitions. There is scope to amend the Climate Change Bill to allow the introduction of aviation and shipping, but we need international agreement on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from aviation and shipping. In the meantime, putting aviation into the EU ETS—the UK would support the inclusion of shipping—has to be the next best step. If we can achieve agreement through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to get global action on aviation, that would be much the best for everyone.
There is broad agreement that green taxes do help to change behaviour and I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of their intention that we enter the emissions trading scheme. However, there is also deep suspicion that green taxes are being used to raise the overall level of taxation, rather than simply to combat climate change or to change behaviour. Will the Minister confirm that if Britain does enter the emissions trading scheme, air passenger duty and many other green taxes affecting aviation will be reduced to offset those new taxes?
It is incredible that Opposition Members oppose the climate change levy, which will have more of an impact in a week in terms of reducing carbon emissions than the current Conservative proposal to put VAT on domestic aviation would do in a year, while also opposing the increase in air passenger duty, which will save 2.75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2010-11—more in one month than putting VAT on domestic flights, as the original question suggests, will do in a year. This is a nonsense of a Conservative policy—
Order. I call Mr. Ellwood.
May I add my condolences to the Secretary of State on his decision not to stand in the Labour leadership race—although there is another hour to go before the period for nominations ends? His campaign to be Prime Minister might be dead, but his ideas on climate change live on in the form of his mini-manifesto, a detailed letter written to the Chancellor in which he calls for increasing passenger awareness of the impact of flights, raising air passenger duty and making flights subject to VAT, which the Minister has just condemned. If we all agree that aviation must play its role in combating climate change and if the Secretary of State believes that that is the way forward, when will we get the opportunity to debate those ideas in this House?
We shall have plenty of opportunities to discuss climate change in the future, particularly in relation to the Climate Change Bill. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and congratulate him on his debut performance; it is just a shame that his task is to defend the Opposition’s shabby policy on aviation—
Order. I am not going to allow that.
Single Farm Payments
As I confirmed in my written ministerial statement on Tuesday of this week, at 11 May a total of £1.229 billion, representing about 80 per cent. of the estimated total fund of the 2006 single payment scheme, had been paid in either full or partial payments to about 92 per cent. of claimants—some 100,599 farmers. Eligibility penalties—the subject of Question 7—have been applied to about 10 per cent. of 2006 single payment scheme claims. Further detailed analysis of payments made under the SPS is not yet available.
Obviously, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way that he has got on with dealing with this problem. He inherited a chaotic mess—there are no two ways about that—and at least he has ensured that the farmers are starting to get the money. However, 8 per cent. are still waiting for payments. Will he consider helping them by means of compensation if that continues over a longer period? Will he also come up to Chorley and meet the farmers there who think he is doing a very good job?
An invitation to meet some farmers who think that I am doing a particularly good job is an invitation not to be refused. I am sure that there are a large and growing number of them, in Chorley and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last year, for those payments delayed beyond 30 June interest payments were available. We are not yet at the stage where we have to consider that again, but I can assure him that we are trying to get as many payments out as soon as possible; I reaffirmed our commitment to make payments as fast as possible in my statement on Tuesday. Obviously, we take our responsibilities very seriously towards those who have not received payments.
I commend the Secretary of State for the work that he is doing. However, he amusingly stated in his written statement that the Rural Payments Agency
“chief executive is taking a number of other steps to further streamline processing of claims.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 29WS.]
Does he find it acceptable that 22,000 claims from 2005 have still not been sorted out? Is part of the problem that two agencies are involved—the Environment Agency for the compliance aspect and the RPA for the payments aspect? Please will he ensure that whoever the next Prime Minister is, they make this matter the responsibility of a Minister in this place rather than the other place, so that we can scrutinise that Minister on the Floor of the House?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words about the work that I have tried to do. I hope she will agree that Lord Rooker has done exemplary work in this area. I am very happy to speak in this House on the successes and failures of the RPA, and it is right that the hon. Lady should question me on these issues.
In respect of the specific point that the hon. Lady raised, from what she said an inference could be drawn by people following this debate that 22,000 people had received no money at all for 2005. That is not the case. I want to make it clear that there remain 22,000 people who have appealed against the level of claim that they have been given—in other words, their claims are being reviewed. There are 24 who received no money in 2005, mainly because of cases of probate, which have always arisen. In respect of the 22,000, of course we want to get the reviews completed as quickly as possible. I was able to report on Tuesday that the number had decreased from 25,000 to 22,000.
The hon. Lady is right to be anxious and passionate on behalf of her constituents to get the money paid. I assure her that I am equally anxious and passionate to do that. I want to do so in a way that is consistent with our 2006 payments, and also with the rules that we have urged on the European Commission for a long time for careful and appropriate payments under the common agricultural policy. We want to stick to those rules so that we can urge them on others.
Will my right hon. Friend, with the help of Lord Rooker, look again at eligibility with regard to commoners associations and grazing on commons? At the instigation of the scheme it was possible for commoners associations to be the vehicle through which payments were made. For some reason that has now stopped, which is causing consternation. I know that other hon. Members are also affected. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently and report back to me?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will certainly look into the matter with Lord Rooker and write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Many English hill farmers are still uncertain about their entitlements under the single payments scheme relating to common land. That applies right back to 2005, bringing uncertainty into 2006 and 2007. That is unacceptable because the hill farming allowance also depends on a properly validated SPS claim. Given that hill farmers are particularly dependent on the subsidy and have marginal financial stability, will the Secretary of State ensure that resources are put in place so that this outstanding issue is dealt with and hill farming can have more confidence in future?
The hon. Gentleman, who follows this matter carefully, will know from previous statements that we have tried to make special provision for the payment of hill farm allowances and related allowances. He said that some groups are living on the margin and I understand what he was saying about the pressures that they face. We have tried to give them certainty about some of the transitional measures that are in place and we will continue to do that. I certainly take heed of his warnings about the need to ensure that this vulnerable group is properly protected.
My constituency has a number of hill farms and marginal pieces of land. Will the Secretary of State respond to the question put by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), because interest payments are different from compensation? The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers are under huge pressure financially and in dire financial difficulty. Where payments are long delayed, will he ensure that there are alternative methods of giving some form of financial help, not just by paying interest—although little has been paid out—but by compensation?
The hon. Gentleman will know that we discussed compensation when I made my statement last June on interest payments. No Government have ever paid compensation and that remains our position. Our priority is to get the payments made. I hope he will not mind if I pick him up for referring to the “dire” state of the agricultural industry. Although just across the Pennines, I am sure that he is as avid a reader as I am of the Yorkshire Post and will have seen this week’s report of the important information that UK agricultural industry total borrowing had fallen by £253 million in the quarter to March—
They have gone out of business.
No, I am sorry but the Bank of England report shows that to claim that the whole of the UK agricultural industry is in a “dire” state is not backed up by the facts. Particular parts, notably livestock and especially dairy, are having a hard time. However, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will agree—that it is not right to paint a picture of UK agriculture across the piece as being in a “dire” state. Many parts are prospering and winning in world markets.
If the Secretary of State is to visit Chorley, perhaps he could leave a little time in his diary to come next door into the Ribble Valley, where he may hear a different story. One of my farmers wrote to me:
“how can any business plan for the future, or even a month ahead, without knowing when monies owed to their businesses is going to be paid? Farming is hard enough, with livestock prices the same, or even less than they were twenty years ago.”
That is the point. If people who work for the Rural Payments Agency were told that they were only going to get part payment of their salaries and that they would not know when they were to receive it, would that focus their attention on ensuring that the moneys that farmers are owed are paid on time?
The hon. Gentleman could actually be quoting from what I said when I first came to this job last year about the imperative of giving farmers confidence about how much money they will get and when. I completely agree that they are absolutely right to say that basic business planning depends on basic competence on the part of DEFRA and all its agencies. I am in complete agreement with him about that. This year, as promised, farmers received 70 per cent. of total funds paid out by the middle of March, compared to 15 per cent. last year, but they are right to continue to want 100 per cent. as fast as possible and the hon. Gentleman will not be able to outbid me in the rhetoric he applies to the importance of getting that done. As for future campaign visits to Ribble Valley, I look forward to taking on many of the marginal Conservative seats in a future election.
May I—unusually—commend Lord Rooker for his excellent and welcome policy of holding meetings for Members of Parliament? I am a farmer, an interest which I declare, and receive the single farm payment, so two weeks ago I telephoned the Rural Payments Agency in Newcastle where a charming young lady told me, “I’m afraid there’s a huge backlog of pre-populated forms for the single farm payment yet to go out, so I’ll send you an empty one.” I eventually received my form but it was only half filled in, so I am afraid that the Secretary of State must acknowledge that the RPA system remains poor. I know the process is not easy, but the system remains poor so I hope he will tell the House that he will examine it very carefully.
I shall certainly draw to Lord Rooker’s attention the hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks. My noble Friend’s surgery meetings for Members of this place and of the House of Lords are an excellent innovation. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are real issues to be tackled, in respect of not just the pre-population of the forms but the other data, which are constantly being updated and some of which I referred to in my written statement on Tuesday. We will not be satisfied until we have a system that accurately delivers stable, reliable, competent payments to farmers at the right time of year. That is what we are trying to deliver.
Even though I come from south of Watford, I, too, am an avid reader of the Yorkshire Post. The Secretary of State may have overlooked the front page headline in yesterday’s edition: “British farmers £90 million worse off in subsidy fiasco”.
When the Secretary of State took over his role about a year ago, he brought to it a refreshing candour—he started going round apologising for the rural payments fiasco—but we have recently learned that the Government’s performance during the year that he has been in charge has actually got worse. If he goes on like that, he will be Foreign Secretary by July. Does he remember telling the Royal Show last year that he would find it difficult to look farmers in the eye until the single payment scheme was properly sorted out? When does he expect to look farmers in the eye? To put it another way, when does he expect to be able to start using the gents toilets at farmers’ events rather than the ladies—for fear of meeting angry farmers in the gents—and, finally, does not the fact that he does so show how little he understands the nature of farmers’ wives?
I know that a special unit has been set up at Tory central office to track my activities—clearly it is being taken to rather ridiculous lengths—but since the hon. Gentleman asks, and although this may be shocking to the House, at the National Farmers Union I actually used the gents toilets. As it happens, at the gents toilet I met a farmer from Wales who subsequently entered into correspondence with me—[Laughter.]
Was he a Tory peer?
He was not, but for the sake of completeness, I should point out that he was concerned that he did not have long enough in the gents toilets to put his points to me.
I am afraid that I would urge the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to stick to matters of fact and policy for the future, although his question has helped to enliven the proceedings. The population at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions can only increase on the back of what he said.
I wish I could remember rather more accurately what the hon. Gentleman actually asked. He alleged that the situation now is worse than it was a year ago. I utterly refute that. Given that 70 per cent. or so of payments were paid by mid-March compared with 15 per cent. last year, I do not understand how he can describe that as a step backwards.
Carbon Emissions
We have a range of policies and practical measures to help individuals adopt lower carbon lifestyles. We will soon be launching a web-based CO2 calculator, which will allow people and households to find out their CO2 footprint.
I very much welcome the Minister’s response. It is important that we as individuals are encouraged to monitor our carbon footprint and to reduce it by doing things such as recycling, but it is also important that we know the impact and the effectiveness of different recycling methods. Will the Minister support the campaign for real recycling in its calls for an audit of the different recycling schemes in use across the country?
We are constantly trying to improve the quality of recycling in the United Kingdom. The current recycling effort is roughly equivalent to taking 3.5 million cars off the road. We have made significant progress over the past 10 years, but we need to do more. The waste strategy, when it is published shortly, will take significant further steps forward.
Does the Minister agree that the key to individuals’ action on these issues is individuals’ understanding of them, and that the concepts of carbon footprints and carbon emissions are quite difficult for many people to comprehend? Does he agree that the fact that the terms carbon dioxide, carbon, and greenhouse gas emissions are used interchangeably by his Department and others does not add to people’s understanding of the issues? Does he agree that there is a need for consistency in the use of terminology and in the use of measurement?
My hon. Friend has a point when he says that the Government talk sometimes about carbon, sometimes about CO2 and sometimes about greenhouse gases. It would be helpful if we could have more consistency and talk about carbon dioxide. Interestingly, the research work that we have done tends to suggest that people understand the concept of CO2 and a carbon footprint. That is why we have launched the “Act on CO2” campaign. The work that we did before we launched it confirmed that that has a resonance with people, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to take steps to make it easier for people to measure their CO2 footprint. That is what the new web-based calculator that we are launching soon will do.
Climate Change
In January, I visited New Delhi and Mumbai and met the Minister of Environment and Forests. We discussed how to strengthen our bilateral co-operation on climate change and issues relating to future climate change agreements. I am pleased to say that that Minister also attended the G8 plus 5 Potsdam conference on biodiversity and climate change in March, where I had a further opportunity to discuss these issues with him.
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that international agreements are the only way forward when it comes to our goal of tackling climate change? Does he also agree that the UK has a responsibility to ensure that the developing nations do not go down the same faulty road that we did when our economies were developing? Does he accept that the opportunities offered by climate change technology allow a great possibility of a boom in the UK economy?
My hon. Friend makes an important point—a point that I have discussed with him before—about the potential for new industry and new employment in the environmental sector. Perhaps it is not well known that India is one of the top promoters of renewable energy—especially wind energy. I hope that we can take forward our work on technology transfer to developing countries. I know that that is one of the top five issues that the Prime Minister has put on the table for the G8 plus 5 summit in Germany, which the Indian Prime Minister will attend.
Village Halls
Support is provided in many ways, both for the fabric of rural community buildings, including village halls, and for those who are responsible for running them. Over the past five years, through a variety of DEFRA programmes, including the rural social and community programme, the aggregates levy fund and the rural enterprise scheme, DEFRA has invested more than £10 million to support a wide range of rural community assets.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, not least because I have an unusually high number of village halls and community centres in my largely rural constituency. They are used by a variety of voluntary and community groups, who are often nowadays the lifeblood of their communities. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment to the House that he will work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that those groups can continue their valuable work, thereby ensuring that they make full use of the investment that has been made in our community centres and village halls?
I am very glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that we intend to continue to do precisely that. The rural social and community programme provides funding for a diverse range of local projects in the manner that she suggested. Of course, in the light of recent announcements, we may need to look afresh at how best we can maintain other community facilities such as former grammar school buildings, for which the Conservative party no longer seems to have a use.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?
The business of the House for the week commencing 21 May will be as follows:
Monday 21 May—Second Reading of the Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]. There is also expected to be a statement on the planning White Paper.
Tuesday 22 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, followed if necessary by consideration of Lords Amendments.
Wednesday 23 May—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day], there will be a debate entitled “Independent Inquiry into the Conduct of the Scottish Parliamentary Elections”, followed by a debate entitled “Effectiveness of the DTI”. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion. There is also expected to be a statement on the energy White Paper.
Thursday 24 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
Friday 25 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 June will include:
Monday 4 June—Second Reading of the Legal Services Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 5 June—There will be a debate on Darfur on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I want to make two brief statements. First, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the House agreed last night the dates appointed for the tabling and answering of written questions and for any written ministerial statements in September. We will remind the House about that in due course, but questions can be tabled on 3, 5 and 10 September for answer on 10, 12 and 17 September respectively.
Last week, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on freedom of information, I made comments in which I said that
“the way that some journalists and the Information Commissioner are acting means that”
the intention of the Freedom of Information Act
“is not being met in practice”.—[Official Report, 10 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 298.]
Those remarks reflected a general concern that I have about the scope of some of the decisions interpreting the Act, but my comments were ambiguous and could have implied that the Information Commissioner had made rulings on the issue of MPs’ correspondence or that he was acting in some way beyond his statutory responsibilities. He has not done that in any way, and he has made no rulings in respect of MPs’ correspondence.
If I may say so, the commissioner, Richard Thomas, does a difficult job very well. I would like to offer my sincere apologies to him.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business.
I note that the right hon. Gentleman says that a statement on the energy White Paper is expected on Wednesday, the day of an Opposition debate. As he knows, Government statements should not be made in Opposition time, so will he look again at the timing of that statement?
This week, John Howard instructed Australia’s cricket team not to tour Zimbabwe. That firm decision contrasts with the lack of direction from this Government when England’s last tour went ahead. The right hon. Gentleman was then Foreign Secretary. England is due to play Zimbabwe later this year, in 2008 and in 2009. Meanwhile, the appalling crisis in that country is getting worse. Will the Foreign Secretary make a statement to clarify the Government’s position?
On Tuesday, the Department for International Development published its first annual report to include the requirements of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. Many hon. Members want the report to be debated every year on the Floor of the House, and last week, in response to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), the Leader of the House said that he would give “active consideration” to the idea of a debate. Can he now give a date for the debate?
Can we have a debate on standards in government? The Secretary of State for International Development owns shares in a company that works for his Department. That appears to be in breach of the ministerial code. Almost a month ago, I wrote to the Chancellor—
Order. Has the right hon. Lady informed the right hon. Gentleman of her concern and that she would be raising the matter today?
I apologise, Mr. Speaker; I have not informed the right hon. Gentleman.
Order. We will move on to something else.
In that case, can we have a debate on police targets? While more serious crimes go unpunished, Home Office targets are forcing the police to arrest more people. A bride was arrested on her wedding day for criminal damage after crashing into a car park barrier, a child was arrested for throwing buns at a bus, and a man was cautioned for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw—presumably the police were called before the Deputy Prime Minister could get to him.
Can we have a debate on the relationship between the trade unions and Government policy? It is reported today that the trade unions will effectively decide the Labour party leadership and in return, a union official has revealed, they expect a successor to the Warwick agreement. That agreement led to taxpayers’ money being given to unions, which in turn, of course, give money to the Labour party. We need a debate.
The average accident and emergency unit serves 250,000 people, but an NHS report says that an A and E department needs to be supported by between 450,000 and 500,000 people. That would mean the closure of A and E departments across the country. The Health Secretary denies responsibility, but that report was described as national guidance. When it suits her, the Health Secretary says that she is in control of the NHS; when it does not, she says that she is not responsible. Will the right hon. Lady come to the House to clarify the Government’s position, and can we have a debate on the meaning of ministerial responsibility?
It is now certain that the Chancellor will be the next Prime Minister, but because of Labour party rules we have to wait weeks for him to take office, with the country and the Cabinet in limbo. Who will make prime ministerial statements in this House for the next few weeks? [Hon. Members: “The Prime Minister.”] Which one? The pensions system is in crisis, the NHS is in deficit, and the Prime Minister will negotiate a European treaty that the Chancellor spins he will reject. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to go, and go now?
On the right hon. Lady’s first point about the energy White Paper statement being on the same day as an Opposition day debate, as she knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip does her best to avoid such clashes and generally succeeds. The success of Government Chief Whips over the past 10 years in avoiding such clashes compares extremely well with the practice during my 18 years in opposition—
The hon. Gentleman says, “Too short”—but time and again during that period, when we announced Opposition days, additional statements were prepared by the Government to blot out all prospect of any coverage for our business. We have tried to avoid clashes, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) concedes that we now give advance notice of statements so that everybody can prepare for them.
We will have a debate on Zimbabwe—I promised that to the House and it will happen. As for suggestions that the Government should ban a cricket tour, I made it clear in 2004 that we disapproved of the England team touring Zimbabwe and that we would have preferred the England and Wales Cricket Board not to have gone ahead with the tour, but this is a democracy and we do not have any power—[Hon. Members: “So is Australia.”] Australia’s Government obviously have different powers; we do not have any power to direct the behaviour of a separate, voluntary organisation. Not once during our debates in 2004 did I hear any suggestion to the contrary, nor did I hear of any power that I or any other Minister had that could have led to such a ban.
As for holding a debate on the Department for International Development report, of course we will look at that carefully. I simply say that we are the first Government to have such a proud record on international development, and it is only thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) that the requirement for an annual report is now law.
In respect of police targets, there is no requirement on the police to prosecute or arrest trivial offenders and to ignore serious offenders. The Government’s overall record on crime is outstanding. Crime is down 35 per cent., but it doubled under the Conservatives. I say to the right hon. Lady that I have learned, over many years, that it is always rash to go to a newspaper headline for the real truth about any allegation of crime.
Order. We are not talking about the matter that I asked the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) not to mention.
No, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that the police were chasing trivial criminal acts. I crossed the other matter off my list the moment that you ruled it out of order.
It must be remembered that in one case, a fatal accident involving a bus was caused by a person doing something apparently trivial, namely, throwing something at a bus and distracting the driver. The scare stories that appear in the newspapers are not always as they seem.
On trade unions and Government policy, I am sure that I heard the right hon. Lady say that the trade unions would decide the Labour party leadership. Well, that is wrong—Members of Parliament have, in practice, decided the Labour party leadership, and if I may do so from a position of total independence, I offer my congratulations to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the overwhelming vote of confidence that he received.
I have two last points, one of which concerns the issue that has been raised about accident and emergency departments. That is a Conservative scare story that has no basis in fact. What the right hon. Lady needs to understand is that accident and emergency provision is changing because medicine is changing. There is more care closer to home, wherever that is safely possible. For example, in emergency care, practitioners from ambulance trusts are treating people at home, rather than those people having to go to accident and emergency departments. Some care takes place in specialist centres, and those centres have a far better record in dealing with people who face serious conditions such as stroke and heart attacks. The question for the whole House is whether we want to freeze the existing confederation of accident and emergency provision services in the knowledge that patients will suffer, or whether we want to ensure more local accident and emergency service provision, but some specialist centres, too. There is no national plan whatever.
Finally, the right hon. Lady said that the Government were now in limbo, and asked who would make decisions and statements as Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is the Prime Minister and will stay Prime Minister until 27 June, when there will be a transfer. The right hon. Lady often leads with her chin; today is not the day to talk about a party being in limbo or disarray, because the disarray caused to the Conservative party by yesterday’s announcement on grammar schools is quite extraordinary. It has been damned as a rehashed announcement by the former Opposition leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and damned again by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who said,
“I have always supported more grammar schools”.
It has been condemned by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that the announcement was unforgivable—
Order. I am trying to work out what that has to do with the business for next week. Perhaps the Leader of the House can help me.
I am about to offer the Conservatives a debate in Government time on the disarray in the Conservative party. [Hon. Members: “Very generous.”] Yes, we are very generous.
May I make two final points? The hon. Member for North Thanet asked a very important question of Conservative members of the shadow Cabinet that should be included in this debate. He said:
“I ask every Conservative member of the shadow Cabinet who has endorsed Mr. Willetts’ view whether they will give a clear undertaking that they are not sending and will not send their own children or grandchildren to public schools.”
That is a very important question. No wonder The Spectator—the house magazine of the Conservative party—is saying in this week’s edition that the Conservative party is now “in the grip of” Tory “toffs”.
Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on early-day motion 1466, which stands in my name and those of other Members, so that this House can debate the crooked activities of SCS, unit 2, the Peel Centre, Stockport, in cheating a constituent of mine out of £2,000 and failing to honour a warranty that does not expire until 2009? It states:
[That this House warns potential customers to steer clear of S.C.S., Unit 2, the Peel Centre, Stockport, and Valspar Industries, Abingdon, which crooked traders have between them cheated a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton who bought furniture costing 1,998 from S.C.S., found it damaged, and has been refused recompense from Valspar Industries even though she spent another 200 on a five-year warranty which is not due to expire until 6th March 2009; believes that such cheats should not be allowed to be in business; and calls on the Office of Fair Trading to investigate their activities with a view to providing justice for the right hon. Member's constituent.]
Will my right hon. Friend also refer the matter to the director general of fair trading?
In the light of what the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said about cricketers going to Zimbabwe, will my right hon. Friend also provide time for a debate on a previous Conservative Government’s record in allowing a rogue English cricket team to go to apartheid South Africa, in refusing to impose any sanctions on that country, and in the then Prime Minister calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
I have always wished to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend and on the latter point, I am warming to two debates in Government time: one on the Conservative party’s disarray and another on the record of previous Conservative Governments. That would be to the benefit of the whole House, and especially to the preparation of the Opposition party for government, because it is not very far down that road at the moment.
I accept that the matter dealt with in early-day motion 1466 is very serious, and I will certainly refer my right hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so that he can consider a reference to the Office of Fair Trading. We will of course look for an opportunity for the matter to be debated.
I suppose that it is appropriate to offer congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, in his role as campaign manager, on finally winning the “marginal seat” through the vote of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), which, as I understand it, secured victory.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for notice of the statements on the planning and energy reviews, consistent with what he said earlier. It is however a great shame that we were not given proper notice of the statement following business questions today on the Post Office review. We all knew that it would happen some time this week, but Members, who have a great interest in this matter, were not given proper notice of it. Is it not therefore inevitable that we need a debate on the Post Office review, as well as the statement? Apparently, the review will involve the closure of 2,500 post offices, a disproportionate number of which are located in rural areas such as mine. We want our opportunity to have a proper debate on the consequences.
If the Leader of the House had been here earlier for questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he would have heard a lively exchange on excess packaging. May we have a debate on that issue, and not only on the absurdities that we hear about such as coconuts and swedes being wrapped in plastic and a melon being labelled as “produce of more than one country”? Is there not at least a suspicion that a lot of such excess packaging is based on a commercial imperative of making people purchase more of a product than they actually need? That being the case, may we have a debate, and will the right hon. Gentleman give parliamentary time for the Retail Packaging (Recycling) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), which will give us the parliamentary opportunity to do something about it?
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) did not ask for a debate on education, but as the right hon. Gentleman rather did the subject to death, I shall not pursue it. However, we ought to give an opportunity to Conservative Back Benchers to have their say about the change in the policy on grammar schools.
Lastly, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed the perplexing comment by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday—[Interruption.] Indeed, there were many, and let us hope that we never have another session quite like that. He said at one point that he was hoping to delay time. That opens up a new future for him as a time lord.
If the Government are in the process of delaying time during the interregnum when we have two Prime Ministers, one in office and one waiting, is it not an opportunity for the Leader of the House to clear the decks and enact some of the thoughts that he has been putting forward to improve the performance of Parliament, in addition to the U-turn on the royal prerogative that he announced last week? One of the interesting things about U-turns is what is left washed up on the beach when the tide comes in. In this case it was the Lord Chancellor who was left washed up. Can the Leader of the House find time for a review of parliamentary procedures on a wider scale, so that we can make this Parliament more effective and more relevant? He has the time to do it. Will he make sure that it happens?
In respect of the Post Office, we are doing our best to give advance notice of statements. Sometimes that is not possible. It has been well known that there would be a statement about the Post Office at some stage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make it shortly. The issue is one for the whole House, not just the Government, because it reflects changes in the circumstances in which the Post Office has to trade.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on excess packaging. To some extent I thought I had already announced a debate—my offer of a debate on the disarray in the Conservative party. Part of the Conservatives’ problem is an excess of packaging of their policies and an insufficiency of content. We are also working on a statement on waste strategy. There will be one shortly.
On education, the hon. Gentleman said he thought that I had exhausted the subject of education with reference to the Conservative party. That is quite wrong. Had I had the opportunity, I would have drawn attention to the astonishing number of improvements that have taken place in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead since 1997—203 additional or refurbished classrooms, three schools where 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the area has been refurbished and one where more than 80 per cent. has been refurbished.
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point about delaying time, I shall let him into a secret. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had in mind that interesting discussion in Stephen Hawking’s book, “A Brief History of Time”, about how, the further one goes from an area of gravity, the more slowly time goes.
Will my right hon. Friend heed the call from 216 Members of the House who signed early-day motion 866 in my name to find time to debate and give a Second Reading to my Safeguarding Runaway and Missing Children Bill?
[That this House believes that protecting vulnerable children is core business of Government; notes research by the Children’s Society indicates that 100,000 children each year runaway or go missing from home or care, of whom 12 per cent. are running from abuse and around eight per cent. are hurt or harmed while away; further notes the contents of the Ten minute Rule Bill which would safeguard runaway or missing children; and calls on the Government to seek a legislative opportunity for the House to consider the Bill at an early date.]
The Bill comes before the House tomorrow in its second attempt to get a Second Reading. I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully to find time, so that we can achieve essential progress on the Bill and protect vulnerable children who need us to be professional and speedy in response to their needs.
First, I put on the record our appreciation of all the work that my hon. Friend has been doing over many years in respect of missing children and the need to provide better safeguards. I know that she is to meet our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education shortly. I will take full account, as will my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, of what she has just said.
On a serious note, the Leader of the House knows that on 11 December 2005 my constituency in southern England was rocked by the explosions at Buncefield. The following day the Deputy Prime Minister kindly came to the House and gave a full statement. He promised to keep the House fully informed. We are 18 months on. An inquiry is going on behind closed doors. While that is happening, my community is suffering with blight, yet the Government have proposed 18,000 new homes around the Buncefield site, whether it is rebuilt or not. We have a water shortage and our hospital is about to close. May we have a statement on Buncefield to tell us exactly what is happening?
All of us understand the horrific nature of that fire. I remember flying very close to it. It was appalling. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and look at whether a statement—perhaps a written statement—could be provided to the House to update him and the House as a whole on progress.
May we have a debate on the increased teaching and use of British Sign Language? Last week I visited Archdeacon John Lewis primary school in my constituency and was pleased to see children as young as three and up to the age of 11 not only singing in English and Welsh, but using British Sign Language, along with all their teachers. As there are two profoundly deaf children in the school, all at the school have taken responsibility for learning British Sign Language. Is that not a subject that we should be rolling out throughout our schools?
As someone who takes a close interest in matters related to the deaf, I applaud my hon. Friend’s interest and will certainly look for an opportunity for a debate, possibly on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.
As, at last night’s deputy leadership hustings, all six candidates, five of whom are senior Ministers, pledged an inquiry into the war in Iraq, is it not time next week for the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us when that will happen?
We said that there would be an inquiry at an appropriate time, and that remains the Government’s position.
Today is the international day against homophobia. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for us to debate the great progress that we have made in restoring and giving civil rights to gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the past 10 years, and also to debate the fact that in 75 countries being gay is illegal, and that in nine countries the penalty is death?
I should be delighted to do so and will look for an opportunity. My hon. Friend may be aware that some of us were at a private function earlier in the week at which Mr. Stephen Fry spoke with fantastic eloquence of what we, in the past 10 years, have been able to achieve on behalf of gay and lesbian people. It is one of the great prides that I have in the record of this Government.
rose—
Order. I see that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is standing, but I noticed that she was not in the Chamber for the statement. Even though she is my own Member of Parliament, I cannot do her any favours. She must hear the statement. I call the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that last Thursday was the fifth anniversary of the Potters Bar derailment, which took place in my constituency? Is he aware that since then there has been no public inquiry? A coroner’s inquest is still awaited and some of the families have experienced grave difficulty in obtaining proper compensation. We have had a number of Adjournment debates on the subject. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on railway safety and the compensation system?
I am well aware, not least because of the representations that were made to me a few weeks ago about legal aid in respect of a rail crash elsewhere, of the problems that have arisen with the inquests in Potters Bar and the delays, which are extremely distressing to the bereaved relatives. I shall take up the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about the case for a debate, and in any event I will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport.
May we have an urgent debate in Government time about the current state of the manufacturing sector? In the past couple of weeks in my constituency another 50 jobs have been lost due to a local employer deciding to relocate to Hungary. Such a debate would allow us to discuss how best we can safeguard the jobs that remain and how we can maximise the assistance we give to people who lose their jobs as a result of this worrying trend.
We will look for an opportunity to debate that; it may have to be in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. All of us who have a manufacturing base in our constituencies know that our constituents sometimes suffer from redundancies, which we do all that we can to avoid. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) raised this the other day in her Standing Order No. 24 application. Although there has been a fall of 54,000 in manufacturing employment in the year to February 2007, which is greatly to be regretted, that is very much lower than the drops in manufacturing jobs of the 1980s and 1990s. For example, there were 673,000 redundancies in 1981 and 422,000 10 years later.
In a spirit of magnanimity, will the Leader of the House agree that when a truly great occupant of No. 10 Downing street has ceased to be Prime Minister, broadcasting the legacy is important? May we therefore have a debate on early-day motion 1367, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and 24 other MPs from all parties?
[That this House welcomes the recent transmission by the BBC on Radio 4 of the outstanding Falklands Play by Ian Curteis; and calls on the BBC to transmit the film version of the play on BBC1 at prime time on 14th June to mark the 25th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands and as a tribute to those, both military and civilian, who worked to restore freedom to the Islanders and uphold British sovereignty.]
The EDM calls on the BBC at last to broadcast in prime time in June on BBC1 its excellent “The Falklands Play” as a tribute not only to those who fought in the campaign but to the great Prime Minister who initiated it?
I would like it to be re-broadcast. I backed the military action against the Argentines in the debate on 3 April 1982, and that was my consistent position throughout the conflict. I applaud the courage and fortitude of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
In 41 days’ time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will drive to the palace with the seals of office and a letter of resignation—not, I hope, including an honours list associated with that resignation, on lavender paper or otherwise. Has No. 10 asked for an opportunity, as an alternative, to make a statement in this place to express gratitude and to describe the special contributions that people have made to the 3,708 days of this Administration? Would not that be a more economical and satisfactory way of acknowledging their special contribution?
I will pass on my hon. Friend’s suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but there is no reason why he cannot do both.
The Leader of the House has already mentioned Zimbabwe, with particular reference to a possible cricket tour at some time in the future. Will he give me an assurance, here and now, that while he is Leader of the House there will be a full debate on Zimbabwe in Government time on the Floor of the House?
On a second very important point, the Leader of the House referred, in an apology to the House, to freedom of information. Does he accept that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is not working, that private confidential correspondence between Members of Parliament and Ministers is being released, and that we need some assurances if we are to carry out our job as people expect us to?
On the first point, let me make it clear that I have said, on behalf of the Government, that there will be a debate on Zimbabwe before the summer recess. I am happy to tell him that I have been discussing this with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to ensure a date that is acceptable and convenient to the House and to him.
On the second matter, I am aware of the profound concerns of many right hon. and hon. Members about the risk that their correspondence might be disclosed, thereby compromising their relationship with their constituents. That will of course be the subject of debate tomorrow.
It is characteristic of the Leader of the House to apologise whenever he considers it appropriate, and I welcome what he said at the beginning of his statement. However, is it not rather strange that the Government are doing all that they can—including three-line Whips, “unofficial” though they may be, to get Parliamentary Private Secretaries to come in—to support a Tory Member’s Bill that is completely inappropriate, given that MPs’ correspondence is already well protected? [Hon. Members: “It is not.”] I suggest that hon. Members who disagree read the Data Protection Act 1998 and today’s edition of The Times. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the reputation of this House would be enhanced by our taking special privileges to exempt ourselves from a law that applies, and will continue to apply, to every other public body? It is a grubby little Bill, and it should be thrown out.
First, I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Secondly, there is no whipping, official or unofficial, on either side of the House, in respect of the Bill, which is a private Member’s Bill. There is an issue here. My hon. Friend has expressed one point of view; many Members on both sides of the House have expressed a contrary point of view. I simply put it on the record that the matter was first raised with me by two Members—they happened to be Conservative Members, but they could have been from any other part of the House—who wrote to me, in my capacity as Leader of the House, to express their profound concern about the possible imminent release of correspondence in such circumstances.
Given that a majority in the Scottish Parliament now supports further powers for the Scottish Parliament, may we have a debate on the advantages of devolving to the Scottish Parliament more, or indeed everything, pertaining to Scotland, with the aim of ensuring that Scotland can catch up with nations such as Norway, Iceland and Ireland? They are smaller than Scotland but have greater gross domestic products per capita than the UK.
The Scottish Parliament and Executive have certain functions in respect of the economy; that is a matter for them. The United Kingdom Parliament and Government have other functions. It might help if I state that the terms of the devolution settlement have been altered neither by the election results in Scotland or Wales nor by the election of a new First Minister in Scotland yesterday. It has always been recognised in the devolution settlement, not least because of proportional representation, that parties different from the Westminster Government can and will hold office. For example, over recent years mechanisms have allowed Liberal Democrat shadow Ministers to work effectively with their Labour counterparts at Westminster.
The Leader of the House has just heard that opponents of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill are claiming that MPs’ correspondence on behalf of constituents is not subject to disclosure thanks to the Data Protection Act 1998. Will he confirm that that is wrong? In fact, Members on both sides of the House have already found that their correspondence to a public authority has been revealed to a third party, which is completely unacceptable.
Order. Members should not enter into a debate that is due tomorrow.
In his answer to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about our having two Prime Ministers, the Leader of the House gave a technical, black-letter lawyer’s answer, which I am sure was procedurally absolutely correct. Does he accept, however, that there is a wider constitutional question about what may happen, for example, if during the next six weeks there is some kind of crisis—national or international—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister disagree on what must be done? Who will be in charge, and how are we to avoid paralysis?
I do not accept that for a moment. There have often been such transitions. There has been a change of Prime Minister between general elections on five previous occasions, four of which happened to take place under Conservative Administrations. [Interruption.] The period was shorter, but it was not non-existent. No problems arose then, and I do not anticipate any problems arising this time.
May we have a debate on the non-implementation of electoral law? I refer specifically to Bradford metropolitan district council and to early-day motion 1435.
[That this House congratulates the individuals and organisations, secular and religious, who have over many years worked assiduously towards community cohesion and integration in Keighley; but condemns in the strongest terms the behaviour of certain Keighley Conservatives who, under the direction of their candidate Zafar Ali, used the tactics of intimidation, threatening and discriminatory propaganda to secure electoral victory in Keighley Central ward on 3rd May 2007; further condemns the failure of officers of Bradford Metropolitan District Council to take action against such activities; expresses the hope that no authority in future will allow such activity to take place; and urges the Government to review electoral law as it applies in these circumstances with a view to tightening up regulations and providing for sanctions in future.]
It raises complaints about the Conservative campaign in Keighley Central ward on and before 3 May, and mentions
“intimidation, threatening and discriminatory propaganda”,
in which the electorate were invited to vote for their “Muslim brother.” Would it be appropriate for my right hon. Friend and me to invite our electorates to vote for their “Christian sister or brother”? I believe it would be inappropriate.
I know of my hon. Friend’s serious concern and I hope that all parties in the House treat such practices as unacceptable. We are making arrangements to draw to the Electoral Commission’s attention the unacceptable practices that took place in her constituency and several others.
May we have a statement from the Transport Secretary on the future of the driving test centre in Kettering? I wrote to the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency but have yet to receive a substantive reply. I have written to the Minister of State for Transport this week. I raised the matter with the Leader of the House on 26 April, when he kindly said that he would draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, but I have heard nothing.
I am sorry if that is the case, because I drew the matter to my right hon. Friend’s attention. He was pretty busy for a time—he is double hatted—but I shall follow it up immediately.
As my right hon. Friend knows, discussions about the German presidency’s final summit are well advanced. Hon. Members are finding out what is going on in them through leaks to newspapers—yesterday’s Financial Times had a long article about the justice and home affairs section. Should we not have an earlier debate before the summit, so that hon. Members can be informed of the Government’s proposals, instead of the usual debate that takes place the day before the summit? That does not genuinely give us an opportunity to know the Government’s position in advance and to inform them of the House’s position on those important issues.
I note my right hon. Friend’s point. There is always a debate before the biannual European Councils. I accept that it normally happens on a Wednesday and the meetings start on the Thursday. I cannot make promises, but we will consider whether we can bring the debate forward.
Is the Leader of the House aware of the increasing concern in the construction industry—in my constituency and elsewhere—about the Department of Trade and Industry’s continued delay on late payments? The House was promised an answer, and proposals, in September, then December, then January and then March. I now have a written answer, which says, “Well we haven’t got a date, but we’ll have a second consultation on the previous consultation.” Does the Leader of the House agree that the construction industry deserves far better? Will he undertake to speak directly to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—preferably before that title and office are abolished by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown)?
There is a big, continuing problem, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—[Interruption.] Here he is, bearing good news as ever. The matter is not directly the Government’s responsibility but, of course, we will follow it up.
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and other members of the Parliament Choir on being in great voice at yesterday’s performance of Mozart’s “Requiem”, and say how well he delivered the bouquet to one of the fine singers at the front?
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the system whereby pubs are tied to a specific company or brewer? Under the tied system, Marston’s is stopping pubs in my constituency selling a locally brewed beer, Cameron’s Strongarm, which happens to be the best beer in the world. The tied system restricts choice for consumers and limits access to markets. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that feudal system?
I should be delighted to do so, but my hon. Friend is wrong about the best beer, which is, unquestionably, Thwaites, brewed in Blackburn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has heard the question and will follow it up.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the request of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on policing priorities? The right hon. Gentleman told the House that there is no requirement for the police to arrest for trivial offences, and he is right about that, but does he none the less accept that there is pressure on them to do so because of targets that the Government impose? As perhaps a future—certainly a former—Home Secretary, the Leader of the House knows that the police do their job only with the public’s consent. Does he accept that that consent may be damaged by the perception that I have described? That is why we need a debate.
The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the public’s feelings about so-called trivial offences, which might explain Conservative Members’ reluctance to back the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and their pouring scorn on antisocial behaviour orders. All the evidence—from the United States, here and other countries—shows that so-called low-level crime must be nipped in the bud. What might be trivial to the hon. Gentleman, living away from estates, can be serious for the people who suffer from those crimes. Police officers make the judgments and, far from their making decisions without the public’s consent, pressure from the public to deal with low-level disorder is typically the reason nowadays why the police, properly, arrest people. The offences might seem “trivial” to an out-of-touch Conservative Member of Parliament, but they are important to those who have to live with that stuff.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on finding time for a debate on Darfur when we come back after the Whitsun recess. Sadly, in all the months that it has taken to arrange to hold the debate, the position has got worse. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development can give some positive news on what the British Government are doing to try to bring about an effective peace settlement, given that the existing one is not worth the paper it was written on.
I express my appreciation to my hon. Friend for all his work on Darfur and the expertise that he has developed through several visits to that benighted area of the Sudan. I visited in August 2004 and again when I attended the negotiations in Abuja in January 2006, and it was bad then but there was hope for improvements. Sadly, they have not happened. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development will make a full report to the House when the debate is held.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to give some thought to the media handling of individual service deployments? It is surely wrong that the deployment of any young serviceman or woman to Iraq should become a matter of public debate. If one thing emerges from the sorry events of recent months, it should be that they never happen again.
Of course, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns; they probably enjoy the approbation of all hon. Members.
May we have an early debate on relations with Russia? Many hon. Members, and the Leader of the House, will have seen the front page of The Guardian, which reports Russia’s declaration of cyber war on an EU member state. That country has already declared economic war by not allowing trade in food products with EU member states. Energy wars have been talked about—perhaps even polonium wars, with the as yet unresolved problem of the death of Mr. Litvinenko here. I have a letter from the Duma that was sent to all hon. Members who serve on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which meets in 10 days. Frankly, its language of hostility to the western democracies takes us back to 1939 and 1940. I want good relations with Russia; we want open trade with Russia—my right hon. Friend worked hard as Foreign Secretary for such good relations—but something bad and sad is happening. We need to discuss it and send a clear message that good relations with Russia must be two-way.
I accept entirely the comments of my right hon. Friend, who as Minister for Europe worked hard for good relations with Russia. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), there will be a debate in Government time on the European Council at the end of June and I hope that will be a good time to raise those concerns.
Last week, my father passed on. For many years, he was a distinguished public servant who frowned upon politics. A few years ago, he displayed early signs of Alzheimer’s and was given a drug that reversed—well, certainly halted—the condition. He had no problems in his last few years. I understand that the drug has, unfortunately, been withdrawn and is not available to people showing early signs of Alzheimer’s. Will the Government reconsider the matter?
First, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I express my condolences to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, we are all aware of the difficult issues associated with whether new or experimental drugs should be made generally available within the health service. My understanding is that patients who have already been prescribed this drug will continue to receive it. I do not know of any system better than the establishment of an independent clinical body, whose acronym is NICE, to make these judgments, removing them from politicians who are inappropriate to make them. Such judgments are now made on clinical grounds. They are very difficult to make and I accept that in some cases they can cause distress, but they have to be made to ensure that the drugs available to patients in the national health service—and, indeed, elsewhere—are efficacious.
I will raise a pint of Thwaites to the Leader of the House to mark his great success in the leadership election campaign, but he should clarify who now really speaks for this country. Prime Minister A will go to Germany to discuss the EU constitutional treaty, which will be handed as a fait accompli to Prime Minister B, who, we understand, might not hold the same views on European matters as Prime Minister A. Perhaps the best way to resolve the problem would be for Prime Minister B to announce that the British people will be given a referendum, as Prime Minister A promised in the first place.
The whole Cabinet promised a referendum and I was pleased to make that promise myself when the appropriate moment came—Easter 2004, I recall. The proposition is not yet clear, however, and the Government will have to take a decision on it as a whole. I reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is a constituency neighbour and has some good opinions on some things—[Interruption.]
Thwaites beer.
And Blackburn Rovers, so that makes two. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that once we know what the proposition is, the House will be consulted—and that, meanwhile, the Government remain as seamless as ever!
Post Office Review
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office. Last December, I published the Government’s proposals on the future of the post office network. We then consulted and received more than 2,500 responses. I am today publishing the Government’s final proposals and can now set out how we intend to proceed. Copies of the Government’s response to the consultation and our response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee’s report are available in the Vote Office.
Post offices play an important social and economic role in the communities they serve and the Government are determined to maintain a national post office network, allowing people to have reasonable access across the whole country. New technology, changing lifestyles and wider choice of ways of getting services mean that people are using post offices less. The network’s losses are now running at almost £4 million a week—double what it was two years ago—and that will increase further unless action is taken to make the network more sustainable. As the National Federation of SubPostmasters and others have recognised, the present network is unsustainable, which is why change is needed.
Without continuing public support, a purely commercial Post Office would see fewer than 4,000 branches. That cannot be allowed to happen, which is why the Government are providing substantial financial support to maintain a national network. Although the proposals I am confirming today will see the closure of about 2,500 branches, the remaining Post Office network will still be larger than all the UK’s banks and building societies put together. We want to maintain a national network, so we are putting in place rules that will provide for reasonable access across the whole country. We will give Post Office Ltd the ability to shape the network for the future with clearly defined access criteria to ensure that the right post offices are in the right place to maximise their business. The rules governing access are set out in detail in the response we are publishing today and will guarantee reasonable access in both urban and rural areas, with additional protection for more deprived urban areas and some of the more remote rural areas.
People were understandably concerned that these changes should be implemented in a sensible way. So, in addition to taking into account obvious obstacles such as rivers or motorways, the Post Office will also consider, in putting forward its proposals, the availability of public transport, alternative access to key post office services and the impact on local economies. It will have to demonstrate how those factors have been considered in each local consultation.
Most respondents welcomed the proposal to extend outreach arrangements to provide postal services to small and remote communities. The Government will therefore ensure that, building on the success of mobile post offices and postal services provided in village halls, community centres and even pubs, 500 new outreach locations will be provided. In some areas, it will be possible to deliver services to people’s homes. We also want to encourage community ownership. There are already some 150 thriving community-owned shops, many of which already incorporate post offices. It is clear in the comments received that there is widespread interest, so the Post Office will work with interested parties to encourage expansion. We also want the Post Office to work with credit unions to develop services further.
Key to ensuring the success of the Post Office, of course, is encouraging greater use of post offices. The Post Office will be given every opportunity to pursue Government business and the network changes will put it on a stronger footing to do so. We will encourage the Post Office to look at further scope for co-locating with other community services, including local government services. Councils will be involved in the proposed changes to the network and that should provide an opportunity to explore ways for them to play a greater role in future in deciding how best to provide post office services to the public.
In addition, the Post Office wants to expand its financial services. It is already the leading supplier of foreign currency exchange and has already increased the availability of its euro-on-demand service to 6,500 branches. It is the third largest provider of travel insurance; it insured one in 50 cars on the road last year; and one in every 25 credit cards were issued by the Post Office. The instant saver account, introduced in April last year, has 175,000 accounts with deposits totalling £1.8 billion. In addition, cash will be available through some 4,000 free-to-use ATMs being introduced at branches across the network. Paystation terminals are also now in 7,500 post offices. All those measures should encourage greater use of post offices.
The current Post Office card account contract ends in March 2010. As the House is aware, the Government have decided that a new account will succeed it after 2010. It will be available nationally and customers will be eligible for the account on the same basis as they are now. I can confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions will today invite tenders for a successor to the Post Office card account to be available nationally, and customers will be eligible for that account on the same basis as they are now. Customers using the successor product should be able to get their cash at ATMs, as well as across the counter. It is our aim that the opening of the new accounts will be streamlined and the process made simpler for customers. The Government remain committed to allowing people to get their pension or benefit in cash at the post office if they choose to do so, and there is a range of Post Office accounts available, including the Post Office card account, to make that possible.
The Post Office is determined to increase its range of products and business. I can tell the House today that the Post Office will be launching a broadband service later this year in partnership with BT. That will enable it to become a key player in the broadband-based services market, offering Post Office broadband services to the public.
The Government have invested £2 billion since 1999 to support the network. Subject to state aid approval, we will now provide a further £1.7 billion up to 2011, including support of up to £150 million a year for the social network. Beyond that, there will be a continued need for public funding of the social network. Where it makes sense, the Post Office will accommodate the wishes of those who want to leave, and the national federation has now come to an agreement over how the compensation package will be administered.
These measures are complemented by steps that the Post Office is taking to modernise the commercial network, returning Crown post offices to profitability and providing new products. As I told the House last year, of the 14,000 post offices in the UK, only the 458 Crown post offices are actually owned by the Post Office, which has to address the huge losses in this part of the network—£70 million last year alone. The network has always relied on other businesses to complement the postal business, so in order to keep open as many post offices as possible, it has entered into an agreement with WH Smith to transfer 70 Crown post offices into their shops. That will ensure that those post offices stay open.
The changes that I am outlining today will be implemented over an 18-month period from this summer. In order to manage the process, there will be around 50 to 60 area proposals based mostly on groupings of parliamentary constituencies, but the Post Office and Postwatch will be able to adopt different approaches where it would be better to do so. In developing its proposals for public consultation, the Post Office will develop plans together in consultation with Postwatch, sub-postmasters and local authorities.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be given advance notice of area proposals in line with the arrangements made in relation to the urban programme three years ago. That will be followed by each plan being subject to a six-week public consultation, providing people with an opportunity to give their views. After the consultation, Postwatch will consider the responses and the specific issues raised. There is also provision for further discussions and review by the Post Office and Postwatch before final decisions are reached. Final closure decisions will be made by Post Office Ltd.
I said last year that we wanted to give local authorities and devolved Administrations a greater say in shaping the future network. We will therefore work with them to consider how we can best make that happen. The majority of people in this country want us to maintain a national network of post offices. I believe that the proposals set out today will do that and I commend them to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Nothing much seems to have changed since he outlined the proposals in December, and I am afraid that his statement confirms many people’s worst fears that our post office network is about to be decimated. Will he tell us how many of the 2,500 responses to his consultation actually supported his proposals?
This Government already hold the record for closing post offices faster than any other, and today’s announcement amounts to an acceleration of that rate of closure, shutting a further 2,500 branches over the next two years. By the time of the next election, this Government will have closed more than one third of the entire post office network. What is more, 2,500 is not even the upper limit. As the Minister confirmed last month, it is the lower limit. Will the Secretary of State confirm that 2,500 is the number of compensated closures, and that he is offering no guarantee that other post offices will not close as well, without compensation? What is his estimate of the highest number of closures that we will see by 2010?
This is a programme for compulsory closures. The design of the scheme means that even successful post offices might have to close just because of their geography. Successful sub-postmasters who have spent years building up their businesses might now be forced out by the Government. For some years, the Government have provided a subsidy to rural post offices. Today, they trumpet the continued subsidy, but it now goes to all post offices. It is therefore spread more thinly and will be far less focused on rural Britain. Is it not therefore the case that this statement signals the near-certain death of the village post office?
The Government dress the closures up as meeting their proposed access criteria. The truth, however, is that those criteria are not entirely beneficial. They are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Of course we welcome the Government’s decision to include public transport considerations, but the access criteria still protect only about one third of the network, and the Government have rejected the very idea of access criteria in the past.
The Secretary of State announced 500 new outreach locations, but will he say a little more about how they will operate? Will they be anything more than just a van available for a couple of hours a week?
It is now five months since the Secretary of State’s original statement that 2,500 post offices were to close, yet the Government have still not told us which ones are for the chop. When will the list of closures be announced? Will he ensure that they are not carried out in such a way as to set post office against post office?
What the Government should be announcing today is a policy of giving sub-postmasters greater freedom to find new business opportunities, encouraging local councils to see what services they can provide through post offices, and making the Post Office card account, which is so vital to the future of the network, a more flexible financial tool with much greater scope. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have rejected those options—[Hon. Members: “They have not.”] Yes, they have.
What this statement really means is the closure of more than one third of the post office network under this Government, countless villages losing their only shop, and millions of vulnerable people losing a service that they depend on. Little or no account will be taken of the needs of the elderly, the disabled or the most disadvantaged, and there is too little appreciation of the dedication of our sub-postmasters, who spend years building up their businesses and serving their communities. This announcement is a counsel of despair. This statement has no vision, and it signals the decimation of a network on which so many people depend.
The hon. Gentleman might have received my statement an hour or so ago, but he clearly did not read it. I hope that he got the formal response some time before that, but if he had read it, he would have seen that I agree with him that we should encourage councils to consider whether they can provide services through post offices. Because they will be involved in these proposals at an early stage, they will have ample opportunity to consider that.
I said last December, and I repeated today, that we want to see a successor to the Post Office card account. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has published the public invitation to tender for that new card today. In relation to the other financial services, I mentioned foreign exchange, which is a hugely successful business in post offices. I also mentioned the announcement today between the Post Office and BT—I heard the hon. Gentleman scoffing at that before he stood up to speak—which will mean that the post office network will be able to sell access to a new product: Post Office broadband. That will give people another reason to go into post offices. BT recognises the value of having a shop-front up and down the country.
Those are examples of how the Post Office, whose new chief executive is determined to open up new opportunities, is going out to find new business. The value of having a national network is that there can be national agreements to provide travel insurance, broadband services and so on, which individual postmasters could never negotiate on their own. That is something that the National Federation of SubPostmasters supports.
As I said earlier, the Post Office will make roughly 50 to 60 area proposals. The whole objective is to ensure that the right post offices are in the right place for each area. At the moment, part of the problem is that two post offices can compete for a small amount of business in the same area. Any other business would organise itself so as to maximise opportunities for business, and that is what the Post Office will do.
Yes, it is five months since I published my proposals, but it is absolutely astonishing that, in that time, the hon. Gentleman has not come up with a coherent position on behalf of the Conservatives. He has no answers to the problems. Everyone knows that the Post Office has a problem as a result of people changing their habits, having their benefits paid into a bank or building society account, or renewing their tax discs online. Something had to be done about that. We are prepared to do it and, above all, we are prepared to make money available. The hon. Gentleman’s real problem is that he knows full well that he cannot promise any such additional expenditure, because the Conservatives’ economic policy would require him to cut public expenditure. That is why he cannot match what we are proposing today.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement today. I regret that the consultation process has not led to a fundamental rethink. The Liberal Democrats have a fully funded rescue strategy for the Post Office—[Interruption.] It is most unfortunate that the consultation proposed by the Secretary of State remains brief and unwieldy. Will he at least agree to delay the abolition of Postwatch so that full and proper support can be available for constituents attempting to deal with the crisis that will confront them?
The Secretary of State has provided the number of voluntary closures, but will he confirm that I have read correctly that a post office that has closed voluntarily will not be re-opened unless it is required by the criteria? That would be incredibly bad news for many communities.
Government business is absolutely key to the survival of the Post Office. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment that no more Government business will be withdrawn from the Post Office? If not, what further losses does he estimate?
On new business, is my reading correct that Royal Mail’s restriction on other delivery companies working with the Post Office will continue and has the Secretary of State’s support? If not, that would remove many such new opportunities for post offices.
The Post Office card account—POCA—goes out to tender today, but will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no absolute certainty that the tender will be won by the Post Office? If it is not won by the Post Office, what contingency plan is in place?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no consultation on the closure of Crown post offices and their transfer to WH Smith, but only on what type of facilities will be available in WH Smith? Does he agree that that is outrageous? Will he please use his influence to make sure that a consultation does take place?
How many small communities will lose their one remaining shop, which, essentially, survives only because of co-location with the post office? Has the Secretary of State done that work, and can he tell us the results?
What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Department for Communities and Local Government on attracting local council activity into post offices, given that, as I understand it, he has now abandoned the “Your Guide” pilot, which was his main thrust for ensuring that that process took place?
First, the hon. Lady criticised the Post Office’s decision to enter into a deal with WH Smith in relation to 70 Crown post offices, which means that those post offices will stay open. She contradicted herself a few moments later by saying that it was important that rural post offices had other businesses co-located with them, to get additional business. Surely we should do everything possible to get more people through the front door of post offices. I would have thought that the proposal for 70 Crown post offices to go into WH Smith would be welcomed, as more people are likely to use those post offices, and they will stay open.
On the hon. Lady’s point about access, which was also raised by the Conservative spokesman, the purpose of national criteria is to ensure that urban and rural areas have reasonable access to a post office. Therefore, if a post office closes, and the access criteria are no longer met, the Post Office will be required to open a new post office to take its place. I am trying to ensure that there is a coherent national network, which will have the opportunity to compete for Government or other business as well as providing services.
The hon. Lady asked me to promise not to abolish Postwatch and to delay its transfer into the National Consumer Council. I am happy to tell her that I will do everything to ensure that Postwatch can discharge the functions that I want it to discharge. She might, however, want to have a word with her predecessor as trade and industry spokesman, as he called for the abolition of Postwatch, because, he said, it was useless. Now she is calling for it to be maintained. I suppose that that typifies the Liberal Democrats’ problems.
We do have to put the Post Office card account out to tender—the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrats are good Europeans, and they would surely agree with the European requirement that such things must be put out to tender. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can simply award the contract to the person we want. A fair competition must take place.
Lastly, whatever else the Liberal Democrats have, they do not have a coherent public spending programme that would allow them to finance the Post Office. It is disingenuous of the hon. Lady to suggest that she has such a programme.
rose—
Order. I have other important business to protect. Equally, I am aware that interest in this subject is widespread among hon. Members. May I therefore appeal for brevity in all hon. Members’ contributions?
If the proposals go through, many people will be concerned that if the same pressures continue on the post office network, we will back here in another five years considering the need for more public expenditure to meet the access criteria. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that, should further pressures continue on the post office network, the access criteria laid out today will be kept, and additional public expenditure will be found to ensure that the network is maintained in the future?
First, the access criteria are important because they provide reasonable access, and I hope that those criteria will endure. Secondly, in relation to public expenditure, as I told the House, were there no public financing, about 4,000 post offices would be left. That is not likely to be acceptable to anyone in the House, so I made clear in my statement that the need for public support is likely to continue for some foreseeable time.
Although there are things to welcome in the Secretary of State’s statement today, especially the improved access criteria, does he understand the disappointment that will be felt by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which I chair? He has effectively rejected the majority of our recommendations by offering only a patchy response to improved entrepreneurial innovation for the network, not clarifying the future of Postwatch, diluting the social network payment, offering no safeguards on unplanned closures, sticking to a very short consultation period for local plans, and not addressing the shortcomings of the Post Office card account. I suppose that I should at least welcome the downgrading of Crown post offices—such as Worcester’s Foregate street office, which will move to the first floor of WH Smith—because their total inaccessibility will mean that some offices in Worcester have a lot more custom.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have attempted to deal with many of the suggestions in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry’s report, which was quite helpful. I know that the Committee wants a longer consultation period, but I am mindful of the fact that postmasters, who have had a period of uncertainty, want to know where they stand, and understandably so. I have set out a process that allows for those matters to be considered, even after the consultation process ends.
In relation to unplanned closures, nobody can legislate against a postmaster or postmistress giving up their business. We should remember that the vast bulk of such shops are owned as private businesses. The access criteria mean, however, that if a post office closed, and the criteria were no longer fulfilled, the Post Office would have to open a new post office in its place. That is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee sought.
In relation to other measures, such as the Post Office card account, people were understandably concerned a few months ago that we were not going to replace it. We have done so, and as I explained to the House today, there are signs that the Post Office will now aggressively pursue business, which I wish that it had done in years gone by. That is the best protection for the future.
Given my right hon. Friend’s announcement, this is a very sad day for post office users. He ought to realise the deep concern across the United Kingdom about the announcement. On average, four post offices across each constituency will close. That is bad, because the post office network is a lifeline to many pensioners. The language that he uses is about allowing the Post Office to pursue further work. Cannot we instruct and persuade Government Departments and even the BBC to use the Post Office rather than other shops? Chorley building society is meeting the Post Office tomorrow to see how it can help, and whether it can franchise the building society into post offices, to keep the post office network going in Chorley. Can he use that as a good example?
That illustrates how, with a suitable degree of enterprise, the Post Office can attract new business. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect, when he has the opportunity to do so, on the problem that the Post Office has been losing business for a long time. It is not open to a Government to say to people, for example, “No, you can’t have your pension paid into your current account,” or, “No, you can’t renew your licence from the comfort of your own home.” As with so much else in the world, things are moving, and we must respond to that. The option of doing nothing makes no sense whatever.
I welcome the decision of the Post office to retain the Crown post office in Haywards Heath. First, in examining proposals, will the Secretary of State consider adding to the demands on the Post Office those of demography? In my constituency, the age profile is getting older and older, and post offices are greatly valued by elderly people, and young families. Secondly, as the Government dismantle the social infrastructure in the south-east, such as accident and emergency departments, while imposing bigger and bigger unwanted developments in places such as East Grinstead, will they make sure that there are sufficient post offices to cope with the demands of young families and elderly people in the future?
As I have said, the Post Office needs to show a degree of flexibility, and to give reasons for its decisions to show that it has considered the issues. One issue that it will consider is how often post offices are used, which is a problem not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency but elsewhere. I want to encourage people to use their local post offices, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, eight out of 10 pensioners are now having their money paid into bank and building society accounts. I hope that other factors will encourage people to visit their local post offices, because that will help to keep them open.
People in my own city will strongly welcome the commitment to a role for the local authority. The Post Office does not have a good reputation for dealing properly with groups such as local authorities. In Manchester we have tried to engage in meaningful dialogue with the aim of keeping viable businesses open while also ensuring that post offices are part of the regeneration and community infrastructure of the city, but the Post Office has not been a good partner so far. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, in the course of consultation, it will now act as that good partner?
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I know that Alan Cook, the chief executive of the Post Office, is mindful of the fact that in some parts of the country there could be much more co-operation, and I will draw his attention to what my hon. Friend has said about Manchester.
I agree with the hon. Member for Crawley that this is a very sad day for our constituents across the country. [Hon. Members: “Chorley?” “Mid-Sussex?”] It is a sad day for both Crawley and Chorley, but I apologise to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). In any event, we all agree that this is a sad day for our constituents.
The consultation period is very short. Will the Secretary of State have another look at what the Select Committee says about how long it should be? Will he also ensure that when negotiations on the closure of sub-post offices take place, sub-postmasters are not gagged as they were last time? On that occasion a penalty clause prevented them from defending the post offices they represented, because if they had done so they would have lost their money.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation period. As I said earlier, the National Federation of SubPostmasters has itself pointed out that the longer uncertainty continues the more difficult things become for their businesses, and I must take account of that.
It is very easy to say “This is all too difficult: let us do nothing”, but I do not think that is an option. Whichever party is in government, we must deal with a real problem. We must ensure that we put the national framework for the Post Office on a proper footing. But—as I told the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan)—the difference is that this Labour Government have, and are prepared to make available, the money to support that framework.
Companies such as BT and Severn Trent impose a surcharge of £4.50 a quarter on those who make payments through post offices rather than by direct debit. Is that not a real disincentive, particularly for elderly people who would otherwise be reluctant to pay by direct debit? What can the Secretary of State do to encourage such companies to reverse their decisions, and increase business at local post offices rather than reducing it?
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but those are commercial arrangements between companies and the Post Office. It is not open to the Government to tell power companies, for example, what rates they should charge. However, we are all acutely aware that, especially in the case of people on low incomes, every penny matters. I shall have more to say about that when I announce the White Paper on energy next week.
Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the plan to move Kirkintilloch post office to WH Smith. Given that communities have lost out in the past when Tesco and Morrisons suddenly decided to close many post offices in their stores, would it not be far better to invest in a post office network that would increase the profitability of branches than to hive them off to a large chain where the threat of mass closures will always hang over them?
The Post Office is entering into a long-term commitment with WH Smith. I know that there was great concern when Morrisons, in particular, abandoned the policy pursued by Safeway and effectively evicted the post offices, but WH Smith sees their services as complementary to the goods that it sells. The main objective must surely be to keep as many post offices open as possible. As I said earlier, the Crown post offices lost £70 million last year alone, and the Post Office must do something about that.
The Liberal Democrats—who do the same in other contexts—cannot say that they want more to be done to persuade people to walk through the front door of the post office, and then object every time a proposal comes along that would cause more customers to walk through that front door. To my mind, joint ventures and collaboration that make more people go into post offices must be a good thing.
I too am deeply concerned about the proposal of Post Office Ltd to close 70 Crown post offices and replace them with inadequate alternatives—in Leicester’s case, in the basement of a nearby newsagent, which makes the branch far less accessible and is wholly inappropriate for such an important public service in a major city. I hope the Secretary of State will encourage Post Office Ltd not just to discuss the details of the move, but to engage in proper discussions with the local council and local people about the principle of the serious erosion of an important local service.
I understand that most of the pilots conducted with WH Smith have been warmly welcomed. Of course in some cases the service on offer will need to be improved, and if that is a particular problem in Leicester it will need to be examined. However, as I have said a number of times today, in the face of the problem that the Post Office has been losing business, any opportunity to secure new business and persuade more people to visit post offices must be a good thing. I think it odd that people are turning their backs on that opportunity, because I do not see how we can keep those 70 post office branches open otherwise. Collaboration and joint ventures must be a good way of securing additional business.
This is a bleak day, not just for the post office network but for rural villages up and down the country. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said that an average of four post offices were closing in each constituency. If that were the case, we would at least know roughly where we stood, but I suspect that some constituencies will be left untouched while post offices in rural villages are attacked. The closures seem to be taking place on a cost basis, because the post offices are losing £4 million a week. How much money does the Secretary of State expect to save at the end of the exercise, and what protection will rural post offices be given?
I realise that the hon. Gentleman will not have had an opportunity to read the Government’s final proposals—although, having heard his question, I suspect that he would probably say the same if he had read them. The proposals set out access criteria for rural and urban areas that will safeguard post offices. Safeguards have been added, partly at the suggestion of the Trade and Industry Committee, to ensure that areas are not disadvantaged. In some parts of the country—I do not think they include the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—there are so few branches that the Post Office may have to open new ones to ensure that the national criteria are met. I believe that those criteria are the best way in which to guarantee access.
My right hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of access criteria to ensuring that the Post Office has the right post offices in the right places to maximise business. In Woolwich, we have a Crown post office that is incredibly well located and extremely busy at almost all times of the day. It is difficult to envisage even a half-competent management not being able to run that post office successfully and profitably, yet out of the blue, with no prior consultation with local people, comes a proposal to move it to a far less well-located WH Smith branch that is already very crowded. The consultation proposals seem derisory to me. Will my right hon. Friend please instruct the Post Office, as part of the access criteria, not to move needlessly post offices that can operate profitably in their existing locations?
As my right hon. Friend says, the decision was made by the Post Office. As he has raised the matter, I will see whether it is possible for him to sit down with Post Office representatives and discuss the logic and the rationale behind the move, but, as the House will appreciate, I am not in a position to make detailed comments about that particular branch.
I share the deep cynicism of my constituents about any public consultation these days, believing that it rarely results in any change at all. Post offices are the social glue that holds our communities together. They offer an essential lifeline to many people and their presence keeps open many parades of small businesses. Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be devastating consequences if these proposals go ahead? Is he aware that my constituents in Guildford and Cranleigh do not believe that the public consultation will have any impact at all?
The facts that led me to come to the House to make these proposals have not changed: the Post Office is still losing £4 million a week, double what it was losing two years ago. As I have said, the option of sitting back and doing nothing is not sensible, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has said explicitly that the present situation is unsustainable. That is why we need to do something. On consultation, many points were made, especially in relation to the criteria, on which we have strengthened the position. I hope that that will protect people in both urban and rural areas. Frankly, it is disingenuous for people to say that somehow we do not have to make any changes, and that everything will be all right. It will not.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the future of the Post Office card account, but the concern of many small businesses in the Lanes and North Laine area of my constituency—the main customers of the Crown office, currently in Ship street—is that its transfer to a WH Smith branch some distance away will make it less rather than more accessible for them. I believe that they are right. They are also concerned that consultation will not take place until July, on a decision that clearly has already been made.
Perhaps I should make the same offer to my hon. Friend as I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). I have probably made this point on a number of occasions but it bears repeating: the Crown office network is losing £70 million a year. We have to do something about that. If there are opportunities to get more people into the post office building, that must be good for the post office; above all, that will keep it open.
I sincerely hope that the proposed consultation will be more transparent than the one on which the Secretary of State has reported today. In Wales, as well as consulting local authorities and right hon. and hon. Members, will he involve Assembly Members and the National Assembly for Wales?
Yes. The National Assembly and the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will be consulted.
First, I am pleased and relieved that the two Crown post offices in my constituency—in Denbigh and Rhyl—will remain open. I concur with my right hon. Friend that the challenge is to get more footfall in through the door. To this end, Welsh Labour MPs have convened a meeting next Thursday with the high street banks, the Treasury, the Wales Office and the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, along with the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters, to see whether we can look at best practice within the industry and spread it to increase the footfall, especially in rural areas and areas of financial exclusion.
That sounds like a worthwhile initiative, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) will attend that meeting.
The Department for Work and Pensions informed me yesterday that two of three jobcentres in my constituency were closing, so it has not been a good week for Government announcements of closures. However, there is a little bit of good news. On Monday, after a long period without post office services, a new post office counter opened in the village of Hazelbury Bryan in my constituency. I hope that the announcement today will not be taken with a degree of irony by the residents of Hazelbury Bryan. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the kind of innovation that brought that post office counter to the village, involving a neighbouring sub-postmaster providing the service, could be used to save all 45 post offices in my constituency?
There are many examples of innovation that have meant that post offices will build their business and maintain branches, if not open new ones. On jobcentres, I am very much aware that that network is being reduced as well. However, I think that I am right in saying that at the last election, the hon. Gentleman stood on a platform involving the wholesale closure of jobcentres.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will turn to his ministerial colleague and warn him of the unrelenting diet of Adjournment debates that he is likely to face on this subject once the lists are announced. When will the Post Office be advised either to produce a sensible transaction offer that is competitive and would win business such as BBC licences, or to give sub-postmasters the opportunity to join the Paypoint network.
A number of branches have Paypoint. Also, the changes that I am proposing will cut some of the Post Office’s costs, so it will be better placed to win contracts. The Post Office lost the BBC contract because the BBC was able to save substantial sums and, understandably, decided that it wanted to spend that money on programmes rather than transaction costs. That is one of the reasons why we need to make these changes.
Plaid Cymru welcomes the intention to give the devolved Administrations a greater say in shaping the network into the future. I am sure that the Secretary of State is relishing the prospect of working with the excellent new Government established in Edinburgh yesterday. Turning to Wales, what regard will be given to the particular needs of the objective 1 areas, which have been defined objectively as areas requiring particular help in terms of economic and social needs? Will the Secretary of State work with the Administration in Cardiff to that end?
Of course the Government will work with the devolved Administrations, and as I said a few moments ago, the Post Office will do that as well, as part of the programme. I indicated earlier that there are two degrees of protection that will help Wales; one is the additional protection for people living in deprived urban areas as a result of the consultation, and the other is additional protection for the more rural areas. The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir)—the sole Member representing the SNP in the Chamber today—who raised this at the Select Committee, and he will be pleased to hear that in his constituency and in areas in the Highlands and Islands, there is the possibility not only of having no closures but of gaining additional post offices.
There are 15 Crown post offices where a franchise partner is being sought but has not yet been identified, one of which is Maida Hill in the Harrow road in my constituency. This is not only an area of extreme urban deprivation, but a struggling urban high street that the local urban regeneration agencies have been working to try to turn round. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Post Office and the Department will work with those urban regeneration partners to make sure they are fully involved in the consultation? What factors will determine whether areas of high urban deprivation face losing any of their service?
I understand my hon. Friend’s point perfectly; she has already raised the matter with me. This is perhaps the other side of franchising; in this case the Post Office is having difficulty finding somebody to go into a joint venture. On her general point, it is often the case that when a post office has difficulties, the surrounding shops have difficulties too. That is something that the Post Office, the council and other agencies need to look into.
May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to today’s written ministerial statement from the Department for Work and Pensions, which says that the Post Office card account will be available at personal teller outlets located throughout the UK? Could we have much more strictly defined criteria that will ensure that people can collect their pensions throughout the Highlands and Islands? When the Government gave the television licence contract to Paypoint, it meant that although there were still outlets available to my constituents, large parts of my constituency—the rural parts and the islands—lost the ability to buy a television licence over the counter. Will the POCA tender contain strict access criteria concerning the rural parts of the Highlands and Islands?
Yes, the Post Office card account will be used across post office counters, but we also want to make it usable in automated teller machines to give the card account holders more flexibility. As for the BBC licence fee, that decision was taken by the BBC. The Government do not control the BBC, as we know only too well; every morning when I get up and tune in to the “Today” programme it is pretty evident that the Government most certainly do not control the BBC. The BBC took that decision because it saw that it could save substantial sums. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said a few moments ago, we must encourage the Post Office to get into a position where it can win more business, not only from the BBC but from others as well.
The Secretary of State keeps repeating the obvious: that he cannot force people to use postal services. However, does he not understand that he can ensure that Departments do everything they can to put business the Post Office’s way? The public cannot understand why on one hand we are putting in investment to keep the rural network going, while on the other hand we are taking away services, which is losing the Post Office money.
At the risk of irritating my hon. Friend by stating another obvious fact, let me say that Government Departments too must have regard to the costs that they incur in providing services. In some respects I would prefer the subsidy to be more transparent, so that people could see that we are putting money into the Post Office, rather than giving it a tacit subsidy through requiring Government Departments to do something that they would not otherwise do. However, the important thing is to ensure that, regardless of how that happens, the post office network is subsidised. As I said, unless it continues to receive a public subsidy the network will shrink drastically, which no one wants.
The Secretary of State said in his statement, “We also want to encourage community ownership. There are already some 150 thriving community-owned shops, many of which already incorporate post offices.” However, there are also hundreds of thriving privately owned shops that incorporate post offices. If the Secretary of State lauds community ownership—as I am sure that we all do—why does he want to undermine privately owned shops that incorporate post offices? Yesterday I presented to this House a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents who are concerned and want the post offices and sub-post offices in their villages and in Banbury and Bicester to remain open. Why does the Secretary of State want to undermine them?
The 13,000 post offices are private businesses. They are run by postmasters and postmistresses who either operate a post office as their exclusive business or, more usually, run one in conjunction with some other business activity. Only a tiny minority are community owned. When we last discussed these matters in December and then in the parliamentary debate in January, several Members pointed out that throughout the country there are a growing number of community businesses that are hugely successful. The point I made in my statement was that we ought to support them. We want to see if we can do more in that regard. The thrust of my statement was in support of the private sector. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that £1.7 billion is a significant amount of support.
The Secretary of State has made a serious attempt today to deal with this matter. We have a historical network and we also face a generational issue, in that lower percentages of young people are using post office services. Even if we are to have a new POCA run by the Post Office, can we be sure that sub-postmasters will be satisfied with the transaction amount that they receive, compared with the current situation? Also, when local consultation about a proposed closure takes place, if communities come forward with an alternative—as has happened through the rural postal pilots—will those alternatives be seriously considered by the Post Office?
The answer to that question is yes. I am aware that pilot projects have been carried out in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and if people have better ideas for providing services they should be encouraged. The transaction costs and the amount that postmasters receive is a matter for commercial negotiation between the Post Office and the postmasters and postmistresses. I think that that is negotiated from time to time.
Page 18 of the Government response says that about half of the closures will be in urban areas. How will that be done, as the 1-mile access criterion is the same as that used in the reinvention programme, under which one third of branches have already shut?
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I made my statement. I said that the Post Office would come forward from the summer with area plans in which it would set out its proposals. At that stage it will be possible for the hon. Gentleman and other Members to see what is being proposed, and how the criteria have been applied. In the consultation document and the response document, we set out the national criteria and defined what an urban community is. I hope that it will become clear at that later stage that I mentioned how the criteria have been applied. It will then be open to the hon. Gentleman to make whatever representations he thinks are appropriate.
My right hon. Friend said that we would give Post Office Ltd the ability to shape the network. However, he will remember that last time we were in this situation, which was to do with urban renewal, the plan involved writing to every sub-postmaster, which in the town of Tamworth resulted in all six in the south taking the option to quit and the six in the north staying put. After many months of there being no plan and no consultation—no ability for the Post Office to shape things—it was only by means of an intervention from the chairman, Allan Leighton, that I managed to break the deadlock and get a good service provided for the south of Tamworth, through a Co-op superstore. Does the Secretary of State intend to improve the Post Office’s ability to co-operate and consult, or does he intend to have the chairperson—whether Allan Leighton or not—permanently on stand-by?
Lessons do need to be learned from the previous programme. It is important to ensure that consultations are carried out properly and that we get the best possible result, so that we have a post office network that is coherent and can maximise business.
I welcome the improvements to the access criteria for the most remote communities, but the statement will still cause profound uncertainty in the many communities across the north of Scotland that are not covered by that definition, especially if the POCA contract is not won by the Post Office. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the new criteria concerning access to public transport mean that any community that does not have a regular, frequent, accessible public transport service will not have its post office closed?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the improved and strengthened criteria in relation to rural areas. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland will benefit from the proposals. In relation to the individual plans when they come forward, the Post Office has to take into account a variety of factors and most people would expect it to exercise a degree of common sense when coming up with proposals.
Several post offices have already closed in my constituency, leading to increases in queues with consequential reductions in business, because busy people are put off from using those that remain open. One of the closures was voluntary—in Wychall road, which is in a very deprived area. Do the measures proposed today mean that the Post Office will now have to look proactively at replacing that post office, which it previously refused to do? Will the Secretary of State also ensure that the definition of a deprived area does not exclude estates within an otherwise more affluent area?
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, if somebody decided to close their post office with the result that the national criteria were not met—for a deprived area, in the case that she mentions—the Post Office would have to look to replace it. That is the whole point of having criteria. That was not the approach adopted last time; a slightly different approach was taken then. Having national criteria means that when unplanned gaps appear in the network they need to be filled so that the national criteria are met.
Following the announcement today that the Government intend to close a further 2,500 post offices in addition to the 4,000 that have already closed, does the Secretary of State understand the great concern and depth of feeling throughout the country about this catastrophic proposal? Furthermore, does he not recognise that the difficulties faced by the post office network have in large part come about as a direct result of this Government’s policies, in particular taking business away, such as in the form of TV licences, passports, driving licences and the card account? Does he not accept the relationship between cause and effect?
Order. That was a lengthy question.
I shall make just one point. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that he should go to his constituents who are perhaps trying to renew their tax disc on line and say that they cannot do it? If he thinks for just a few minutes about what he has been saying, he will realise that there is nonsense in it.
This remains a bitter pill for some of us to swallow, in particular the potential conflation of the rural subsidy into the social network—but may I urge my right hon. Friend to support the Sustainable Communities Bill? It is good to see the Government taking this private Member’s measure through. Does my right hon. Friend now see the benefits of getting the Post Office to engage with local communities to see whether there are social answers to running these services, rather than pretending that the Post Office has all the answers?
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It is important that the Post Office should speak to councils and others so as to collaborate wherever possible. The object is to ensure that as many people as possible come in through the front door of post offices, because that is their best guarantee for the future.
I am grateful to Post Office Ltd for keeping the Crown post office in Macclesfield as part of its network. Having sat here throughout the whole statement, I should like to know when we shall see details of the approximately 2,500 sub-post offices that are being closed. When will the list be published? As a Conservative, may I exhort the Government to use their great influence and purchasing power to help the Post Office more, because it is such an essential public service?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support—if that is what it was. As for the timetable, from this summer the Post Office will start to publish plans for about 50 to 60 areas across the country. It is best to deal with the proposals on a manageable basis so that people can understand all the issues. I think that the process will take about 18 months, and it will start this summer.
More post offices will close than new outreach services will open. In rural areas, what factors will determine which areas get an outreach service and which do not? Will they be more than just the access criteria?
The access criteria are there to ensure that there is reasonable access to post office services across the whole country. There will be areas, more likely rural than urban, where an equal or perhaps even a better service can be provided by outreach services using community halls, and in some cases delivering services directly to people’s homes. There are one or two examples of where services have been set up in pubs and seem to be working well. The object is to make post office services more flexible than they have been in the past, especially in areas where the population is spread more thinly, but equally needs access to post office services. What happens in each area will depend on the facts and circumstances of each area, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific assurances. When the Post Office publishes its proposals in respect of his area, I hope that he will look at the opportunities that there might be, and there will be ample opportunity for discussion with the Post Office to try to improve services as well as maintaining existing services.
May I invite the Secretary of State to expand more fully on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) about the new Post Office card account and its availability in island communities? Our recent experience with the removal of television licences has left hundreds of my constituents with no over-the-counter services available to them. Will the right hon. Gentleman fight the Post Office’s corner with the Department for Work and Pensions in this regard, and obtain a commitment that islands where people can currently use a Post Office card account will still have that service when the new card account is introduced?
It will be possible to use the Post Office card account, both now and with its successor, in post offices wherever they may be, whether in the Highlands and Islands or elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) referred to the BBC decision in relation to Paypoint. It is true that the Paypoint network is not as widespread as the Post Office network. That is why we want to maintain a national post office network where people can use their Post Office card accounts.
Despite the welcome announcements on broadband, Credit Union and POCA, the bleak reality is that for hundreds of rural villages the cornerstone is being removed in the interests of saving the public purse about one twenty-fifth of one penny for every pound that is expended. My experience of sub-post offices is that those who run them are astute and creative business people, but there is a paucity of entrepreneurial flair in the upper echelons of the Post Office regional and national management. It is like putting vegetarians in charge of a butchery chain. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the right people and right structures are in place to ensure the network into the medium term?
I am not sure that the analogy is entirely appropriate. My hon. Friend is right to say that throughout the country postmasters and post mistresses show an extraordinary amount of flair and commitment. I mentioned the new chief executive of the Post Office, who is showing admirable flair and winning new business, such as broadband, to which I referred. There is always room for improvement in any organisation, and where that improvement is necessary I hope that someone will make sure that it takes place.
Does the Secretary of State understand the gloom that will descend on small rural communities throughout the south-west as a result of this announcement? What weight will be given to the availability of public transport? Most of the small post offices under threat in my constituency are in villages where the sight of a bus is as rare as a phoenix. Will that protect them? Or is that idea simply a token gesture to the isolation of those communities?
That is precisely why we strengthened the criteria as a result of the consultations carried out.
Much has rightly been said about rural post offices in this discussion, but Hesters Way in my constituency is described by the Government as one of the most deprived urban neighbourhoods in the country. It is losing its local post office, located in a branch of McColl’s, at almost no notice within a matter of weeks. Now we are told that Cheltenham’s modern, purpose-built Crown post office is to be relocated in WH Smith. What guarantees do we have that that will not suffer the same fate?
As I said earlier, I very much hope that the arrangement with WH Smith will encourage more people to visit the post office. Judging by the pilots carried out a short while ago, that has been successful. The key to the future of the Post Office is that the more people use it, the better—and the more reasons for using it, the greater the chance for success. That is why these proposals are being made.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 22nd January 2007 (Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.
4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
First Day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses relating to the reduction of regulatory burdens, the National Partnership Scheme, and the repeal of section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003; new Clauses and amendments relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 13; new Clauses and amendments relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 8; new clauses and amendments relating to Part 1; new Clauses and amendments relating to Part 9. The moment of interruption. Second Day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings Remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption.
We have a great deal to get through today, so I shall be brief. My reasons for moving the motion are straightforward and I hope that they will be welcomed in the interests of good debate.
The Bill before us is wide-ranging and important, and we have provided two days for the debate, today and next Tuesday. I believe that the debate in Committee was robust, but on the whole consensual. We have reflected on the constructive contributions of Committee members and brought forward many of the amendments on the basis of responding to the Committee. I have also looked at where most of the interest of the Committee debates lies and tried to provide time accordingly, as well as in response to the contributions of the Committee and the spread of interest across the Bill.
The motion departs from the normal order of consideration in that it allows for two days of consideration and spreads the areas of the Bill across the two days to ensure that the areas of most interest are given sufficient time for Members to contribute. The programme motion, as outlined in the five bullet points on the Order paper, amends the order that we passed on 22 January.
The Opposition have contributed to the Bill in a responsible, moderate and constructive manner, as befits a Conservative party that expects to be the next Government, so I have to say that I am a little disappointed that the Government’s Stalinist tendencies have been reinforced in the Bill’s return to the House.
We have just heard two statements on important issues. Many of the amendments are Government amendments so will take up an awful lot of time—and although my colleagues and I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee, the proceedings on Report should give all Members the opportunity to make a contribution, yet the consequence of the programme motion is, sadly, that ordinary Back Benchers who deserve to have their say—
Where are they?
They are at lunch.
Ordinary Back Benchers will not have the opportunity to contribute and I fear that there are also elements of the selection list that we may not be able to discuss. We shall be as constructive as we can and will start by not dividing the House on the motion, as time is so valuable. However, I hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that tabling a programme motion on a day such as this can mean that issues of great public concern are not fully aired for the benefit of the House and the country.
With regret, we shall not divide the House, but I record our disappointment at the way the proceedings have started.
I commend the Government for their helpfulness in the progress of the Bill so far, but I have a comment on their productivity. They have added 156 amendments, 56 new clauses and two new schedules—a 28 per cent. increase in the Bill’s original content—for us to discuss over a couple of days. We very much look forward to the Government quickly accepting our proposals so that we can make constructive progress to produce a better Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Orders of the Day
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
[1st Allotted Day]
[Relevant document: The Eleventh Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2006-07, Legislative Scrutiny: Fourth Progress Report, HC424.]
As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
New Clause 29
Reduction of regulatory burdens
‘(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) for the period of one year, beginning with the commencement of this Act, and
(b) for each year thereafter,
prepare a report on progress during the period to reduce the number of local improvement targets, plans and other regulatory burdens in the responsible authority’s area.
(2) A report under this section must (in particular) deal with—
(a) ring fenced grants and funding;
(b) the volume of guidance;
(c) approval processes.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report he prepares under this section.’.—[Andrew Stunell.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—National Partnership Scheme—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the coming into force of this Act, establish a body (“the Steering Group”) to draw up a National Partnership Scheme (“the Scheme”) between local government and national government, having regard to the European Charter of Local Self Government.
(2) The Steering Group shall comprise an equality of membership from central and local government, with an independent chair.
(3) The Scheme must set out recommendations about the respective powers and duties of local and central government in respect of (but not limited to) community engagement and participation, service delivery, finance and functions, and may set out such other matters as the Steering Group determines.
(4) The Scheme must include timetabled proposals for the transfer of functions and funding from central to local government where such transfer will—
(a) be efficient and convenient, or
(b) enhance local democratic accountability.’.
New clause 35—Local Government Act 2003: amendment—
‘Section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (categorisation of English local authorities by reference to performance) is hereby repealed.’.
Government amendments Nos. 20 to 22.
Amendment No. 254, in clause 80, page 55, line 10, at end insert—
‘(m) a registered social landlord which lets or owns houses in the area of the responsible local authority and which has been notified in writing by the responsible local authority that it is a partner authority.’.
Amendment No. 257, page 55, line 10, at end insert—
‘(m) Regional Offender Managers;
(n) Probation Trusts and providers of probation services’.
Government amendments Nos. 23 to 25.
Amendment No. 255, page 55, line 32, at end insert—
‘(4A) In this section, “house”, “let” and “registered social landlord” have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996.’.
Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28.
Amendment No. 253, in clause 81, page 56, line 13, after ‘area’, insert
‘, including targets relating to energy efficiency standards and microgeneration, as defined by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) in buildings in new developments,’.
Amendment No. 171, page 56, line 17, at end insert—
‘(1A) In this Chapter “national improvement target” means a national target for improvement designated by the Secretary of State in respect of which there shall be a maximum number of 35.’.
Amendment No. 156, in clause 82, page 56, line 40, after ‘authority’, insert—
‘(ia) other non-statutory partners to the local area agreement;’.
Amendment No. 248, page 56, line 41, at end insert ‘; and
(iii) recognised trades unions.’.
Amendment No. 172, page 57, line 3, leave out ‘and’.
Amendment No. 173, page 57, line 4, at end insert—
‘(iii) the comprehensive area assessment which shall be phased in to coincide with the commencement date for this Chapter.’.
Government amendment No. 92.
Amendment No. 174, in clause 83, page 57, line 20,at end insert
‘only in respect of national improvement targets,’.
Amendment No. 175, in clause 85, page 57, line 38, leave out ‘local’ and insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 176, page 57, line 42, leave out ‘local’ and insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 177, in clause 86, page 58,line 16, leave out ‘local’ and insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 178, page 58, line 27, leave out ‘or’.
Amendment No. 179, page 58, line 28, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment No. 180, page 58, line 31, at end insert—
‘(7) The responsible local authority may in its absolute discretion, with the consent of each person to whom the target in question relates, change, remove or revise a local improvement target.’.
Amendment No. 195, in clause 87, page 58, line 39, leave out ‘all’ and insert ‘either’.
Amendment No. 181, age 58, line 40, after ‘to’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 182, page 58, line 41, after ‘of’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 183, page 58, line 42, leave out subsection (c).
Amendment No. 184, page 59, line 2, after ‘a’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 185, page 59, line 5, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment No. 158, page 59, line 9, after ‘authority’, insert—
‘(ia) other non-statutory partners to the local area agreement, and’.
Amendment No. 186, page 59, line 12, after ‘of’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 187, page 59, line 12, leave out ‘, or additional local improvement targets,’.
Amendment No. 188, page 59, line 20, after ‘of’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 189, page 59, line 20, leave out ‘, or additional local improvement targets,’.
Government amendment No. 93.
Amendment No. 190, in clause 88, page 59, line 42, after ‘a’, insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 191, in clause 89, page 60, line 8, leave out ‘local’ and insert ‘national’.
Government amendment No. 94.
Amendment No. 157, in clause 90, page 60, line 34, after ‘authority’, insert
‘, other non-statutory partners to the local area agreement and’.
Government amendment No. 95.
Amendment No. 192, in clause 92, page 62, line 5, at beginning insert ‘national’.
Amendment No. 194, in page 90, line 9, leave out clause 127.
Government amendment No. 55.
The new clause is simple and straightforward and should be added to the Bill. The Government have repeatedly said that the torrent of targets, plans, guidance notes and approvals should be throttled back, and they have stated clearly that the Bill will do that by relieving local government of the burden of bureaucracy, red tape and financial costs and allowing it to get on with the business for which it was elected.
The new clause provides a way of measuring and taking stock of the Government’s performance. Just in case their rebuttal is that it may be perverse to add yet another target to their work load when we are arguing for the reduction of targets, I simply point out that given the burden they are taking from local government and from themselves, a small diversion to measure it would not go amiss.
I draw the attention of the House to some of the views of Sir Michael Lyons in his recent report to the Government. He said:
“Over the 1980s and 1990s, there has been an increasing centralisation across a range of local public services…it has also inhibited the ability of local government to respond to local needs and preferences, and to manage financial pressures…The weight of central controls—both formal and informal—can lead to local choices being crowded out…it can stifle innovation and experiment, both of which are promoted by decentralisation.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Michael’s contention about greater centralisation is reinforced by the answer to a parliamentary question I received recently, which reveals that the ring-fencing of local government budgets has risen from £1.6 billion in 1997 to £7.2 billion in 2005?
My hon. Friend is right—or rather the statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government are right. The Government are more and more prescriptive about how local government should spend the money it receives.
I am happy to give way to the Minister—I feel good news coming.
Obviously, I was aware of the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), which I considered carefully. Those figures included the dedicated schools budget, so that should be borne in mind when making a like-for-like comparison. They also showed that the recent trend is in the opposite direction.
The Minister makes a case, but it is not a particularly good one because many local authorities believe that the prescriptive way that school funding is allocated is not good either.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a briefing I received from the Local Government Association, which notes that the Audit Commission recently informed councils that an additional 54 performance indicators on economic regeneration should be collected “on a voluntary basis”. What is a council supposed to do when the Audit Commission says that it must collect a further 54 indicators on a voluntary basis? That is a weird sort of voluntarism. We are told that additional customer satisfaction indicators are being developed and that as neighbourhood performance management develops, indicators will have to be translated to lower levels, resulting in more data to collect.
The new clause would monitor the Government’s good intentions and would enable us to hear from them precisely how well they are doing—in the context not just of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) drew to the attention of the House, nor of the LGA’s report that more and more indicators seem to be required every day, but of the rumours that reach us on the civil service grapevine. We know that a number of Departments meet the DCLG’s challenge to reduce their indicators and targets for local government by asking their staff to turn the indicators into sub-targets and sub-sub-targets; so there is a higher order target with, beneath it, exactly the same requirements as before—except that they are not called targets. We need to assess whether the Government’s intentions as a whole—not just the Minister’s good intentions—actually produce results.
In Committee, the Minister affected to be somewhat heartbroken when we showed occasional signs of distrust at his protestations of good will and innocence. However, there are many local government doubting Thomases out there. Over at least 20 years, they have been trained to doubt by the actions of different Governments at the expense of local government. The Minister has only to accept the new clause and he will allay their doubts and fears. Let us make it transparent that the targets are being reduced. Let us see the tide turn and watch as the burden is lifted year by year.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State set out her stall. On targets, she said:
“There are currently up to 1,200. We envisage reducing that to 200 indicators, with around 35 targets, plus the existing statutory education and child care targets.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1155.]
The new clause is designed to restore trust in the Government’s commitment on targets, to cut bureaucracy and to give the Secretary of State something to boast about every year when she publishes her annual report. It follows that we will also support new clause 35, which reflects the same way of thinking. I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order for me to comment on the other new clauses and amendments in the group.
Order. It is perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to comment on any of the amendments or new clauses that Mr. Speaker has grouped with the hon. Gentleman’s new clause.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In that case, I draw the House’s attention to the further new clause standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends: new clause 30 on the national partnership scheme. My colleagues and I raised this matter twice in Committee, in different contexts. We are raising it again because of its tremendous importance to building a strong, healthy democracy in our country. We have an over-centralised country. It is a monolithic state with a one-size-fits-all approach to Government and local government. That issue relates strongly to the issue of targets. It is assumed that if something works in Northumberland it should work in Hackney, if it works in Hackney it should work in Plymouth, and if it works in Plymouth it should work in Braintree. Wherever one goes, the situation is supposed to be the same. We do not believe that that is the right approach for central Government to take and we want to see a much more decentralised state in the future.
Apropos of the hon. Gentleman’s last comments, is it not important for the Government to try to ensure universality and equity across the country in the provision of services? Sometimes that might be at the expense of local freedom, but equity is important too.
It is certainly right that there should be fair shares. I accept that. However, what many people find difficult to accept is the assumption that the way services are delivered, the volume of services, and even the price of services should be set by central diktat or regulation or be the subject of targets. The hon. Gentleman is not wrong, but there is always a tension between making sure that every person in the country gets exactly the same thing and allowing personal freedom and community choice some rein.
At the moment, there is no doubt that in comparison with western Europe, and even more so with our friends across the ocean in the United States, we have an excessively centralised country. I have sometimes used the example of Hampshire in this country and New Hampshire in the United States. The population of New Hampshire in the United States is less than the population of Hampshire in the United Kingdom, yet New Hampshire can set its own laws and taxes and can even set and vary its own criminal code up to and including the death penalty. I want to reassure hon. Members that I am not suggesting that Hampshire county councillors should have the liberty to impose the death penalty, although perhaps they would want that.
A flourishing local democracy is the way to get community and individual engagement with our society. One of the strongest factors in people’s failure to participate in democracy at a local level is that they think that it does not make any difference what they do or how they vote because councillors cannot do anything. I have to say that councillors tend to reinforce that view, because if things go wrong in their area, they always say, “It’s because the Government have stopped us.” We need to get out of having local government in victim mode and we need to restore powers to our local communities.
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s objective—and that of the Government—of giving greater discretion and autonomy to local government. That is clearly a desirable objective and I am pleased that we are moving down that route. However, I can see a problem with his new clause. He has stressed that it is inappropriate to set national targets and expect them to apply across the country because different circumstances will apply in different locations. Does he accept that, as part of a proportionate system of regulation, in some areas it might be appropriate to have rather more in the way of regulatory requirements and indicators of performance? I was conscious of that when I was responsible for improvements in local authorities. In certain areas, which we were doing badly, there was clearly a need for more focus in order to get an improvement. If he agrees with what I have said, how is that compatible with a system that simply seeks to reduce the total number of targets across the country, regardless of local variations?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, which sounded just like the comments of local government Ministers and former local government Ministers through the ages. Obviously, if one is in the middle and wants to see changes at the periphery, the best way of doing that is to order people to make those changes, but that is the opposite of what a localist approach should be. New clause 30 is not specifically related to the issue of the number of targets; it is about defining the boundaries between central Government decision taking and local democracy’s decision taking. The new clause is about setting up a mechanism for establishing where those boundaries should be—on an equal partnership basis between local and national representatives—and about presenting a report that would lead to a much clearer line being drawn. That would prevent some of the interference, perhaps in both directions, that is such a bind to our democratic system.
The hon. Gentleman said that his measure was not simply about the number of targets, plans or other regulatory burdens. However, his new clause requires the Secretary of State to
“prepare a report on progress during the period to reduce the number of local improvement targets, plans and other regulatory burdens”.
That is the measure that he is adopting. How can that be compatible with the more proportionate approach that I suggested might be appropriate?
The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from new clause 29. I am more than happy to respond, although at the moment I am speaking about new clause 30. On the point that he has just raised, of course the reduction in regulation should be proportionate to the risks and benefits. It is certainly not our view that we should simply look at an alphabetical list and leave the top 35 targets and cross the rest off. There has to be discussion and negotiation about what is needed and what is not needed, and about what targets should be decided at a much more local level. In Committee, the Minister correctly argued that in some cases it would be right for partnerships of local authorities and other public bodies in an area to decide what targets should be. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would think that that was desirable.
Does my hon. Friend believe that part of the problem is the fact that many local authorities are at a loss to understand why the targets are being set and what the end result will be if the targets are not met? The Government do not clarify what they expect and what the punishment is, or what the carrot will be. If there is to be a change, there needs to be greater co-operation between central Government and local government in evolving a set of targets that are both realistic and clearly defined, with a mechanism to give to those who achieve the target whatever end result the Government have in mind.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Many people in local government find it difficult to understand the purpose of the targets they are asked to meet. Officers know that they have to meet the targets, because if they do not it would be difficult to go to another local authority and say, “Please can I have a job? I never met any of my targets in my last job.” If one is a councillor, it is difficult not to work towards achieving targets, because the council will be slagged off in the press for not having the right number of stars. Councils might even be penalised in terms of grants and freedoms. This morning, I met a group of councillors from a number of local authorities who made the point quite strongly that when the whole performance culture was introduced, a clear signal was given that those who achieved the targets would get extra power, responsibility and freedom. They said that now that they face the next generation of targets, they cannot see why they should try hard to meet them because they did not get anything worth while when they met the original targets—[Interruption.] The Minister will no doubt have the opportunity to explain not only what councils have had, but what they will get as the number of targets shrinks and they focus more accurately on things that matter.
New clause 30 would simply set up a mechanism for developing a proper relationship—a constitutional relationship, if you like—between local government and central Government. It could lead on to measures of decentralisation—indeed, it points in that direction—such as a cull of the quangos that take up so much of central Government spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to a parliamentary question that he had asked about ring-fencing of funding for local authorities. Another aspect of the issue is the huge amount of spending from central Government that used to be channelled through local authorities, which had some discretion over its use, but is now spent by quangos of one sort or another. The Learning and Skills Council is often cited as an example.
We have been moved to bring the proposal back to the House for yet another go because we are not at all persuaded that the Government understand the need to set that constitutional framework and to protect both central Government and local government from all the distrust and misinterpretation in the current relationship. If the Minister rejects the new clause, what exactly does he propose instead? Are the Government really serious about the good intentions that have appeared time and again in his comments and those of the Secretary of State for a while?
I do not know whether amendment No. 253 will be pressed, but my hon. Friends and I certainly support the intentions of the Bill, which are the genesis of that amendment. If the opportunity arises, we will support it.
Given the grouping of the amendments, I shall not follow the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). Instead, I shall focus on my amendment No. 254, which deals with the inclusion of registered social landlords in the list of organisations that local authorities are required to consult as part of the preparation of a local area agreement.
Local area agreements are a very important part of the current local government agenda. They are a vehicle for enabling greater discretion to be devolved to a local level and, above all, for ensuring closer co-operation between a local authority and its partners in the area. That is the way forward for local government in ensuring more joined-up delivery of services and better planning, bringing together the range of organisations that contribute to a huge variety of services and strategies that impact on the local community. I strongly support local area agreements and had the privilege of introducing the concept when I was Minister with responsibility for local government.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that define more precisely the range of bodies that need to be consulted as part of the preparation of a local area agreement, but I am surprised that registered social landlords are not included, because they are hugely important to the delivery of one of the most important services to local communities—housing. They are responsible for about half the total social housing stock in the country; they are developing and improving large numbers of homes in almost every area of the country; and they have a crucial role to play as partners in a variety of initiatives that will affect local communities, not only in the provision of housing and regeneration but in other areas. I have noticed the participation of registered social landlords in my own area in various measures designed to reduce crime, to work more closely with the police and to improve health outcomes. They have an integral role to play in many different areas, and it is curious that they are not listed.
I can understand the argument, which my hon. Friend the Minister will probably use, that registered social landlords are not an authority. They are, in essence, individual bodies that do not have a statutory existence, so they should not be defined as an authority. However, given the huge range of bodies listed and the wide variety of services included, it seems odd that there is no reference to registered social landlords. I understand that this issue was raised in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it some further thought. If he cannot accept the amendment to include registered social landlords in the list of bodies that must be consulted, I hope that some thought will be given to how local authorities will be advised to ensure that registered social landlords are not left out of an inclusive approach to better and more joined-up service delivery, to which they have a large contribution to make. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will give the amendment sympathetic consideration, even if he is not able to accept it.
Given the wide-ranging nature of the first group of amendments, I shall not follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), although I will touch on the changes being made to the partnerships included in local area agreements.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman how welcome it is, when I am running the London marathon, that he is always there, outside his constituency office in Greenwich, cheering on the runners? He has done that for many years; it is always a welcome moment, although I wish that next time he will have some alcohol available as I run past.
For my hon. Friend and me. I enjoy that contact with the right hon. Gentleman and I thank him for his support.
This is an opportunity to discuss a number of matters relating to the Bill, and I will not go on too long because time is limited and there is a lot to cover. Something has been missing, however, from the comments of Ministers, whom I welcome back to their places—we will enjoy this afternoon’s proceedings, as we enjoyed the Committee—and those of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). I have been thinking about what it is and I have realised that this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss local government in detail since the local government elections the other week. We need to root this debate firmly in the context of what the public think about the local government performance of our respective parties.
I thought that it might assist the House if I reminded it that the Conservative party gained 39 councils at those elections and now holds 165. There were 911 councillor gains, and we now hold 5,315 council seats across the country. Labour lost eight councils and 505 councillors. The Liberal Democrats lost four councils and 246 councillors. The Conservative party is therefore the party of local government—full stop. The remarks that my colleagues and I make are bolstered by public confidence in our recent performance.
The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention the fact that in our own county of Bedfordshire, Labour regained control of Luton. I am sure that he was as pleased with that as I was.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comment. What happened was balanced by the fact that I lost the only Labour councillor in my constituency, so I now have none. It was a bit of a topsy-turvy night for his party, but more turvy than topsy.
My hon. Friend will know that we made big gains in Shropshire, where we were all campaigning vehemently against a unitary authority. The Government said that they would take note of the outcome of the elections. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important that the Government take that on board.
Order. We have had an amusing little diversion, but perhaps we can return strictly to the terms of the many amendments before us.
Indeed. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend speaks well, and it is not the first time the people of his constituency have spoken about organisational arrangements. We will debate those arrangements later, and I do indeed share his hope that the Minister will listen to what the people have said—it covers a broad measure of public opinion, which he ought to take into account.
To speak more directly to the amendments in the group, I welcome, and thank the Minister for, the changes proposed in the Government amendments, especially those relating to the addition of national health service trusts and public health bodies. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed the wish that those bodies be added to the list of partners in local area agreements. We think that the amendments make that list more complete. The Minister has responded to our concerns and honoured the pledge he made in Committee, which we appreciate.
Amendment No. 257, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and other colleagues, proposes the possible addition of probation trusts. The Local Government Association would welcome the opportunity to include those trusts. It believes:
“A duty to cooperate on all offender management and probation services would help move reducing re-offending closer to the mainstream of local partnership activity.”
I hope the Minister will take that into account.
We tabled amendments Nos. 156 to 158 in response to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ plea that there be a specific requirement to engage properly with non-statutory partners. We discussed in Committee whether such bodies were covered by the catch-all provision that such parties as the local authority thought fit should be consulted but, for reasons that have previously been set out, the NCVO believes that ensuring that local authorities engage and consult properly with non-statutory partners would strengthen local area agreements. In its briefing, the NCVO says:
“Whilst there are many examples of local authorities working effectively with the voluntary and community sector there are also many examples of local authorities refusing to engage and consult properly.”
Although we do not intend to press the amendments, I would appreciate it if the Minister considered the matter further as the Bill passes from this to another place.
If the hon. Member for Hazel Grove divides the House on new clause 29, we will support it. The relationship between central and local government and the increasing burden imposed by central Government over the years through targets, quotas, ring-fencing and the like formed much of the background to our debates in Committee and, indeed, to the interesting evidence sessions that preceded those debates, which were the first to be held on a Public Bill. I remind the Minister of the comments made by Simon Milton, who gave evidence in the first evidence session as a representative of the LGA. He commented on an amendment that we tabled in Committee and have tabled again on report. Amendment No. 171, as it now is, proposes an upper limit on the number of targets. Simon Milton said:
“We would like to see an upper limit expressed in the Bill, because there is a tendency, we suspect, despite the best wishes of Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, to have target-creep over time. Therefore, we would rather have an upper limit in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 24.]
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the rumours that I have heard about civil servants actively seeking to create sub-targets to bypass any limit that might be set?
I am not, but I am not surprised to hear that. The danger is that we can set formal limits, then along come sub-clauses A, B and C and, before we know where we are, there are new targets. I think that is what Simon Milton meant when he talked about “target-creep” and it is what we have in mind when we attempt to ensure that the Minister sticks to the Department’s first belief expressed in the White Paper—that there should be a maximum number of, say, 35 targets for local area agreements, rather than the unlimited number that became the norm as the Bill proceeded.
In that spirit, although we will not press amendment No. 171, we shall support new clause 29 as a symbol of the concerns of Conservative MPs and local government representatives throughout the country. The serious part of the earlier amusing diversion was to remind the House that, in terms of the number of councils and the number of seats held, the Conservative party represents more than all the other parties combined, including independents and others. When colleagues around the country speak of their concern about the burden imposed on them by central Government, they are speaking from a position of knowledge and significant authority. Taking new clause 29 as a symbol of the concerns expressed by local government about targets, burdens, regulatory creep and so on, we think it important to have a Division so that we can show our concern and, in so doing, express the hope that, as the Bill passes from this place to another, the Minister will consider further the legitimate concerns of local government representatives across the country and do more to address them.
We are well aware of the burden and impact of the targets. They imply a lack of trust that those working at local level will do their job. That affects government across the board. The misery of the Secretary of State for Health yesterday has surely been compounded by the fact that what the Government sought to do in medical training reflects their sense of not quite trusting the senior people who have been in charge of training over the years and their desire to impose a bureaucratic system instead. The stories heard over the weekend about the police chasing up insignificant offences to reach targets is a further symbol of what happens when people become motivated solely by mechanistic targets, rather than being allowed the discretion they need as professionals to judge what is important in a community.
Our aim is to attack the Government’s desire to work in a centralised, directive manner in relation to local government, and we have picked new clause 29 as a symbol of that. The Minister should not mistake the fact that many of the amendments tabled reflect the concern that there is too much national and not enough local, and too much determination to make decisions centrally in Whitehall rather than rely on local government expertise and what local people think to inform decisions. That is why we want to vote in support of the new clause.
We are also interested in amendment No. 253, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) and to which several of my hon. Friends have put their name. It represents an important extension of the sense of local government devolution. The Minister knows that in Committee we discussed the relationship between this Bill and the Sustainable Communities Bill—a private Member’s Bill. We believe that the latter represents genuine devolution of power, whereas the Government’s Bill does not go as far as the Government think it does. Representatives of Unlock Democracy gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Peter Facey said:
“The Bill devolves power by giving powers to parish councils, and in relation to byelaws, and that is to be welcomed. However, with respect to the powers of Westminster, and in most policy areas, it reorganises the powers of local government and gives local government the ability to administer things better, but it does not actually shift power significantly downwards to local authorities or communities.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2007; c. 69.]
We have previously debated the fact that we do not think that the Bill does what the Minister thinks it does. Amendment No. 253 provides an imaginative way for the Government to demonstrate that they really do believe in local community power by giving local authorities the ability to encourage more powerful energy conservation targets for new buildings in their area—targets that go beyond the national targets. The Government could extend discretion to the local level, enabling local people to express opinions on the vital issues of climate change and conservation.
We should bear in mind the strictures of the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning. When we discussed home information packs yesterday, she made the point that our lack of support for the Government’s proposals on HIPs was in contrast to what we believe about energy conservation. I now put the same point to the Minister for Local Government: if he does not support amendment No. 253, which his colleague, the hon. Member for Gower, tabled, it calls into question the Government’s commitment to energy conservation and the like, and rather undermines the next Prime Minister’s attempt to establish eco-homes. The Chancellor is going around the country talking vehemently about the environment, which he did not start to do until very recently. We will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on amendment No. 253, which we want to be accepted.
The amendments deal with a variety of concerns about the powers of local councils and communities and their entitlement to more of a say and to be included. We welcome the extension of partnership, through local area agreements, to the bodies that have been mentioned, but we want it to be extended further. The Government have sought a couple of new powers. In Government amendments Nos. 93 and 94, there is a power to “vary or revoke” directions that was not included in the original Bill. I should be interested to know in what circumstances that power might be used. When the Minister gets a chance to reply, perhaps he will explain what is behind those powers, and say why they were introduced at this stage of the Bill, and not earlier.
I shall conclude my remarks on this group of amendments in order to give others the chance to speak. I remind the Minister that there are amendments in the group that we could have pressed to a Division, but for reasons of time, we will not do so. We back new clause 29; we see it as a symbol of the feeling in the House that although the Government believe that their centralist, directive power is being devolved in the Bill, the process has probably not gone far enough. On behalf of local government, we would like it to go much further. As I say, we will use that new clause as a symbol of the House’s concern, and of the strength of the feeling among Conservative authorities and others outside the House that more needs to be done to demonstrate that the Government are truly devolutionist, and not centralist. Frankly, we just do not think that they can demonstrate that.
I rise to speak to amendment No. 253, which is in my name and that of 80 other Members from across the House. As has already been mentioned, the amendment is really the progeny of a private Member’s Bill that I introduced in the Chamber on 19 January, the Local Planning Authorities (Energy and Energy Efficiency) Bill, which, coincidentally, will return to the Order Paper tomorrow. That Bill is about enabling local authorities better to contribute to tackling the problem of climate change using planning policy. If enacted, it would allow councils, if they so chose, to set higher standards for energy efficiency in their development plans than those laid down in building regulations, and it would allow them to make provision for sustainable energy and microgeneration requirements in the same document. An early-day motion supporting the Bill has now been signed by 302 Members of the House.
Sadly, my Bill failed to find favour with the Government. In a number of meetings with Ministers, and in correspondence with me and other Members, we have been assured that the Government are sympathetic to its objectives, but we have been told that they will not give it a fair wind because they are consulting on their draft planning policy statement on climate change, and they think that it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of that process by endorsing, implicitly or explicitly, my Bill. Secondly, they think that the subject would be better dealt with in Government legislation, rather than in a private Member’s Bill.
The consultation period on the draft planning policy statement ended on 8 March, and Ministers have had a fair amount of time in which to consider the responses. We now have the opportunity in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill to deal with the central issue in Government legislation, and that is what my amendment is intended to achieve. In part 5, chapter 1, which is on local area agreements, clause 81 deals with local improvement targets. My amendment specifies that energy efficiency and sustainable energy targets can be included in local agreements.
As with my private Member’s Bill, my amendment is about empowering local councils to meet the challenge of climate change, but it is also about encouraging them to act now; that is important. The clearest message to come out of the Stern review is the absolute need for urgency. We cannot afford to wait. The amendment is intended to give all local councils a green light, in every sense, to follow the lead of places such as Woking and Merton and set high environmental standards for new developments, both residential and non-residential.
I welcome the policy of all new homes being zero carbon by 2016, and I welcome the Chancellor’s proposals for new eco-communities, but to turn those concepts into reality, we need many more examples—and soon—of low and zero-carbon homes to add to the very small number of experimental buildings that exist or are about to be constructed. One way—perhaps the best way—of achieving that goal is to enable and encourage local authorities to set high standards for energy efficiency and sustainable energy generation. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that she wants
“to see a scale of new development which will deliver economies of scale and bring down costs of environmental technologies”.
If the amendment were to become part of the Bill, and then the Act, it would help to stimulate exactly that scale of new development.
At the moment, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the local government family about whether local government can set the sorts of standards that I am proposing. Some councils have been allowed to specify high standards for energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but others have been slapped down by Government inspectors when they have tried to do exactly the same thing. For example, Reading was allowed to specify thermal performance requirements that were at least 12 per cent. higher than those required by building regulations. Cambridge, on the other hand, was made to water down its planning policy, which required large developers to provide evidence of how they had minimised energy consumption, maximised energy efficiency and considered the feasibility of using combined heat and power systems, even though that is surely exactly what we should be asking of developers in the face of the threat of global warming. However, the Government inspector said the policy was
“unreasonable to the extent that it imposes more onerous requirement than the building Regulations”.
Cambridge is set to increase its housing stock by 40 per cent. in the next 15 years. What impact has the inspector’s decision had on carbon dioxide emissions in that city?
Similarly, in its core strategy and rural issues plan, Bedford borough council wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 per cent. more than the amount set out in building regulations for certain developments. The Government office for the east of England ruled that out on the grounds that the current planning system
“does not permit the setting of energy efficiency standards.”
At present, there is inconsistency and incoherence, resulting in inertia. We need clarity and positive encouragement to meet the highest feasible environmental standards. That is what the amendment is about.
Although clause 81 deals with targets in local area agreements, the only way that I can envisage targets on energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources being met is through planning policy, and through the development plan process in particular.
I am following my hon. Friend’s points carefully, and I certainly agree with the thrust of what he is saying, but does he not agree that the best way to achieve higher standards nationally is to amend and improve building regulations?
I agree that that is part of the answer, and the Government have a good programme leading up to 2016, but we can go further. Empowering local authorities to use the development plan process will give us the threat of good examples, as it were, and will allow us to move faster. As I just explained, some local authorities have been permitted to move faster, but others have been slapped down. Surely that inconsistency is absolute nonsense. If there are examples where local authorities have moved ahead, and it has not deterred house building in their area or had any other effect, I suggest that others could be doing so, too, and we could be moving faster.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that for those involved in the manufacture of building materials and those planning the construction process, it is vital to have clarity some years in advance regarding the standards that will be sought, so that the production lines can be put in place to make the products that will deliver the higher standards? The construction industry is saying that the lack of clarity that would result from my hon. Friend’s proposal that local authorities have the freedom to set separate standards in separate areas would inhibit that process. Will he recognise that a balance must be struck between this perfectly proper aspiration to raise standards, and the maintenance of a nationally coherent framework that allows the industry to respond effectively?
That is certainly what the Home Builders Federation is saying. When I introduced my private Member’s Bill, the HBF was the only organisation that contacted me to oppose it. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the Welsh Local Government Association and the various environmental groups all supported it. However, there is some substance in my right hon. Friend’s argument. In my discussions with Ministers, I suggested that we establish parameters, so that everybody knows what they are doing. We have already set higher standards in social housing, so it is perfectly possible to do it, but I accept the point that we should not necessarily have a free-for-all.
I thank the hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend on this matter—for giving way and I apologise for not being here at the start of his contribution, although I am sure that I agreed with every word of it.
He attacked Cambridge.
I heard that bit and it was very good. Does he agree that another answer to what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said is that if the public sector is setting higher standards—indeed, the Chancellor is requiring much higher standards in his eco-cities—the argument that the industry needs one standard cannot possibly be right, because there are already two?
That is absolutely right.
As for the consultation on the planning policy statement on planning and climate change, to which I referred earlier, we still do not know what position the Government are taking after considering all the responses, but I hope that Ministers will give weight to the issues raised by organisations such as the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which drew attention to serious weaknesses in the draft planning policy statement that, if unchanged, would effectively deter councils from trying to achieve better environmental standards. For instance, paragraph 31 of the draft PPS says:
“Planning Authorities should not need to devise their own standards for the environmental performance of individual buildings as these are set out nationally through the Building Regulations”.
That is the wrong approach. Building regulations should be minimum standards. Ministers have said that they believe that building regulations should be minimum standards, yet paragraph 31 implies that in fact, the Government believe that—most of the time, at least—they should be maximum standards. Councils should be free to go for higher standards; indeed, at this time they should be encouraged to do so.
On top of this, the draft PPS sets four hurdles for councils to jump before they can set even limited higher standards. They must identify local developments or site opportunities, ruling out authority-wide policies, as in Reading; they must set out their local approach in advance in a development plan document; they have to estimate the cost to possible developers; and the content of the local development documents and the reasoning for it have to be approved by a Government inspector.
I was vice-chair of a planning committee in a previous life and I am sure that, faced with these hurdles, very few local authorities will try for higher standards. The development plan process is tortuous enough, without extra complications. A fairer, simpler, far better and more effective approach is that taken in my amendment. It recognises the vital part that councils can and should play in limiting their local carbon footprints. It seeks to free them to do that and encourages them to act. I hope that in responding, my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise its merits.
I very much welcome amendment No. 253, tabled by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), which deals with a very important issue. Many Conservative Members have much sympathy for it, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to express that in due course. Having said that, I want briefly to discuss some of the other matters dealt with in this tranche of amendments and new clauses.
Many people are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to state a broad overview of the basis of the relationship between national and local government. Of course, the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, but in most of our continental EU partner countries, there is such a formal statement of competencies, rights and responsibilities, and a measure of respect for the competencies on each side. It would perhaps have been a good idea to take that approach, in a different way, in the Bill, as was suggested by the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit. I hope that Ministers will reflect on whether something can be done to set out such a statement.
The reason for taking such an approach was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) when he raised the issue of targets and centralism. I was in France the other Sunday for the second round of the French presidential elections. [Interruption.] I was very happy with the outcome, and I had the chance to catch up with a number of friends in local government in France. The point that struck many of us in our discussions, and which struck me during my time as a member of the Committee of the Regions, is that there is often a marked correlation between participation in democracy at local level and local authorities’ room for manoeuvre and local discretion. It is clear across the EU that the more local discretion that is given to local authorities—including, often, fiscal devolution—the larger the turnouts at elections and the healthier the state of local democracy. Despite what has been said, the Bill does not go far enough in that direction. That is why it is very important that we deal with the targets issue.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for mentioning this, but was it not a Conservative Government who took away the local business rate and centralised it?
Yes, I am grateful for the history lesson—and some of us learn from history, which is why many Conservatives argue that the business rate should be returned to local authorities. That was my view and it always has been.
While we are having the history lesson, would my hon. Friend like to remind the House that because of the appalling behaviour of councils such as Newcastle, John Lewis paid four times the price per square foot in council tax in Newcastle than it did in Oxford street, and that something had to be done because members of the Labour party were milking the public?
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, and I am now led to conclude that I was right to adopt my old careers master’s advice to become a lawyer, rather than a history professor. However, in the light of a changed set of circumstances, it is my and many others’ view that the business rate can now be returned to local authorities—along with the safeguards that can sensibly be put in place in order to avoid the abuse that my right hon. Friend refers to, and which I witnessed as a London borough councillor at that time.
The targets issue is important, because micro-management through targets undermines local government’s degree of discretion. I take France as an example because it is the European country that I know best. Not only are major towns there able to raise much more of their revenue locally, but they are much freer from interference by central Government in how they deliver services. I accept the need for equity on a national basis, but often that is effectively traded off against the greater ability to choose local solutions to meet local problems and local issues. Not enough attention is paid to that.
The police are a particularly good example, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority, and when I talk to police officers of all ranks in my constituency and elsewhere in Greater London, when I talk to our partners in the crime and disorder reduction partnership locally, and when I talk to people in our police and community consultative groups, it is a recurrent theme that we have far too many centrally imposed targets. Very often these are targets for crimes, for example, which are not the top priority in our local borough, but they have to be fitted into a national template. That diverts attention from dealing with local policing issues. The same applies in a number of other areas.
A reduction in targets, as we propose in our amendments, seems not only to be right philosophically, but to go with the grain of the evidence on the ground. That is why in our amendment No. 180, which deals with locally determined improvement targets, we seek to give greater flexibility to make changes and amendments to those targets to reflect the changing situation on the ground.
On local area agreements, I am grateful to Ministers for having taken on board a number of points that were raised in Committee. I hope, and I reinforce as strongly as I can the message of my hon. Friend, that they will look again at the issue of probation trusts. All of us who have been involved in local government consider that important. In Bromley, as the London assembly and Metropolitan Police Authority member, I serve on the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, of which the probation service is a part. We are anxious to have the ability to involve the probation service much more widely in the overall local area agreements. I am glad to see that the Minister for Local Government seems to respond with some sympathy to that remark. That would build on the best practice in a number of places.
The same applies to the voluntary sector. Our umbrella voluntary sector organisation, Community Links Bromley, is a valuable part of our local strategic partnership. I should like to make more progress in finding ways in which it can be linked into the local area agreements. It contributes a great deal and where there is good working, we ought to be able to encourage that and facilitate it.
A practical and sensible set of issues is raised by the Local Government Information Unit in the briefing that a number of Members will have seen. Not only should there be a statutory obligation to co-operate, but we should be able to deliver that in practice. Fortunately, in my borough people co-operate willingly and well, but the experience of many of us shows that in London and elsewhere the level of co-operation is patchy.
Will the statutory duty to co-operate deliver what everyone wants to achieve? The example of primary care trusts appears in the commentary on the Bill. Withdrawal from the local area agreements due to a lack of funding is a problem that we face in Enfield, where the primary care trust has withdrawn a vital part of the area agreement concerning alcohol services and rehabilitation, and £80,000 has been withdrawn from alcohol screening in local accident and emergency units. Will the London health economy be able to deliver, given the problems with top-slicing of funding?
My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. Although we have not yet reached the degree of crisis that exists in Enfield, the risk applies right across London boroughs, particularly those in outer London, where I regret to say that the health economy is strained and also, for reasons that we have discussed in the Chamber, the financial settlements to local government have been hugely constrained, so any withdrawal puts the whole of service provision into considerable jeopardy. We need to consider that.
It is interesting that we have some evidence of the extent to which the duty to co-operate works in practice from the audit of crime and disorder reduction partnerships carried out by the Audit Commission. In its 2002 report, its last work on the subject, the Audit Commission noted that
“co-operation across the country was variable from probation services, health and fire services, though all of these are covered by a statutory duty to co-operate”.
That did not always work on the ground. In the past, I have found that one or two of those services in my locality were not co-operating to the degree that we all wished. We were able to fix it, but it would be better if we had more tools to ensure that delivery.
It is also interesting to see a Home Office document, “Making Partnerships Work”, which again highlighted concerns at the CDRP level about failure to achieve co-operation in practice on multi-agency agreements, even though those agreements had been made through the statutory partnerships. That comes close to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). Clear areas of concern are flagged up by such empirical evidence as we have.
It is against that background that I hope that Ministers will consider sympathetically two suggestions by the Local Government Information Unit. First, the Bill should specify a minimum standard of 12 weeks for responding to consultation. That would apply the Cabinet Office guidelines to those partnerships. A partner that did not respond within those periods could be considered to have breached the duty to co-operate. That would give the provisions some teeth—something to pull people together and get them round the table.
Secondly, the Bill should identify a performance improvement process that could be triggered when there is a breakdown. We do not want to watch a train crash in slow motion—we want a practical means of taking matters forward. The Audit Commission will co-ordinate inspection in localities across its four inspectorate areas, so it would not be too difficult for it to co-ordinate information on breaches of duty to co-operate, which could be fed to the relevant inspectorate of the partner organisation. That would have the advantage of giving an incentive to partner organisations to co-operate, because if its own inspectorate was aware of failures on its part, that could be reflected in its performance assessment.
Those are two straightforward, practical and not in the least bit costly things that could be done to improve the working of local area agreements and other partnerships. I hope that Ministers will consider them sympathetically.
The broad issues raised in this part of the Bill are very significant, but they have been well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I hope that the practical points that I have raised flesh out his principal argument.
I shall speak briefly, because there is a lot of business to transact. First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his powerful and compelling speech. I am pleased to be one of those who signed his amendment and hope that the Government will recognise the strength of his argument.
I wish to speak to my amendment No. 248 to clause 42, which, in essence, would insert a requirement to consult trade unions in drawing up local area agreements. I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a former employee of Unison and in receipt of a Unison occupational pension, and the union principally affected by my amendment would be Unison.
The amendment is about modernising staff consultation arrangements to keep pace with changes to public services. The Government propose the extension and formalisation of local area agreements, which do indeed have the potential to become powerful tools for transforming local services and are a welcome step towards a more joined-up approach. However, the change from single to multi-agency planning means that current arrangements for consultation of the work force will become outdated. The existing arrangements giving a voice to employees are based on the Employment Relations Act 1999, which introduced statutory trade union recognition, and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004—the ICE regulations—which followed the private Member’s Bill that I introduced after the Vauxhall closure in Luton, and which called for consultation and information rights. I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised the value of that suggestion, although at the time they were unhappy about it and did not wish to support my Bill.
All the social partners, including the TUC and the CBI, signed up to the ICE regulations, recognising that consulting the work force was vital in order to achieve high-performance workplaces. However, both pieces of legislation apply only at the level of the individual employer. A consequence of introducing planning using local area agreements is that by the time consultation occurs at individual employer level, key decisions will already have been taken and staff will be faced with a fait accompli. Their contribution to the process will be hollow and meaningless.
To maintain the current level of consultation in practice, it is essential that the Bill require that recognised trade unions—the voice of the work force—be consulted when a local area agreement is being formulated. It already requires that local authorities consult partner authorities and
“such other persons as appear to be appropriate”.
However, that is inadequate, as trade unions are clearly not partner authorities, and it is possible that some councils—no doubt particularly Conservative councils—will not deem the work force “appropriate” to consult, especially if their plans are controversial, and will not consult trade unions unless they are compelled by law to do so. Nor is it sufficient for the matter to be covered in statutory guidance, which could be revoked or altered if another party came to power. The provision should be on the face of the Bill.
The amendment would require recognised trade unions to be consulted as of right, and would maintain the good practice already in place. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to accept it and include it in the Bill.
Let me start by dealing with some of the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who claimed to speak on behalf of his party as the party of local government. I have served in local authorities for 37 years, and the Labour and Conservative parties have made that claim many times. When in opposition, they claim to be the voice of reason and supporters of local government. Sadly, when they are in government, they spend the next four or five years doing all they can to harm local government.
The Conservatives ended their time in office by not being the party of local government. Their councillors and the number of councils that they controlled had been reduced dramatically. The cycle is there for all to see. If we were unfortunate enough to have another Conservative Government, I hope that they would live up to their promise to be the voice of local government, to defend and enhance it and give it the support that it deserves.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did not have anywhere near the success that it predicted in the city of Portsmouth. Indeed, the Conservatives barely held on to what they had. He should not be too quick to gloat and praise his colleagues, because the picture that he painted does not apply universally.
In Tory-free Gateshead, the Tories held on to what they had: they had nothing and they got nothing.
They got no more than they deserved.
It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, try as he might, from a position of having lost 246 councillors on the night of the elections, to pick the odd hole in our performance. Yes, we might have gained one or two more seats than the 911 that we won. However, if I were him, I would accept that I had had a bad night and leave it at that.
I was not defending my position but attacking the hon. Gentleman’s holier-than-thou gloating, the like of which I have witnessed all too often as a member of local authorities.
Fine. I only hope that that will translate into wholehearted support for local government and what it stands for—and I hope that Conservatives will start to relate to that when in office. For too long, I have seen Conservatives take office in local authorities, claiming that they will deliver all the benefits of reform at no cost, only to be disappointed in their own efforts at the end of their term, when they are wiped out at the following election.
I shall give way later, if time permits. Others wish to speak and I want to deal with the amendments.
I wholeheartedly support the thrust of amendment No. 255. It is nonsense not to include social landlords in the consultation in local area agreements. Without them, many of the plans are pointless. There is not an area in the country that does not perceive the benefits of close involvement with social landlords, of working with them and including them. Registered social landlords should be part of the family that plans the future of our country. I hope that the Government will recognise the essential part that they play.
I understand, as did the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) when he presented the amendment, that the Government have a get-out clause, and could say, “They’re not an authority, as such.” However, in most areas, registered social landlords constitute the housing authority and will deliver the sort of houses that the Chancellor—the future leader of the Labour party and future Prime Minister—advocates now. Without their playing an active part in the planning process, we will lose out considerably. I hope that the Minister for Local Government sees merit in that argument. If the amendment were pushed to a Division, I would support it.
Again, I support the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who tabled amendment No. 253. He talked a lot of sense about the way in which the planning system is in denial. One authority is saying one thing and another authority is saying another, and the planning inspectorate comes up with bizarre contradictions of policy and no clear thrust about how it should operate. I am unclear whether there is any mechanism to give the planning inspectorate some sort of direction on such issues. How can their decisions be so contrary, as they are, when in some instances neighbouring local authorities with very similar applications can end up being diametrically opposed to each other? It is a bizarre situation that needs to be tackled. I, for one, will be very disappointed if that amendment is not pressed to a vote.
I now come to the key debates about the main provision in the group—new clause 29. I have always been sceptical and reluctant to accept that targets are likely to enhance the relationship between central Government and local authorities. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was right to suggest that there was an element of distrust built into these targets, and that Governments of all persuasions were not prepared to give local authorities the necessary trust. I am at a loss to know whether Ministers seriously understand the cost to some local authorities of having to carry out the work necessary to meet those targets—particularly the cost of the central internal workings required for authorities to deliver. It is not untrue to say that some local authorities have had to reduce services in one area in order to pay the costs of producing the sort of data that Governments require them to produce to satisfy their targets. That is bizarre, to say the least, and the problem needs to be recognised.
Every time we set a target, a price is associated not just with delivering the target itself, but with having to prepare the data for the target to be properly assessed. How many targets are understood by the public? Could the Minister enlighten us about what his Department received in the way of public feedback on the targets set for local authorities and the costs to those authorities—ultimately, to the public themselves—in meeting them? What is the benefit to the individual when these targets are met in any one local authority, and what are the disadvantages? There is no clarity there at all.
If we must have a system of target setting, I believe that the Government must be far more transparent about how they arrive at the initial stages. As I said in my earlier intervention, they should clearly indicate to local authorities what the prize—in the sense of added power and added resource—for meeting the target will be. My knowledge of local authorities leads me to believe that even if the target is met, few additional resources will ever come along. There are plenty more responsibilities directed at authorities, but few of the necessary resources are ever made available—and if they are, they apply for a very limited period, after which the authority is expected to continue to pick up the tab. Targets are fine, but they have to be clearly recognised as delivering something worthwhile to the community. Far too many targets that have been, and continue to be, directed at local authorities have no clear purpose at all, least of all to the people who are supposed to benefit from them.
I rise briefly to speak in favour of amendment No. 253, mainly to put on the public record my thanks to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for his sterling work on this issue, seen both in today’s amendment and in the private Member’s Bill that he is promoting. The need for that amendment and that Bill arose originally from instances in my own constituency of Cambridge, which the hon. Gentleman accurately described in his speech.
I have heard only two arguments against the proposal. The first, put forward by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is that it is better to act at national level than at local level. The second is the argument put forward by the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), which is that what really matters is building houses, that to build houses requires one to think about the supply chain, and that house builders need a guarantee of volume in order to bring down the cost of housing. Both those arguments are incorrect.
The argument about national standards misses the point about how we set good national standards. Central Government are often not in a position to decide the best standard without first taking into account the experience of local government. The role of local government in putting forward new ideas and allowing experimentation in policy is crucial, and we should value that role. If local authorities are prepared to go further than the national standards to see what the effects might be, I believe that that is a good thing.
I did say that.
Absolutely.
The argument about the supply chain misses the important point that there is a difference between what happens in the public sector and what happens in the private sector. In the public sector, very high standards—much higher than in the planning system—are already being set. All housing financed by the Housing Corporation has to follow environmental standards much higher than those that are standard in the planning system. That means that there are already two standards being used. If the argument about the need for a single standard were true, the Government would have a problem, because there are already two standards. My view is that it is perfectly plausible to have two standards.
Is it not in ignorance of the way in which housing is built that the former Minister puts forward his view? Any house builder decides on what will be done in a particular area, usually within one local authority. It is perfectly easy for that builder to build to the higher standard that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is going further than I was, and making the very good point that builders can adapt to different standards in different areas and have always done so.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I should make clear my declared interest in the Register of Members’ Interests as chairman of the Construction Industry Council.
The hon. Gentleman’s argument fails to take into account the fact that there is a difference between operating to two standards—a national standard adopted by the building regulations and another set by the Housing Corporation for all registered social landlords—and the possibility of some 400 different standards being set by individual local authorities, which would create uncertainty about the long-term supply of materials that are critical to the ratcheting up of standards. If the hon. Gentleman talks to people who know what is required, they will tell him that the increase in standards necessary to achieve the very high targets at level 6 in the code for sustainable homes will not be achieved unless there is absolute commitment by the entire supply chain, including the producers of the materials. If those producers are uncertain about particular elements as a result of a plethora of different requirements in different areas, there is a risk that the higher standards will not be met. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
I am afraid that I do not. That would be an argument against having different standards—level 6, level 5, level 4 and so on—in the first place. Furthermore, everyone in the industry knows in which direction this is going. We are not talking about standards that will be lower than the national standards. We are talking about standards that will be higher, and aiming towards a point at which everyone knows we will arrive in the end. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would work in terms of the reality of the industry.
My final point is about the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s proposal for eco-cities. It has been mentioned before, and I support it. An interesting aspect of the proposal for Oakington, near Cambridge, is that the site is in public ownership. It is partly owned by the Ministry of Defence. It is also out of town, several miles from Cambridge. Were one to choose an ideal site for an eco-city experiment, it would not be there; it would be much closer to the existing built-up area. An important part of making a zero-carbon community is transport, especially public transport, and although there are proposals for public transport links between Oakington and Cambridge, they are not of the highest possible quality; they would get people from Oakington to the edge of Cambridge but no further. In contrast, Cambridge city council was attempting to apply higher standards, similar to those in the Chancellor’s eco-city proposal, to developments within the city, which would have been better, environmentally, than those at the Oakington site. One of the anomalies of the present situation is that central Government can randomly decide to go forward with such proposals at sites that may not be the best, while at the same time denying local government the right to do exactly the same at much better sites.
I hope that the Government will reconsider their view of the proposal, which has all-party support, and on which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) has done a great deal of sterling work. It deserves support today.
I support the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). The whole agenda is about the modernisation of public services, and it concentrates on structures. The truth, however, is that people, not structures, make changes. Whatever we decide in the next few days, we will be reliant on ordinary working people to implement the changes and make them work for the people who send us here. We hear regularly from the Government the mantra, “What matters is what works.” It will not work if the work force is not consulted and does not have ownership of what is going on. If we ignore the work force, it will not support what we try to do.
We are looking for clarity in the Bill. It should say explicitly that recognised trade unions should be consulted—not, as it currently says,
“such other persons as appear…to be appropriate”.
Who will decide who appears to be appropriate? Will it be the local council or the local trust? If it is written into the Bill, there will be no ambiguity, and the people who deliver the service will be involved at all stages.
A consulted work force is a happy work force, even when faced with change. I represented social services in Newcastle long after John Lewis was no longer paying rates there. For 15 years, from 1990, I saw massive changes. Social workers moved from local government into the health service and home care workers competed with private firms that went into people’s houses at different times of day, with different people working there. Residential and day care services changed drastically. Yes, we tried to oppose the changes, but ultimately we had to work with them. Regular consultation and discussion, involving the work force and those who were being cared for, were key to that.
I make a plea to the Minister to insert into clause 82 words that would mean that recognised trade unions would be consulted at every level.
I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I had not intended to speak until I heard the intervention of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), because he raised an important issue. I declare an interest as I chair a company that does some advisory work in the building industry. I therefore know a little about the building industry, and I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman— with whom I normally agree.
The fact is that, last year, nearly half the houses built in Britain did not meet the building standards. We have a system that does not deliver even the pathetic standards that we currently have. The reason for that is that they are input, not output, standards. We must do something about that rapidly. It would be different if the Minister said to us, “Please do not do this. We really are going to raise standards. Rather than introducing prescriptive building regulations that will never work but will merely pile Ossa on Pelion and produce an impossible system, we will set output standards. That will mean that new houses must have a thermal efficiency of x, and we are determined that the standard will rise in five years’ time.” If we knew that the Government would do that, we could take the action that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I do not believe that the Government will do it, so I want progressive local government to force it out of them.
The comparator is the United States of America. My praise for the USA is not always unalloyed, but it has got one thing right: its states have been forcing the federal Government into a more sensible position on climate change by taking steps themselves. That contrasts with the autocratic, centralising Government that we have in Britain today. Here, every power is brought up to the centre, often not for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)—with whom, surprisingly, I often agree, so I hope he will not mind my saying that.
I made the point about Newcastle because I believe that the business rate ought to return to local authorities, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman why the change took place. It was because of a mechanism that enabled local authorities to precept on the taxpayer. They did that in many areas, and as a result the people who paid the bills increasingly moved out of our great northern cities. It was the change that took place in the hon. Gentleman’s party—and I give all credit to his party—that provided an opportunity for the improved relationship between the centre and local authorities that exists today. In that sense we want to empower local authorities, and one way of empowering them is to make them proud of the standards that they set.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that the construction industry could not manage that. The industry gives that same excuse in every circumstance: it is always “We cannot do this” and “We cannot do that”. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Kyoto the car manufacturing industry said that if we passed the protocol it would not be able to produce the vehicles that would fulfil its part of the bargain. Within six months, every car manufacturer in the United States had those vehicles on the market. I believe that the same is true of the construction industry. If it becomes clear that there is a movement throughout progressive local authorities, of all political parties, to raise the standards expected of buildings, the industry will say to the Government, “Please do not leave this to the local authorities; you must set the standards.” Then, at long last, we shall see proper pressure being exerted on Government.
If the situation were as the right hon. Gentleman has depicted it, his argument would have a great deal of force. As he will know, the House Builders Federation—which in the past has not been at the forefront in advocating higher standards—has committed itself to the Government’s target of reaching level 6 of the code for sustainable homes within 10 years. However, it has rightly added the caveat that meeting that objective will require certainty between now and then, rather than a proliferation of different requirements in different areas. The industry is committed, but it does not want a proliferation of targets that it cannot anticipate because they could change at any moment, destroying any chance of sensible forward planning.
The right hon. Gentleman would have my entire support were it not for my belief that if we allow that cosy deal, not the industry but the Government will let people down. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not say that, but in 10 years of this Government there have been only a few pathetic improvements in the building regulations. Part L is a disgrace. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary will not catch me out on part L. Let me point out that the Government initiated consultation on the new regulations for conservatories and extensions, received universal support for a raising of standards, and then not only refused to raise them but had the audacity to tell the public that they never meant to do so. So why the blazes did they initiate the consultation?
I heard the Under-Secretary’s colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning utter on the radio what I must describe as the nearest thing to a terminological inexactitude that I have ever heard from a Minister. She said that they had never intended it, yet there it was in a consultation documentation that suggested that the standards should be raised. I trust the right hon. Gentleman. If he told me it, I would have no doubt that we were moving in that direction. However, we have had 10 years of failure in doing what we need to do if we are to have any chance of meeting the climate change obligation. That is why I find the Government so difficult— they have all the right words but they do not actually do anything.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he would trust me, but I was actually the responsible Minister during most of those 10 years in which he said there had been no progress. Rather than no progress, there have been substantial improvements, twice in the energy efficiency regulations, once on access for disabled people—something on which his Government had failed to act, despite pressure for a long time—and in many other building regulations that have been significantly improved in the past few years.
Yet 48 per cent. of the houses built last year did not meet the building regulations that the right hon. Gentleman had so substantially improved. I honour him for as much as he was able to do within a Government where doing is not a particularly popular activity. What he managed to do was remarkable. What is necessary now is a very large step forward. In order for me not to support the amendment, I want the Government to say that they will bring forward the agreement that the House Builders Federation says it is prepared to go along with—that in five years’ time all houses will be built to eco-standard 6. We would change only 1 per cent. a year in that way but it would be hugely important.
I want the Government to say that they will start doing something serious about the retrofitting of present houses in order that we can do something about the matter. I respect the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich enormously and I say to him simply that we do not have the time to fiddle about with the buildings of this country, given the threat of climate change. We have to act now. One could make an excuse five or 10 years ago because we were not quite sure, but we cannot do so after Stern. It is surprising that, following Stern, the Government have not proposed a range of changes to the Bill that would push us forward in a major way.
It is because they have not done so that I am bound to support the amendment. Otherwise, the hope of the right hon. Gentleman will not be fulfilled. We need a Government who are pressed on all fronts to do what is necessary in the built environment to deal with the real challenge.
I support Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28, which rightly recognise the role of transport in local area agreements. They relate particularly to London, but clause 55 relates to the passenger transport authorities in the metropolitan areas. They are vital, particularly in the Greater Manchester area and in the 10 districts that make up the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority. At the moment, we have tremendous plans to tackle congestion—guided busways that will come into Wigan borough through Leigh, congestion charges on major routes and the light rapid transit system within Greater Manchester.
One of the plethora of Acts passed by the Conservative Government ensured that those authorities with a large majority did not abuse that by putting all of their own members on to the joint boards such as the police, fire and passenger transport authorities. I accept that; it is absolutely right that there should be places on those authorities for opposition parties.
In Greater Manchester, the passenger transport authority is about to be taken over by a Liberal Democrat group that has lost seats in the recent local elections and whose total representation of councillors amounts to just over 25 per cent. Yet because of deals that it is doing with the Conservative party and minor parties, it intends to take over the Greater Manchester PTA.
May I declare an interest in that I am a member of Tameside metropolitan borough council? My hon. Friend’s point is correct. As nine out of the 10 constituent authorities in Greater Manchester are respecting the proportionality rule, it cannot be right for one council not to entertain the spirit of the rules establishing the PTA. Might an attempt be made to ensure that there is a spirit of co-operation through the local area agreements, as the PTA does not reflect either the political make-up of the 10 councils in Greater Manchester or the votes cast by the public in Greater Manchester on 3 May?
My hon. Friend anticipates the point I am about to make. As a result of the last local elections, 327 out of the 645 Greater Manchester councillors are Labour, 131 or 20 per cent. are Conservative and 162 or 25 per cent. are Liberal Democrats. Yet the Greater Manchester PTA is about to be taken over by the Liberal Democrats, even though they account for only 25 per cent. of councillors. That cannot be right. It will seriously undermine the ability of Greater Manchester PTA to work with the 10 districts to produce passenger transport arrangements that reflect not only the will of the councils, but the will of those who voted in May.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine whether, when the Bill moves on to the House of Lords, he might amend it so that the Liberals cannot subvert the democratic will of the people of Greater Manchester in this way, and so that we can have the progress that was agreed between the other two major parties in Greater Manchester in respect of essential transport measures. They should be included in our local area agreements so that we can have our busways, tramways and congestion charges, for which the vast majority of the people of Greater Manchester have voted. If we do not have them, the point of the elections will be lost.
At some point in the future we should also look into proportionality. I favour there being a strict basis for that, so that one in three councillors must be an opposition member even if one party has as much as 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of councillors. One third of representation should come from the opposition party, rather than the smaller proportion that it currently has. Perhaps we should take an overall look at proportionality.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into this issue closely and make sure that we are not put into the position that we appear to be about to be put into even though five of the Greater Manchester councils are Labour controlled, one is Conservative and only two are under Liberal Democrat control.
I apologise for not having been present for the opening of the debate.
I wish to speak briefly about my support for amendment No. 253, tabled by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), of which I am a sponsor. I am keen to do so because I endeavoured to introduce a similar measure last year when a private Member’s Bill on climate change was in Committee. Unfortunately, the Government voted it down and continue to set their face against empowering local communities to go further and faster than central Government have so far been prepared to allow them in requiring higher eco-standards in our homes.
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that it would be far better if we were to concern ourselves with outcomes rather than standards that will never be enforced. However, in the absence of a wholesale review of the system—it is unlikely that we shall get one under this Government—if we are to make standards the benchmark by which we operate, we must empower local communities to make the decisions that are right for their new developments and give local people a sense of shared responsibility for eco-friendly developments in their communities.
All too often people ask, “Why are the Government not doing more on climate change to put the Prime Minister’s fine words into action where I live? Why do we struggle to see any difference in the types of development that we see springing up? We see it on the television and we hear politicians talking about it at Westminster, but when we try to do something locally, it just does not happen.”
This small, innocuous amendment would allow progressive councils of all colours—I readily accept that not just Conservative councils but others could take advantage of this measure—to do something outstanding. They want to set a new benchmark for eco-friendly homes, to put microgeneration into practice in their community and to encourage greater energy efficiency. They do not want to be lectured by the House Builders Federation or their lackeys.
We should listen to local people and empower local communities to do something about climate change.
I want to comment briefly on four amendments. First, I welcome the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) that recognise the role of registered social landlords. As he rightly pointed out, RSLs play an important part in the local scene in many areas and are often actively engaged in their local communities and local councils. The amendment would ensure that they were properly included in partnership working in their areas.
I must, however, fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend on amendment No. 253. The clause gives local councils and local communities the freedom to drive up standards in energy efficiency and microgeneration. I add my voice to those of people who feel that that is important. Local partnerships already exist in many areas and are committed to dealing with the climate change issues that challenge us all to drive standards up locally. They would warmly welcome that freedom, which could be built on. Others have referred to the United States, where local communities have led the field and induced national Government to follow.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) introduced the two Liberal Democrat amendments. The mechanism proposed in new clause 30 on relations between central and local government is incredibly cumbersome. He described his approach as simple; I would say it was simplistic. It assumes that the wide range of contacts between central and local government—on community engagement, participation, service delivery and so on—can be brought together annually in a single grand scheme and subject to discussion in a single steering group. The relationships between central and local government are far more complex than the amendment implies and do not lend themselves to a single grand scheme that would seek annually to encompass all the complex relationships that exist.
Finally, although the new clause has received considerable attention from Members, I want to set it in the context of a warm welcome for the steps in the Bill that significantly reduce the burden on local government of targets and inspections. I warmly welcome the moves that the Government are taking to establish the Audit Commission as a gatekeeper for inspection, as well as the provisions that will get the Audit Commission, other inspectors and, indeed, the Government off the back of local government, enabling it get on with the job it was elected to do.
The Bill will result in a worthwhile and praiseworthy story for the Government to tell about reducing the burden of inspection on local government. The mechanism proposed in the new clause is likely to be both unnecessary and cumbersome, so when my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate I encourage him to consider whether there might be mechanisms for reporting the doubtless excellent progress that the Bill will ensure in reinvigorating and regenerating local government.
I sincerely thank Members on both sides of the House for contributing to our well-informed and constructive debate, which built on our discussions in Committee. With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall set out the context for part 5, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) asked, which deals with the relationship between central and local government.
In the light of the Lyons report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made, as we would expect, a wise comment about local government finance. He said that changing the financial relationship between central and local government finance is a marathon, not a sprint. That is equally true in changing the whole relationship; although we can change structures and statutory frameworks, as we are under the Bill, it is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said in relation to the trade union amendment—people, not structures, who change relationships.
We are trying to bring about a culture change in the mindset of central and local government, which is why I am keen to build political consensus in the Local Government Association and in the House, so I shall not respond to the party political points of Opposition Members. Suffice it to say that this year, like last year and the previous 10 to 15 years, discrepancies in local results are increasingly not following national trends; local factors are increasingly coming into play.
My second point is that the Government are criticised from all sides for the target regime—the performance regime under the best value programme and the comprehensive performance assessment. The Government’s case is not that we feel it is right to reduce the number of targets because of mistakes in the past, but rather that local government performance has improved as a consequence of the performance regime, the significant extra resources provided for local government and the hard work and professionalism of local government staff and employees. That is not to say that public satisfaction with local government services, which is an entirely different point, has always improved—it varies from area to area—but objectively, as measured not by the Government but by the Audit Commission and others, the performance of local government has vastly improved.
The intervention strategies set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich are used much less nowadays because of that success. The number of councils enjoying improved performance has increased remarkably. More than 100 councils are now members of the improvement partnership, which is for three and four-star councils. To go back to a party political point, it makes me laugh when Opposition spokesmen criticise the performance regime yet ensure that their leaflets include their councils’ star ratings, which they pray in aid.
It is right to loosen and to devolve. That raises a central paradox that a number of the new clauses and amendments, welcome though they might be in principle, bring to light. If one accepts the premise of the Bill and its devolutionary approach—hon. Members on both sides might wish us to go faster—there is the question of whether one can support amendments that impose targets and provide standardisation across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, there is a dichotomy between equity and devolution. Hon. Members—particularly Liberal Democrat Members—will just have to accept that. The challenge we face is how we square those circles.
It is incumbent on me to put on the record the purpose of the Government amendments and to respond to the debate. I think that the other place would require me to do that, as well, but I shall do so as briefly as possible. On the whole, the amendments respond to requests made in the Public Bill Committee and arise from commitments I have given. There is consensus and I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for welcoming the additions to the list, particularly in relation to the health service. Amendments Nos. 20 to 28 and amendment No. 55 will add a number of bodies to the list of partner authorities in clause 80.
I know that my hon. Friend is in full flow, so I thank him for giving way. He mentioned the addition of partner authorities. Given the title of part 5—“Co-operation of English authorities with local partners, etc”—does he accept that it is incumbent on local authorities to work with their existing partners? Plymouth city council, which is now Conservative-led, has said that, within two weeks and without consulting local police, it will impose a curfew on all 16-year-olds.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and rings a bell of warning about what might be going on in the local authorities of which the Conservatives strained to gain control. She made her point effectively. I shall watch with interest to see how the 16 and 17-year-olds vote in two years’ time. I can imagine that the measure will be a good way of increasing youth turnout. I can guess which way those young people will vote—and it will not be for the party of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
I was saying that the bodies will be subject to the duty to co-operate in determining targets in local area agreements. I fear that those are dry-sounding words, but that measure, along with clause 108, which covers the duty to involve, consult and inform, changes the statutory framework within which local government operates. That is a significant development. The consultation will have regard to local area agreements. Given that a local authority prepares not just an LAA but a sustainable community strategy, there is a relationship between the Bill that we are discussing and the Sustainable Communities Bill—a private Member’s Bill that is in Committee at the moment.
Agreements and strategies will be crucial to capture the vision and agreed priorities in local areas, but it is the engagement and negotiation between local partners, and the way in which they put strategies and agreed targets at the heart of their business, that will make them a success. That is a rather long way of saying, “You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”—the proof of the pudding, in other words. [Laughter.] That is enough metaphors. I will stick to common sense ones in future, as the Committee asked.
The duty to co-operate to determine local improvement targets will ensure that all the key partners in an area take those obligations seriously. It is therefore important that the list is comprehensive in naming the main public sector bodies that deliver or co-ordinate local services. Amendments Nos. 20 to 28 and 55 reflect a number of commitments that I made in Committee to add further bodies to the list. They also deal with other bodies, which I shall briefly discuss.
Amendments Nos. 20, 23 and 28 will add NHS trusts and foundation trusts to the list. In Committee, we enjoyed a good discussion on the merits of including those bodies in the duty to co-operate, and I made a commitment to do so through Government amendments. I made it clear, however, that by including them we did not wish to place on them, or the responsible local authorities, any unnecessary burdens, and I am satisfied that the amendments will not do so, but will instead ensure that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are involved in negotiations only where they operate hospitals, establishments or other facilities in the area covered by the LAA—what we refer to as the Great Ormond Street problem.
A further commitment that I made in Committee was to add Transport for London to the list of partner authorities, and that will be the effect of amendments Nos. 22 and 27. I made it clear that I consider that the duties of co-operation most sensibly rest on the Greater London authority’s functional bodies—the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London Development Agency and Transport for London—rather than on the authority itself, which of course has its own accountability function.
I remember the discussion in Committee. The one concern that I am left with is the degree to which the Greater London assembly will properly scrutinise the work of the functional bodies when they are carrying out these arrangements. Assembly members have frequently encountered difficulty in getting as much information as they would wish from the Mayor’s functional bodies. In particular, there are constraints on the summoning of the functional bodies’ officials that do not apply to the summoning of GLA officials. Will the Minister look again at the matter to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the working of the arrangements?
I will of course do as the hon. Gentleman asks. We do not want to over-burden public authorities with scrutiny. We want the right and appropriate level of scrutiny, and the Bill talks about overview and scrutiny at some length.
The amendments that I have described so far will fulfil the commitments that I made to add bodies to the list. However, I wish to add several further bodies that we did not have the opportunity to discuss in Committee. Amendment No. 21 deals with the arrangements for joint waste authorities, which might in future be established under clause 165(1), while amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 55 will add the Arts Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to the list. The amendments will ensure that all the key bodies delivering or co-ordinating waste services and cultural resources in an area are fully involved in partnership working through the negotiation of LAAs and sustainable communities strategies.
Amendments Nos. 92 to 95 are technical measures that will permit the Secretary of State to vary or revoke a direction made under clauses 82 and 87, and to revoke a direction made under clause 91, about which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked.
I turn now to the Opposition amendments, and in particular new clause 29. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) said, the new clause would place a highly prescriptive, unnecessary and bureaucratic burden on the relationship between central and local government. It would require the Government to produce a report every year for each local authority responsible for producing an LAA. The report’s objective would be to chart the Government’s progress in delivering the greater devolution promised in the White Paper. Although of course I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause—the desire to hold the Government to account—there are far better mechanisms than this prescriptive proposal.
The new clause would ensure that information on the number of local improvement targets and ring-fenced grants and on the volume of guidance and the degree of approval processes was made available to localities area by area. However, the point that I emphasise—particularly to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, who raised this point and whose attention I hope to get—is that the 35 targets set under the new regime will vary from one local authority area to another. They are not national targets imposed on every council, but targets selected by the local authority in agreement with its partners. Placing a duty to co-operate on the partners, as the Bill does, is the right to way to deliver the changes.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House supported amendment No. 253. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) should be commended—and has been—for his work. I ask him to be patient slightly longer. We are debating a local government Bill. Although his proposals prompted a debate today, including a fascinating and revealing exchange between the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, they are in large part about planning as well as about the relationship between central and local government. Again, the paradox is that all the speakers who referred to the amendment welcomed the devolutionary approach, yet we are discussing the imposition of targets because they happen to be targets that we all like.
Whatever is done, should we not recognise that we are a long way behind those on the continent of Europe in terms of the energy efficiency of homes in particular? Germany has 100 times more homes with solar heating panels on the roof than the UK has. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Government must take a more forceful approach?
The proposition is that we are a long way behind our partners in Europe. I accept that. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is significantly changing that, and we have started to discuss it.
Amendment No. 253 is, in principle, supported by the Government. We too feel that energy standards and microgeneration for new buildings are key to the long-term environmental development of our communities. That is why in the last Parliament we introduced the Bill that became the Energy Act 2004. We have also stated that the Government intend to legislate to set out clearly the role of local planning authorities in improving energy efficiency and tackling climate change. That will allow us to make legislative proposals in the light of the responses to the consultation on the planning policy statement and within the wider context of the measures that we will set out in the planning White Paper on continuing our reforms to the planning process. That will be done shortly. We are also committed to changing from the community strategies that the Local Government Act 2000 obliges local authorities to produce to the sustainable community strategies required by the Sustainable Communities Bill—a private Member’s Bill currently in Committee.
Those three measures all reflect the growing importance of sustainable development issues and emphasise the leading role that local communities have in managing their environment. I hear the words of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal about time, but the Government are making their proposals. We do not believe that it is right to bolt such measures on to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. We believe that our proposals, when hon. Members have seen them in the round, will be warmly welcomed—especially in the beautiful constituency of Gower, represented by my hon. Friend who made such a compelling case.
I hear what the Minister says, and we understand that he is in earnest, but we have heard it all before; we have heard it said that the Government are committed in principle but wish to shelve the measure before us. The fact is that he is talking about yet more iterative consultation, and there have been no guarantees. We legislators have the ability to make a difference today. We cannot hang around waiting for things to happen when it comes to climate change; we have to act now. There is a real imperative to make changes, and this afternoon is an opportunity to do so.
I have watched the hon. Gentleman’s progress since the election with interest. He needs to learn that legislating is not writing press releases. He referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as a lackey of the building industry; my right hon. Friend wisely, and with typical generosity, did not respond to the accusation. My right hon. Friend made a point on behalf of people who know what they are talking about.
What has that got to do with—
Let me finish my point before Opposition Whips start heckling, as they usually do when a point is made that they do not like. The commencement date for the Bill is next April. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) does not know what the commencement date will be for the measures introduced under planning legislation. He misses the point of the code for sustainable homes, which is perhaps not the most advanced in Europe but which the environmental lobby recognises is one of the best. It is right that when we legislate we do so in the round. It is also contradictory for him to call for further and proper consultation and the involvement of communities, only to say that we should act today. Perhaps we should consult on what we propose; that is the spirit of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which he supported.
I really must make progress. The right hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak, and there are a number of amendments to consider.
I give way to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt),
I am grateful to the Minister; I know that he wants to move on, but I want to make an important point. Taking the personal exchanges out of the matter, am I right in thinking that the Minister does not intend to accept amendment No. 253 today? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said, that would be a further example of delay, delay, delay. The Minister has the opportunity to commit the Government to a measure to which an awful lot of Members have signed up. We should bear in mind the history: some time ago, the Government killed the Local Planning Authorities (Energy and Energy Efficiency) Bill, and the amendment reflects the substance of that Bill. Putting personalities aside, surely this is the opportunity to take a clear and definite step. I will be concerned if the Minister indicates that he will not accept the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, but on this occasion he has clearly not listened to my response on the amendment. It is a bit unfair to say that the Government are dragging their feet and not taking the opportunity before them, given that I have clearly outlined the measures that we propose to take, which include a commitment to legislation, as I have said. He is right that we are asking the House to resist the amendment if it is pushed to a Division, not because we disagree with its objective but because we want to get the measures right, using the proper processes. I do not think that he addressed the point—I apologise if he did—that planning policy and planning law is the other side of the coin.
Let me bring my remarks to a conclusion, because there are other amendments to discuss, and we have provided a generous amount of time to discuss the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) mentioned Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and the commitment to balance and proportionality—principles that are sometimes found on leaflets, but sometimes not practised. I know that Liberal Democrat Members will listen carefully to this next point: my hon. Friend asked me to look into the Liberal Democrats’ subversion of the democratic will of the people of Greater Manchester. I have devoted my political life to addressing that issue, so I certainly undertake to do as he says.
My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North and for Blaydon asked about trade unions. They said that employees were key to the change, and they are. Let me make it perfectly clear that clause 108, which is the second pillar of the change to the statutory framework, applies to trade unions. We not only welcome employee involvement and consultation, but believe that it is essential to improve services. Our attitude is that if we want to improve services, it is best to ask the people who deliver them; that is a better way of doing things. So, again, the intention behind the amendment is covered.
I think that I have dealt with all the specific issues that were raised. We have other groups of amendments and new clauses to consider, so I ask the House to resist new clause 29 and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gower to consider withdrawing his amendment.
There is much that we can welcome in what the Minister said, particularly the extension of the list of bodies to include NHS trusts and foundation trusts—they were serious omissions from the original Bill—and the Arts Council, museums, libraries and archives. However, given that such organisations were missed, I wonder whether in months to come we might find others that should have been included.
We had a passionate debate on amendment No. 253 and a number of Members made very strong cases, particularly the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton). If he presses the amendment to a vote, he will receive our support and he will also receive it if it appears in another place. I think that the Minister said that the Government were already working on this issue—or that the Chancellor is, at least, in the form of eco-homes. I remind the Minister that so far, the Chancellor has issued a press release, so there is still quite a lot of work to be done. [Interruption.] It was doubtless an important press release—but just a press release.
New clause 30 would establish within a year a representative body from local and central Government, which is surely achievable, even given the difficulties experienced in moving matters forward apace in this place. The Minister said that there were better ways of achieving a reduction in regulation than new clause 29, but he did not outline what they were. I certainly did not get from him today the sense of urgency that we, local councils and councillors feel about the need to reduce the regulatory burden quickly. On that basis, we will press new clause 29 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Clause 80
Application of Chapter: partner authorities
Amendments made: No. 20, page 54, line 31, after ‘area;’ insert—
‘(aa) any person mentioned in subsection (2A) who provides services at or from a hospital or other establishment or facility which falls within the responsible local authority’s area;’.
No. 21, page 54, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) a joint waste authority established under section 165(1);’.
No. 22, page 55, line 3, at end insert—
‘(ha) Transport for London;’.
No. 23, page 55, line 10, at end insert—
‘(2A) The persons referred to in subsection (1)(aa) are—
(a) a National Health Service trust;
(b) an NHS foundation trust.’.
No. 24, page 55, line 11, at end insert—
‘(za) the Arts Council of England;’.
No. 25, page 55, line 16, at end insert—
‘(ea) the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;’.
No. 26, page 55, line 40, leave out ‘relation to’ and insert ‘the case of’.
No. 27, page 55, line 41, at end insert—
‘(d) in the case of Transport for London, Greater London.’.
No. 28, page 55, line 43, after ‘(2)’ insert ‘(2A)’.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]
Clause 81
“Local improvement targets”: interpretation
Amendment proposed: No. 253, page 56, line 13, after ‘area’, insert
‘, including targets relating to energy efficiency standards and microgeneration, as defined by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) in buildings in new developments,’.—[Michael Fabricant.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 247.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Order. We must deal with the amendments before points of order.
Clause 82
Duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement
Amendment made: No. 92, page 57, line 14, at end insert—
‘( ) A direction under subsection (1) may be varied or revoked.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 87
Designated targets: revision proposals
Amendment made: No. 93, page 59, line 30, at end insert—
‘( ) A direction under subsection (1)(b) may be varied or revoked.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 89
Duty to publish information about local area agreement
Amendment made: No. 94, page 60, line 26, leave out ‘by a further direction under that subsection’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 91
Health and social care: joint strategic needs assessment
Amendment made: No. 95, page 61, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) A direction under subsection (2)(a) may be revoked.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 172
Health Services and social services: local involvement networks
I beg to move amendment No. 32, page 121, line 15, at end insert—
‘(aa) enabling people to monitor, and review, the commissioning and provision of local care services;’.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 76, page 121, line 23, at end insert ‘and to patients and the public’.
Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34
Amendment No. 77, page 122, line 10, clause 173, at end insert
‘and who does not commission or provide local care services’.
Government amendments Nos. 35 and 36
Amendment No. 78, page 123, line 4, clause 175, leave out ‘view’ and insert ‘inspect’.
Amendment No. 131, page 123, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
Government amendment No. 37
Amendment No. 132, page 123, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
Government amendment Nos. 38 and 39
Amendment No. 79, page 124, line 5, clause 176, leave out ‘social’.
Government amendment Nos. 40 to 54
Amendment No. 80, page 126, line 32, leave out clause 179.
Amendment No. 81, page 127, line 24, leave out clause 180.
Amendment No. 82, page 129, line 5, clause 182, leave out ‘significant’.
Amendment No. 83, page 129, line 7, leave out ‘significant’.
Amendment No. 84, page 129, leave out lines 9 to 14.
Amendment No. 249, page 129, line 14, at end insert ‘, or
(c) the means by which the users of those services can scrutinise the provision of those services.’.
Amendment No. 85, page 129, leave out lines 15 to 20.
Amendment No. 75, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
‘(1GA) A relevant English body in proposing a significant change in services delivered in a way likely to affect patients’ physical access or transport to a service must consult with—
(a) the local involvement network,
(b) relevant patient groups, and
(c) the appropriate transport authority,
and report in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe prior to implementing those changes on the results of such consultation.
(1GB) For the purposes of subsection (1GA), a change in services is “significant” if implementation of the change would have a substantial impact on—
(a) the manner in which services are delivered to users of those services, or
(b) the range of health services available to those users.’.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask whether you have had any request from the Minister for Housing and Planning to make a statement—
Order. I must deal with the Question that I am putting to the House. [Interruption.]
Apologies, I could not hear what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Government amendment No. 32 relates to local involvement in health networks—LINKs—which were debated in full in Committee.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has just voted on an amendment about energy efficiency that completely contradicts the position taken by the Minister for Housing and Planning yesterday, when she castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for his position on—
Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to start again the debate that we have just completed. We must now move on to the next business.
Order. The matter is one for debate. It is not a matter for the Chair to deal with at this point.
I apologise if I contributed to the confusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Part 13 fits with the overarching themes of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, in ensuring greater opportunities for local people to influence and shape services in their areas, and to hold local authorities and service providers more accountable to them. The inclusion of the provisions tells a coherent story of the Government’s efforts to promote public engagement. Part 13 has three components: first, the establishment of LINKs; secondly, the abolition of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and patients forums; and thirdly, the clarification and strengthening of requirements to consult patients and the public.
LINKs will enable far more people to be genuinely involved than is currently the case, ensuring that local communities have a stronger voice in the commissioning and provision of health and social care, and enabling them to influence key decisions about the services that they both use and pay for. LINKs take an important step beyond the existing powers of patients forums by enabling local people to have a greater say in social care as well as health services. They will build on the good work of the forums, making possible genuine involvement in a much wider range of ways than is currently available. They will ensure that local communities have a stronger voice in the process of commissioning health and social care and becoming involved in decisions about their local health and social care services.
Local authorities will have a duty to make contractual arrangements for the involvement of people in the commissioning, provision and scrutiny of health services and social care. That will allow the funding stream to go straight to the local level, ensuring that as much money as possible is available to fund front-line activity. The abolition of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is one element of the overall drive to reduce the arm’s length body sector, releasing centralised funding to the local level.
I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy, as ever, in giving way to me.
I understand the way in which the funds will reach local authorities—I see the logic behind that—but perhaps the Minister could help a constituent of mine, who feels that if the purpose of LINKs is effectively to scrutinise social services and their involvement, that will be difficult if social services departments are brought into the organisation and the setting up of the LINKs. What safeguards will be provided to ensure that that process is genuinely arm's length, and LINKs have enough robustness and capacity to ensure their independence in such circumstances?
As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made a measured contribution. There are two answers to his question. I have thought about this a good deal.
The first answer is that the local authority establishes the host, which is independent. The host is then responsible for ensuring the existence of the LINK, so the process is at two removes. It could be argued that the existing arrangement, whereby central funds effectively fund the commission, means that it is not independent from Government, but that is not my experience. It is robust in its independence, and rightly so.
The second answer is that the same argument could be used in relation to overview and scrutiny. It could be said that local authorities hold themselves to account through overview and scrutiny committees, whose activities are funded by local authorities. I think the hon. Gentleman will just have to trust local authorities, as I do.
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. The only difference, I think, is this. The people who make up the LINKs are often in the voluntary sector, and will not always have the same degree of experience and support as back-bench councillors, or the leverage that they can employ in dealing with overview and scrutiny arrangements. What safeguards can be introduced to ensure that the LINKs are not overwhelmed by the host?
That too is a reasonable point. I think independence can be guaranteed though the active encouragement of the voluntary sector that is behind the measure. The relationship will require the local authority to establish a host, and the host will be required to ensure, through a fair process, that a LINK is established. But there is an interface, and if we are to involve the voluntary sector, as I think we all want to do, we must reconcile the issues.
Part 13 of the Bill clarifies and strengthens the current legislation on health service consultation, and requires NHS organisations to involve and consult. We intend to give primary care trusts a new statutory duty to respond to local people, explaining the activities that they are undertaking as a result of what people have said throughout the year. There will be a structured process whereby commissioners will publish regular reports of what they have done differently as a result of what they have heard, and explain why they may not have pursued some of the suggestions.
My hon. Friend will be aware of concerns that the Bill diminishes and dilutes the obligation on health bodies to consult on service changes. Will he assure us that that is not the case?
I can, and I know of my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter. The Bill does the opposite; it strengthens the obligation. In developing these LINK bodies, and in the wider context of bringing together local authorities and other agencies, we are trying to provide a much stronger interface between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector. In committee, I described it as the interface between participative democracy and representative democracy. This is why I earlier described the process as a marathon, not a sprint. However, the general direction of travel is that which my hon. Friend desires.
Amendment No. 32 would add to the activities that it is proposed LINKs will be able to undertake. It will enable LINKs to monitor and review the commissioning and provision of local care services. In Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) proposed that LINKs should have a role in monitoring services, much as patient forums did before. It was suggested that the role of monitoring was proactive. I agree. We have always thought that LINKs should be proactive in seeking the views of people, promoting their involvement and monitoring the commissioning and provision of services. The amendment is intended to clarify that role. LINKs will be able to monitor the range and quality of care services using the intelligence that they have gathered as well as their power to enter and view services. They will be ideally placed to make reports and recommendations to those responsible for care services.
Amendment No. 33 alters the power given to the Secretary of State in clause 172(3), so that the Secretary of State has the power only to add to the activities of a LINK and not to remove or vary those activities. I hope that Opposition and Government Members will welcome the announcement. That was one of our early champagne moments; I have not forgotten my obligation—[Interruption]—when we receive Royal Assent. As I said in Committee, the Department of Health will be asked to contribute.
The regulation-making power was originally included to allow adjustments to be made to the role of LINKs where necessary to reflect future changes in the nature of health and social care. We felt that it was important to have this flexibility as we know that patient forums have suffered from being too rigidly prescribed in primary legislation. That has made them, on occasion, unable to adapt to changing circumstances around them. Again, this issue was raised in Committee. The concern was that the power could be used to restrict the role of LINKs at some future date. That was far from our intention; the clause was intended to safeguard the role of LINKs for the future while making them able to adapt.
Further, it was intended that the regulation-making power would be subject to the affirmative procedure to reassure Parliament that it would not be used without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, we would need to get the endorsement of the House to make such a change. As this has proved to be of concern to Members, we have reconsidered the clause. We are eager to demonstrate our commitment to LINKs and we do not feel that it would be necessary or desirable to remove any of the functions of the LINKs as they are currently drafted. Therefore, we are happy to reassure hon. Members by removing the power to vary and omit these activities. The power to add to the activities of LINKs has been retained to ensure that their roles can be adapted in the future.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 54 cover two distinct, but related, areas; Nos. 34 to 41, 49 and 54 relate to what can constitute a LINK. Nos. 42 to 48 and 50 to 53 concern the annual reports. In Committee, concern was expressed that the existing clause 173(2)(b), which states that a LINK could be
“any other means put in place under the arrangements for the carrying-on in A’s area of activities so specified for that area”
could allow a LINK to be an entirely virtual entity. When I first heard of that point I was amused by it, but on considering it I thought that an issue had been raised, in the context of this modern world. The amendment addresses that.
The clause as drafted would allow for virtual LINKs, but it is of course not our intention that that is how their activities would be carried out. The Bill was drafted in this way to allow some flexibility and to provide a fall-back position in the unlikely scenario that there was no one in an area who wanted to participate in a LINK. It allows a local authority to contract with a host organisation and for the host to provide opportunities—or the means for people—to carry out the LINK activities. In light of the concerns that were expressed about the virtual entity possibility and given that it is not our intention that LINKs should take this form, I introduced amendment No. 34, which removes the possibility of there being “any other means” to establish a LINK. Therefore, they will be populated by people, which is of course what everybody wants—real people, as opposed to virtual people.
This proposed change has led to some significant redrafting of associated clauses; as ever, I am grateful to officials and parliamentary counsel for their diligent work. Amendments Nos. 35 to 41, 49 and 54 are all consequential amendments needed to reflect the change to clause 173(2). They remove references to “any other means”.
The second group of amendments relates to LINKs annual reports. Provisions in clause 177 to do with LINKs reports have also been amended. Amendment No. 44 in particular adjusts the requirement for arrangements to make provision in respect of annual reports. The responsibility for writing the report will usually rest with the LINK. However, if the LINK does not produce that report—for instance because it has been in place for only a part of the year—it will be the host’s responsibility to produce the report for any missing period. If a host has not been successful in establishing a LINK, the host will report on any activities that have been undertaken for the purpose of ensuring that there are means by which the LINK activities are carried out. It will also report on what sums it has spent in its efforts to establish a LINK.
Although the amendments might appear to take some working through, many of them are consequential amendments that aim to address the concerns expressed by Committee members that a LINK could take an entirely virtual form. They also seek to clarify who should be responsible for the annual report. That is an important point. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) raised the issue about the timing and scheduling of the establishment of LINKs and the overlap with the existing arrangements. I hope that Members will be reassured by our proposed changes and what I have said about them.
I welcome some of the Minister’s amendments; it is clear that the Government have, to a certain extent at least, listened in Committee, particularly in respect of amendments Nos. 32 to 34. However, it should be said that the measures in part 13 of the Bill would bring about a radical change in the NHS. They would fundamentally alter the structure of public and patient involvement in health, notably by scrapping patient forums. Therefore, it is unfortunate that these measures have been included at the fag-end of a Bill dealing with local government—a Bill that does not even have the word “patient” in the title. Some might conclude that that shows the low priority that patient and public involvement has been given under this Government.
Many would consider this yet another pointless reorganisation. Ministers abolished community health councils in the face of widespread opposition and replaced them with a myriad of costly, fragmentary bodies. Now, only four years after setting up patient forums, the Government are abolishing their own reforms at a cost of about £120 million to the taxpayer. Those figures have been audited. Hard-working volunteers up and down the country are appalled that yet another reorganisation is on the cards, believing it to represent a weakening of the patient’s voice and public scrutiny. We know that they have told the Government as much, but Ministers have still not published the submissions from forums to the document, “A stronger local voice”.
My remarks on the Bill, which reflect the amendments tabled, will focus on a number of key concerns. My first concern is with regard to the role of LINKs as defined in clause 172. The Government have introduced several amendments in respect of points that we raised in Committee. As I said, I welcome those, but we believe that an opportunity has been missed to make the Bill even better. Government amendment No. 32 would add the words:
“enabling people to monitor, and review, the commissioning and provision of local care services”
to the list of local activities. Before that, according to the Government, LINKs would have been nothing more than a conduit for people expressing their views. As we argued in Committee, LINKs should be about much more than that, and I am pleased that the Government agree.
It was always a role of patient forums to monitor services, and that should be allowed to continue. The amendment allows the public to have a proactive role in reviewing and, ultimately, improving the quality of services. That is to be welcomed. Without that function, the right to enter and view premises would be simply another means to gather views, and not a remit to inspect and critically assess health and social services.
There is one further activity that needs to be included in the Bill, and that is what we hope to achieve with amendment No. 76. It would require LINKs to report back to local people as well as to other bodies, such as primary care trusts. The Government’s view is that LINKs are primarily a conduit for local people to express their views about the commissioning and provision of services. We believe that the flow of information needs to be two-way. That is especially important if Government amendment No. 32 is passed, as it is likely to be. LINKs will then have a proactive role in monitoring and finding out about services. The findings should be brought to the attention of local people. They need to hear back about how they are being represented, while the sharing of information generally facilitates patient choice and promotes accountability in the broadest sense. I therefore invite the Minister to accept our amendment.
Government amendment No. 33 is a step in the right direction. It is another concession in response to the point that we raised in Committee, in that it denies the Secretary of State the power to restrict the activities of LINKs. Our fear was that the definition of patient and public involvement included in the Bill could be rewritten entirely by the Secretary of State without having to return to the Floor of the House. It would certainly make a mockery of our careful consideration of the Bill if the House were to approve this part in its current form.
My second concern is about the composition of LINKs, as covered by clause 173. This is one of the vaguest parts of the Bill, and has been the cause of confusion among patient volunteers about future arrangements. Government amendment No. 34 helps because, as the Minister has already highlighted, it removes the possibility of a LINK being a purely virtual arrangement—that is, one without individuals or organisations being directly involved. Clearly, that would be unacceptable. I know that the amendment has been tabled following probing by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in Committee, and I welcome it.
The Government amendment, however, still leaves too many questions unanswered, in particular about the rules for membership and the arrangements for governance of the LINK. The Government’s aspiration is clearly to get as many people as possible involved in health and social care by giving them the freedom to drop in and out of patient and user involvement. However, the larger the LINK becomes, the more infrequently some of its members are involved, and the more difficult and unwieldy it becomes for it to decide on programmes of work and undertake a proactive role in monitoring services.
Therefore, we believe that there needs to be a core group of dedicated members who have training, expenses and support to give leadership, drive and focus to the work of the LINK. Current members of patient forums are good candidates for such a role, but that is not being delivered by the legislation. At the moment, the Bill leaves such matters to chance. There will be some vague arrangement, whereby the host organisation and the LINK will somehow put such arrangements into place. In short, Parliament will vote a large sum of money to set up LINKs without knowing what we are getting in return—and that takes me to my third concern.
It is still not clear how much influence the host is meant to have over the LINK—for example, in determining the governance arrangements—which leaves the way open for a possible conflict of interest. Our amendment No. 77 would ensure that the host organisation was not a provider of local services to be monitored by the LINK; otherwise a clear conflict of interest might arise, because the host organisation would on the one hand be providing a service for the local authority, while on the other hand it would be part of an organisation whose responsibility it was to monitor the effectiveness of that service—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire made a related point earlier. That would be nonsense, and the conflict of interest problem needs to be addressed. If the Government object to our amendment, it is for the Minister to explain exactly how they intend to require prospective host organisations to demonstrate an ability to manage such a conflict of interest.
In Government amendments Nos. 42 to 52, the Minister introduces the concept of non-networked activities carried out by the host organisation and requires the host to report on them annually. Exactly what are non-networked activities? It is not clear in the measure. Are they activities relating to the formation of a LINK, and if so, will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box that they are the only activities that host will be able to undertake independently of the LINK? If not, we shall be creating much uncertainty.
My fourth point is extremely important, and it relates to the right of LINKs to enter and inspect premises. The opinion of current forum members is particularly vexed on that subject; indeed, the Government agreed to include a limited power—to view premises—only after the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) was ambushed at a meeting of irate volunteers last autumn, at which I was present. Where patient forums have been successful—for example, in putting the spotlight on cleanliness or the quality of hospital food—the power to enter and inspect premises has often been key. However, the Bill contains only a watered down version of that power—to enter and view.
Our amendment would replace the word “view” with the word “inspect”, because there is a fundamental difference between the two. In our book, “to view” means that one is simply collecting information, whereas “to inspect” suggests something more—that services are being monitored against set guidelines. The reason given in Committee for the Government’s opposition to our proposal was:
“LINKs members are not inspectors or regulators as covered by the inspectorate regime.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2007; c. 545.]
A fair comment, one might think—but the Government’s approach completely misses the point. I ask the Minister to address this point: there is such a thing as lay inspection, influenced by patients, which is what patient forum members around the country have been doing. They are a critical friend rather than a formal regulator; they build up relationships with members of staff and the management, and their visits are more frequent and spontaneous than those of the Healthcare Commission. That approach has worked well, so it is a shame that the Government are blind to the excellent work of patients forum members in that respect.
I commend my hon. Friend’s case for the importance of a statutory definition of the word “inspect”. In Committee, we had an interesting debate about the need to pay close attention to definitions, so should the Minister not explain why there is no such definition in the measure? He tried to reassure us that to all intents and purposes LINKs would have the power of inspection as part of their function, but why is there no definition in the Bill?
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We probed the Government on that point in Committee, but as yet we have not had a satisfactory answer, although I hope the Minister will put that right today. In fact, I would suggest that the Government are so blind to the benefit of this approach that their own draft regulations subordinate the few inspection rights that LINKs members have to the work of the regulator—for example, by requiring LINKs to obtain the agreement of the regulator before making a visit and to co-ordinate their work.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 might provide an opportunity to restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to impose limitations on the rights of LINKs to enter and view or inspect premises. However, there is still time for the Minister to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box not to fetter the right of LINKs to make spot checks on premises that they are entitled to enter. It is absolutely right to say that we have not had a satisfactory explanation of why the Government seem so concerned about the ability of LINKs to enter and inspect. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that point.
I now turn to perhaps the most important part of the debate. Conservative amendments Nos. 80 and 81 would save patients forums from abolition. They reflect a number of concerns and observations that we have about the manner in which the Government are proceeding. There are too many questions about LINKs that the Government seem either unwilling or unable to answer. Issues such as the composition of LINKs, the potential conflict of interests and the right to inspect have not been properly addressed. For that reason, we believe that it is unwise to abolish what presently exists, and works increasingly well, and to replace it with a structure about which we have many doubts.
First, let us not be fooled by the talk of building on forums or turning forums into LINKs. The truth is that forums are being abolished and LINKs are being created from scratch. When community health councils were abolished, many hard-working volunteers were lost to the system. Too little of that expertise made the transfer to patient forums. I fear that the same mistake will bedevil LINKs. Ministers have said that they hope that patients forum members will be included in LINKs. I have heard that many times from the Minister. But such inclusion cannot be guaranteed. It is in the gift of the host organisations. We do not want to lose the body of expertise that has been built up over the last four years.
Secondly, I remain concerned that funding from the Department of Health might be prevented from reaching the front line of patient and public involvement. The money given to local councils will be targeted, but crucially, it will not be ring-fenced. The expert panel that developed or helped to develop the idea of LINKs did not propose that funding would be handled in that way. Money intended for health could end up being siphoned off by local government, which could be under financial pressure in relation to a whole range of issues. I challenge the Minister to explain, even at this late stage, how that can be guarded against. If the Government are serious about targeting the money, why should it not be ring-fenced?
Thirdly, although the focus of LINKs is understandably local, the Government have shown a complete lack of leadership on the question of a national voice for patients. Ironically, after years of delay, the patients forums have finally persuaded the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to help them to develop a national organisation, but if patients forums are abolished, it looks as if that national organisation will be abandoned. LINKs would put nothing in its place.
Finally, questions of accountability have not been answered. It is not clear what sanctions exist if the LINKs are not performing well. Patients forums are ultimately responsible to the commission, which is an independent body. I accept that we do not want to give too many organisations a lever of undue influence over the LINK or the host organisation, but clearly there must be accountability when it comes to the use of public money, and what is done in the name of local people. That accountability is sadly lacking. Patients forum volunteers up and down the country have worked hard, despite some of them being badly served by patchy administrative support and hesitant leadership from the commission. Given our reservations, I would like to test the opinion of the House on amendment No. 80.
I should say a few words about amendments Nos. 82 to 85, which seek to challenge the inclusion of the word “significant” as a qualification on the duty to consult. Our fear is that that represents a mechanism by which consultation can be restricted, rather than enhanced. Ministers have said that a threshold is needed to prevent mischievous or vexatious interpretations of the duty and to avoid consultation fatigue on trivial changes. However, I am aware of no specific examples—none at all—of that being a problem under the current arrangements, which, as far as we are concerned, do not include such a qualification.
Indeed, it is difficult not to be a little sceptical about this measure, because the definition of what is significant is often controversial; it is a very subjective term. Some of the examples given by the Minister in Committee, such as a reduction in the number of beds in a hospital or changes to a GP’s opening hours, might well be considered significant by patients, but not by the health service bureaucracy. The last thing we ought to be doing is setting the scene for legal wrangling, when the promise of the document “A stronger local voice” was to clarify the duty to consult.
In conclusion, the Government have failed to make the case for LINKs. Too many of our questions remain unanswered. There may be a need to improve patient and public involvement in health by enabling more people to get involved in more flexible ways and to join up health and social care. However, that could and should have been achieved by reforming patients forums and building on their expertise, rather than abolishing them and starting from scratch. Too much taxpayers’ money is being wasted, and perhaps more importantly, too much expertise risks being wasted.
Instead, the Government seek to abolish the system that they put in place only four years ago. They are betraying the hard work and dedication of volunteers, who do not understand what they have done wrong or why they are being got rid of. If the system of patients forums has failed, it is only because Ministers have made mistakes. They should not be allowed to walk away from those mistakes without being called to account in the Division Lobbies of this House.
We have sought to improve LINKs and make them workable, and I believe that the Government’s amendments would, to a certain extent, help to do that. However, key questions still have not been answered about the composition, membership and governance of LINKs, about their rights to enter and inspect premises and about the relationship between them and the host organisations. Crucially, I do not believe that LINKs represent continuity and retention of expertise within patient and public involvement in health. They represent careless reorganisation and uncertainty—something that the NHS has had far too much of in recent years. For that reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, and with your permission, my colleagues and I will call on the House to vote against the abolition of forums by supporting our amendment No. 80.
I support amendment No. 249 to clause 182, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). This simple amendment is about fairness, accountability and ensuring a level playing field in consultation. In Committee there was a welcome acknowledgement by Ministers that the Government would ensure that health commissioners included clauses in contracts with independent health care providers, obliging them to allow LINKs access to premises. That is important, and we look forward to seeing the guidance that will accompany the legislation.
As we know, however, there is a difference between providing guidance and having something in black and white in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Bill does not achieve a level playing field regarding the scrutiny to which health providers will be subjected, whether by LINKs or by local authority overview and scrutiny committees. The Government’s choice agenda will mean that health services are increasingly likely to be run by providers from the private and voluntary sectors. I have strenuously opposed the privatisation of our health services, and will continue to do so; nevertheless, it is happening. I want to ensure that local people can hold service providers to account, because that has never been more important.
We need to strengthen health scrutiny arrangements, not weaken them. In contrast to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said earlier, last month the Health Committee’s report on patient and public involvement highlighted a number of the problems in the Bill. Arguably the most important point made by the Committee was that the Bill weakens consultation by restricting to “significant” decisions the obligation to consult local communities under section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, now section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Clause 182 concerns the definition of “significant”. Two areas are already included: the manner in which services are delivered and the range of health services available. That is helpful, but it is not enough. The amendment would add a third tier to the definition: whether the ability to scrutinise services is affected. In effect, that would mean that if provision of a given health service was to be transferred to an organisation or company that was not subject to the same levels of scrutiny as the NHS, the public would have the right to be consulted on whether they wanted the change.
The Select Committee also criticised the fact that too many sham consultation exercises are carried out in the health service. Patients and the public want and need to be actively involved in the delivery of their health care, and engaged by meaningful consultation. The more that we as Members of Parliament can do to facilitate that, the better.
I, too, have been concerned about the changes in patient representation. I was more than uncomfortable about the abolition of community health councils. In Luton, we had a shop front in the town centre where patients could go in and talk to people; they did not have to write a letter or engage in any difficult communication. What they wanted to talk about was dealt with face to face over a counter in the town centre. That has now gone, replaced to some extent by the patient advice and liaison service in the hospital and by PPI forums.
Luton has a strong PPI forum, led robustly by my very good friend and constituent, Mrs. Josephine MacLean, who keeps the local health service on its toes; that is her job. However, her position is to disappear and I am concerned about that. I want to make sure that the replacement is at least as robust, and that people like Mrs. MacLean, who have the interests of patients and my constituents at heart and fight for them, will have a role in the new arrangements and will be able to take a strong position on both the remaining public sector part of the national health service and on any services that move to the private sector.
I suspect that the private sector is not keen on having strong patient representation. It does not want to be so accountable. Perhaps it prefers to rely on market forces—after all, under the choice agenda, if something does not work with one provider, one goes to another—but that is not good enough. Private providers will get away with murder unless they are held to account through some sort of local patient representation. We must have robust representation. I hope that the Government will take note of that point and accept my amendment.
I shall not go over arguments made in Committee about LINKs and their funding, representation on those bodies, the fact that there is no national umbrella organisation that will be able to pull together issues that individual LINKs identify, and the fact that it appears that lessons have not been learned from the abolition of community health councils. I shall comment on our amendment No. 75, but first I confirm that if the official Opposition press amendment No. 80, which would delete the clause that provides for the abolition of patients forums, to a Division, we shall certainly join them in the Lobby to support it.
We intend to press amendment No. 75, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), to a Division. The Times today contains a topical article that refers to Conservative research on the possibility that half of all A and E units may be marked for closure. That is what our amendment is specifically about. I see the Minister shake his head to indicate that that is not the intention, but I suspect that he would confirm that, according to current Government guidance, the population figure that such units are required to cover is in the order of 450,000. Given the number of A and E departments operating today that do not have a catchment population of that size, we can extrapolate how many the Government might, in an ideal world, want to be taken out of the system.
Amendment No. 75 provides that if a significant change is proposed to health services that would affect their accessibility, all the relevant parties—LINKs, patient groups and transport authorities—should be consulted and they should report the impact in a way that the Secretary of State may determine and thereby put the focus on the impact on patients of reduced accessibility to services.
When the Minister responds, he will no doubt refer to the debate in Committee and simply say that the matter is covered by proposed new subsection (1D)(a) of section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which is set out in clause 182(2). Our amendment would ensure that there was a much greater focus on the subject, and it would mean that the issue of the accessibility of services was not hidden away in the Bill’s small print. I hope that the Minister will say something positive about the amendment and will accept it; it has been put forward in a constructive manner. If he cannot or will not accept it, it is our intention to press it to a Division.
I shall touch on three issues that hon. Members have already raised. The first is the abolition of patient forums. I am glad that we all resisted the temptation to rehearse the history of community health councils, but I share the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the questionable wisdom of abolishing forums. To repeat a point that the Select Committee on Health spelled out clearly, now that we have abolished CHCs and are moving towards abolishing forums, I am left confused about what local involvement in health networks will be like and how they will operate in practice. I am particularly concerned about that. It was certainly true of CHCs and patient forums that people could see what they were getting. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) about the expertise that was developed by CHCs and passed on to forums. That may be lost if we are not careful to give LINKs the sort of focus that hon. Members have talked about.
My second point is about the significance of the word “significant”—a subject that was discussed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). As I tried to point out in my brief intervention earlier, there are outstanding concerns about whether there will be a great shift in emphasis, as regards both the right to be consulted and the impulsion on health bodies to carry out consultation. Like the hon. Gentleman, I fear that under this part of the Bill some issues for consultation might fall under the radar, either inadvertently or deliberately.
I crave hon. Members’ indulgence while I give a recent example. Wharfedale hospital is not in my constituency, but it serves a great number of my constituents. It has existed for many years, but under the Conservative Government it deteriorated, decayed and lost services. From time to time it was earmarked for closure and we had to fight campaigns against that. Under this Government, it has been rebuilt and it is one of the great achievements that we can point to locally. The new building opened two years ago, but unfortunately, instead of it being used to maximum capacity, its progress has been characterised by the gradual withdrawal of services.
In autumn last year, a 16-bed ward for older people was closed without any consultation. The explanation given by the trust was that it could provide the same level of service to older patients with fewer beds. That may or may not be true, but in the context of the gradual removal of services, and given what local people saw as the diminution of the hospital’s functions, that ward closure was an extremely significant issue for them. Back in the autumn, under existing legislation, it was questioned whether there should have been consultation on what local people regarded as a major issue, so I wonder whether use of the word “significant” in the Bill would allow such issues to drop even further below the radar.
Finally, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North about amendment No. 249, to which my name is attached. There is a real fear that—and it will be so argued—under the Bill as it stands, the simple transfer of services to the private sector will not necessarily trigger a consultation. Let me give a hypothetical example that might become a practical one in due course. I am certainly of the view that independent sector treatment centres, given their very nature, should not be introduced without major public consultation. It might be argued that that is not so, because there is a level transfer of service and no reduction in capacity. However, on looking at the proposals for an ISTC in west Yorkshire—thankfully, they were ultimately withdrawn—I was very concerned about the implications of their implementation.
The issue was not the level of patient care and capacity—that would certainly have been there—but the proposed transfer of services from the NHS acute trust in Leeds, which would almost certainly have had a wider impact. Resources would have been transferred out of the trust and there would have been implications for its ability to meet its fixed costs, so that would have been an extremely significant move. Perhaps Members can call to mind other such examples of transferring NHS services to the private sector. I therefore seek an assurance that my amendment is not necessary and that this issue, about which I am very concerned, is dealt with in the Bill.
I want to make two brief comments in support of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). The Government have succeeded in upsetting a large body of volunteers through the manner in which they have abolished patients forums and given up the expertise that was so willingly given in the past two years. That has been a great mistake, and the Government should have recognised that and sought to build on the success of what had been established, rather than abolishing it.
Secondly, I want to support what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said a moment ago. What is “significant” in one area might not be in another. Let me give a local example. Last year, Shropshire went through a consultation exercise, set in train by Shropshire County primary care trust, on the future of services in three of our community hospitals, all of which are in my constituency. The saving of £150,000 was sought from Bishop’s Castle community hospital, which could have led to its closure. It is a small hospital, and in the context of the PCT’s revenues—probably of any PCT’s revenues—£150,000 is a relatively insignificant sum. However, it was hugely significant to the people of Bishop’s Castle. Similarly, a saving of £300,000 was sought from Ludlow hospital, which would have resulted in the closure of half its beds and two of its wards. So, what is significant in a national context when drafting legislation, and what is significant in a local context when implementing that legislation, are very different. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, which would delete the word “significant”, are therefore entirely relevant. If they are accepted, local areas would be obliged to undertake consultation on matters relevant to them. I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendments.
I rise to point out concerns that were drawn to my attention by my local patients forum at a recent meeting. It was a lively, extremely thoughtful meeting, and the forum acknowledged that many good measures are being introduced as part of this change. However, it still has anxieties and it has asked me to voice its concerns directly to the Minister and to seek clarification.
It needs to be borne in mind that the south-west is an enormous region, taking in Cornwall and Devon and the wider area, as well as Plymouth itself, so it is difficult for local authorities to monitor and review the commissioning of local services and their delivery in the locality. The patients forum has done good work in that area. Recently, for example, Cornwall county council scrutinised the work carried out at Derriford hospital in Plymouth. The patients forum gave evidence, but it is their belief that under the new structures that will no longer be possible because of the definition of the area. Forum members are also extremely concerned that only two of the existing members live in the Plymouth local authority area, and that other existing members of the forum will no longer be able to participate in the LINK, which will be based in and around Plymouth and around Derriford hospital, which, because of its size, meets the needs of a much wider area across the peninsula of the south-west.
The second issue is how well the patients forum is embedded in the day-to-day running of the hospital. Members of the forum are involved in the infection control committee, the valuing people group, Plymouth health and well-being overview and scrutiny panel, as well as the care standards group, the bus users forum and so on. They are proactive and therefore on the ball and able to flag up immediately issues that arise in the hospital or are linked to the hospital. They are worried that the new LINK will not be able to be as proactive and responsive because the new arrangements for access and inspection are thought to be far too formal. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 78, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). Without rehearsing the arguments advanced in Committee about the removal of the defined right to inspect, I shall focus on one definition that is important because it goes to the heart of the message from the Government about how they value the new LINKs.
The Minister reassured me and others in Committee when he said that it was not the intention to change any powers by removing the word “inspect”. He went on to say:
“There is no restriction, limitation or curtailment of the powers of the patients forum in connection with the word ‘inspect’ as opposed to the powers of LINKs in connection with the words ‘view’ and ‘observe’.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 6 March 2007; c. 546.]
That confirmation is helpful but, even if that is the Government’s intention, it is the practice that concerns forum members and the public. People such as the present forum members of Barnet and Chase Farm and Enfield look to the Department’s draft document for the guidance and how it will be followed through in constituencies such as mine.
The document states that LINKs members will not be able to visit
“until they have written to the relevant regulator, indicating their intention to visit a facility, and received a reply—this is to ensure that there is coordination of activity at local level; it may be that the regulator already plans a visit in which case it will have the ability to request that the LINk holds off, or just as possible joins in with its review.”
One can understand the practical need to ensure co-ordination, but one can also understand why, in evidence to the Health Committee, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health expressed unhappiness with the draft document and stated:
“In effect the proposals make a mockery of the visiting rights of the new LINks. It appears that before any visit can take place, they will have to write to, and obtain a reply from the regulator, i.e. the Healthcare Commission! This gives the lie to any notion that the LINks will be able to be free and independent in the way that they work, and other proposals will severely curtail the locations which they will be permitted to enter and observe services in delivery.”
The issue is the value placed on the proposed LINKs, and that is at the heart of the amendment. What has attracted hard-working members of forums in my area, and has enabled them to carry out spot inspections of cleanliness and patient management across a variety of services, is their valued freedom and independence. The essence of the Government’s practical guidance is that it challenges the assurance properly given by the Minister that there will be no change in any powers. That is what people care about. That reassurance is vital if we hope to attract many of the same members who have done such sterling work in constituencies such as mine and many others.
Even at this 11th hour, I invite the Minister carefully to consider the amendment that would retain the word “inspect”. It is not just a question of wording. I am worried that the operation of LINKs is being mainstreamed and absorbed, and that the value of hard-working volunteers will be lost for ever. I ask him at least to review the draft document and guidance to provide the proper freedom and independence that will allow the forums to do their sterling work.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) began by saying that there were still unanswered questions. I am sorry he feels like that. Having kept a careful note, I suspect that it is not that I have not answered the questions but that I have answered them and he disagrees with some of my answers. However, if any specific points remain I undertake to follow them up.
One of the specific questions that I put to the Minister concerned conflict of interest. Under the Bill, a host organisation could provide services yet be part of a body that assesses its own effectiveness. How do the Government propose to address that conflict of interest, about which we have heard relatively little?
There is a huge difference between the host organisation and the LINKs organisation. Were there to be a perceived conflict of interest, it would be for the local authority, in making these decisions, to rule on that. The Bill is devolutionary, because it creates a bottom-up structure that places trust in local authorities. What is important is any conflict of interest between the LINKs organisation and the host organisation. I shall give further information on that.
I accept that the local authority will have a say, but that still does not address the central issue regarding conflict of interest. An organisation that provides services may be involved in assessing the effectiveness of its services, and it must be borne in mind that the money that the local authority has been given to fund the operation is not ring-fenced. That adds a certain twist to the whole issue of conflict of interest.
Half an hour ago, the hon. Gentleman voted for an amendment to prevent ring-fencing, yet now he is trying to provide for a ring-fenced budget. My difficulty as Minister for Local Government—I suspect that this has been the case with all my predecessors, and will be the case with all my successors, too—is that Members are happy to argue against ring-fencing in general, but that we should have it in a particular case. At last year’s Local Government Association conference, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that he would abolish all ring-fencing—I will believe that when I see it. The money is provided for the local authority. In the round, based on what we know, we believe that it is sufficient. The Government are not ring-fencing the money because we trust local authorities and believe that by not ring-fencing we will achieve better value for taxpayers’ money.
I am in danger of repeating myself about conflicts of interest. Local authorities, like Governments, face the potential for conflict of interest across the piece. If we devolve more power to local councils, that increases the chances of a perception of conflict of interest. At the moment, the commission is, in effect, funded by the Government, yet its independence is not questioned. Indeed, that independence is one of the virtues that Opposition Members have cited in arguing for its retention. However, the same applies to what the hon. Member for Billericay said about local authorities.
Any organisation that bids to be a host must demonstrate that it is best equipped to win the contract. That must include being able to declare its interests and manage any potential conflicts of interest. The host will be accountable to the LINK and required to follow its direction, irrespective of its own interests. The sort of organisations that we expect to become hosts deal with such issues all the time, as do local authorities. Many of the current providers of staff support to patients forums also provide health and social care services. We know that potential conflicts of interest do not mean that support is compromised in those cases. The quality of the performance is what counts. I accept as a debating point that there may be circumstances in which there appears to be a conflict of interest. However, in practice, one has to strike a sensible balance.
There is a national body and centre of excellence to improve public and patient involvement. However, it will be open to LINKs, if they so choose—I imagine that they will—to create regional and, indeed, national bodies. Their virtue is that they will be bottom-up bodies that provide even greater independence to the national umbrella body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) was worried that people who live outside a local authority area cannot join a LINK. I know that she has taken up the cudgels on their behalf and met the relevant body. A LINK is established to consider all the services that are provided in its area. Those outside can join the neighbouring LINK. Provision will be supplemented by the many interested people in Plymouth who are not currently in the forum. We described the position as the Great Ormond Street problem, whereby services are provided outside the local authority area. Our proposals are an improvement on the current situation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made important points, which were raised in Committee, about the word “significant” and the impact on public-private relations. A change in the service provider rather than in the service provided—for example, the contract to run a GP’s surgery changing from one provider to another—would not significantly change the service. Another example of that is dealing with overcapacity, whereby—taking account of peaks and troughs—five beds are removed from a 10-bed ward in which only five are ever used. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is therefore right that the definition of “significant” is important.
However, amendment is unnecessary. Significant changes include changes in: patients’ convenience; availability and quality of service; and geography, thereby affecting travel arrangements, and possible eligibility. Statutory guidance, which has the power of statute, will be issued after we have consulted on the changes.
Transferring a service—for example, scanning—to the private sector is what I mean by “significant change”. Such a change is genuinely significant and we want to be able to consult and be consulted about that.
I am trying to make the point that the change in the service rather than that in the service provider is important. Let me reassure my hon. Friend. One of the difficulties in the debate is that we are comparing existing scrutiny arrangements in the health service with proposals that cover health and social services. Points have been made about inspection and viewing. At the moment, patients forums do not view social services. We are talking about going into people’s homes—residential, shared homes and individuals’ homes. The comparison is therefore invalid.
We are trying to create a scrutiny and accountability structure that considers the patient, not the building or institution. All Members of Parliament recognise that, when constituents come to us with a problem, the interaction between public agencies and other providers most often causes the problem—for example, a stroke victim’s treatment by the ambulance service, accident and emergency, the hospital, those responsible for aftercare, the benefits office and so on. We are trying to provide for accountability and scrutiny in the round in terms of patient and public involvement.
May I take the Minister back to the example I cited of the independent sector treatment centre? The concern in west Yorkshire about such a centre was that it would be a transfer not just of services but of resources, which would undermine the ability of existing NHS trusts to provide services to other patients. The Minister seems to argue that people would not regard that as a significant change, but I have to tell him that people in west Yorkshire and Leeds would view it as a significant change.
But that is not the argument that I am pursuing. We are not debating the entirety of how health and social care should be held to account. What we are debating is the best mechanism for looking at the provision of services from the patient’s point of view. It is therefore the provision of the service, not the service provider—effectively, the interface with the patient—that we believe is important.
Time is pressing and other hon. Members want to speak—[Interruption.]
Let me make some progress and we will see whether I have failed to cover the relevant points.
Some hon. Members made a point about the difference between inspecting and viewing, but I rather think that this is dancing on a pinhead. Patients forums and the proposed LINKs are not inspectors of services in the sense that the statutory inspectorate is. Again, however, hon. Gentlemen cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot on the one hand complain about intrusion into private life, while on the other allowing unfettered access, particularly in the area of social care, but also in respect of medical care.
Secondly, we hear complaints about over-intrusion by inspectorates. Assuming that patients forums and LINKs were inspectorates, it would be quite right and proper for them to act as gatekeepers to ensure that organisations were not over-burdened. Indeed, Conservative Members supported that proposal. One of the big themes of debate on the Bill has been the allegation—true on many occasions—that there is over-burdensome inspection. One of the measures that we have put in place is the gatekeeper role, so that the main inspectorate—for local authorities, the Audit Commission—can co-ordinate the other inspectorates. Surely the same principle has to apply to LINKs. The hon. Member for Billericay said that we had wasted £120 million in establishing patients forums and then abolishing them. The £120 million that he quotes is indeed the recurrent costs of the years of activities—not the costs of establishing the bodies, so I think that the analogy is unfair.
Let me bring the Minister back to the issue of inspections. With all due respect to him, he is creating a number of Aunt Sallies and then knocking them down. Does he not accept that where patient forums have been successful—for example, in putting the spotlight on cleanliness or quality of food—the power to enter and inspect premises has often been the key? The major concern of a number of patient forum members is that if we do not allow that power to inspect, LINKs will in many respects become toothless organisations, because they will not have the power to monitor services against set guidelines that should apply to patient care. As many Members have argued, if we take away the inspection powers, it makes for a meaningless organisation.
Let me make two points. First, the debate is being conducted on the false premise that patients forums are perfect organisations, yet by the hon. Gentleman’s own admission the situation is patchy. I supplied figures to the Public Bill Committee and I will not delay the House further by running through them all—[Interruption.] That is not my whole point. The hon. Member for Billericay intervenes from a sedentary position before I have reached the conclusion of my premise. I wish that Conservative Members would listen to the argument rather than to who is saying it.
I have looked into this issue and we debated it in Committee. I strongly believe that the powers of LINKs to enter premises and look at what is going on—whether we call it inspection, observation, viewing or whatever—are still available, but I do not accept the idea that patients forums or LINKs should be inspectors in the formal sense that the Audit Commission is an inspector. They are not—and neither should they be, because they are not qualified to be. They are looking at this from the point of view of lay viewing or lay inspection—let us not have an argument about semantics. The point is that what was asked for was that LINKs should be given the right to enter premises. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have that right, and the right to view, observe, monitor and make reports. But we are talking about social care as well as the NHS. We are talking about people’s homes. I know what fun Conservative Members have when anyone dares to suggest that a valuation officer should check that people are paying their full council tax, and it really is going too far to say that there should be unfettered access.
I reject those amendments, and I have made concessions on the points raised in Committee by tabling amendments to satisfy some of the reasonable points that have been made. It is now time to move on, to establish LINKs, to trust local authorities, to have flexibility and to create a body that can hold to account our national health service and the social services from the point of view of the patient, not the provider.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 33, page 121, line 25, leave out ‘,varying or omitting’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 173
Arrangements under section 172(1)
Amendment made: No. 34, page 122, line 6, leave out from second ‘area’ to end of line 8.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 174
Duties of services-providers to respond to local involvement networks
Amendments made: No. 35, page 122, line 41, leave out from ‘done’ to ‘activities’ in line 42 and insert
‘by a person who, in pursuance of arrangements made under section 172(1), is to carry on’.
No. 36, line 42, at end insert ‘; and
(b) it is done by that person in the carrying-on, under those arrangements, of activities so specified.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 175
Duties of service-providers to allow entry by local involvement networks
Amendments made: No. 37, page 123, line 14, leave out from ‘network’ to end of line 16.
No. 38, line 35, leave out from ‘network’ to end of line 38.
No. 39, line 41, leave out from ‘172(2)’ to end of line 43.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 176
Local involvement networks: referrals of social care matters
Amendments made: No. 40, page 124, line 23, leave out from ‘done’ to ‘activities’ in line 24 and insert
‘by a person who, in pursuance of arrangements made under section 172(1), is to carry on’.
No. 41, line 24, at end insert ‘; and
(b) it is done by that person in the carrying-on, under those arrangements, of activities so specified.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 177
Local involvement networks: annual reports
Amendments made: No. 42, page 125, line 5, after ‘provision’ insert ‘—
(i)’.
No. 43, line 6, after ‘preparation’ insert ‘by the network’.
No. 44, line 9, at end insert—
‘(ii) requiring the preparation by H of any report that is required, under provision included in the arrangements in pursuance of sub-paragraph (i), to be prepared by a local involvement network but is not prepared by the network; and
(iii) requiring the preparation by H, for each non-networked financial year, of a report in relation to the non-networked activities;’.
No. 45, line 12, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 46, line 26, after ‘report’ insert
‘, if it is a report required to be prepared by a local involvement network (even if actually prepared by H in compliance with provision included in the arrangements in pursuance of subsection (2)(a)(ii)),’.
No. 47, line 27, leave out ‘local involvement network concerned’ and insert ‘network’.
No. 48, line 29, at end insert ‘; and
(c) that the report, if it is a report prepared by H in compliance with provision included in the arrangements in pursuance of subsection (2)(a)(iii), includes—
(i) details of the amounts spent by H in the year concerned in respect of the non-networked activities; and
(ii) details of what those amounts were spent on.’.
No. 49, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
No. 50, line 45, leave out from ‘subsection’ to ‘(so’ and insert ‘—
(a) in the case of a report required to be prepared by a local involvement network (even if actually prepared by H in compliance with provision included in the arrangements in pursuance of subsection (2)(a)(ii)), if any activities of the network’.
No. 51, line 47, at end insert ‘; and
(b) in the case of a report prepared by H in compliance with provision included in the arrangements in pursuance of subsection (2)(a)(iii), if in the year concerned any of the non-networked activities are relevant to the functions of the committee.’.
No. 52, line 47, at end insert—
‘(6A) In subsections (2) to (6) “the non-networked activities” means the activities specified in section 172(2) for the authority’s area so far as they—
(a) are activities for whose carrying-on in the authority’s area the arrangements make provision; and
(b) are not, under the arrangements, activities whose carrying-on is within the remit of a local involvement network.
(6B) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(iii), a financial year is “non-networked” if there is a time in the year when an activity falls (to any extent) within the definition of “the non-networked activities” given by subsection (6A).’.
No. 53, page 126, line 1, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(6B)’.
No. 54, leave out lines 4 to 6.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Clause 179
Abolition of functions of Patients’ Forums
Amendment proposed, No. 80, in page 126, line 32, leave out clause 179.—[Mr. Baron.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Clause 182
Duty to consult users of health services
Amendment proposed: No. 75, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
‘(1GA) A relevant English body in proposing a significant change in services delivered in a way likely to affect patients’ physical access or transport to a service must consult with—
(a) the local involvement network,
(b) relevant patient groups, and
(c) the appropriate transport authority,
and report in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe prior to implementing those changes on the results of such consultation.
(1GB) For the purposes of subsection (1GA), a change in services is “significant” if implementation of the change would have a substantial impact on—
(a) the manner in which services are delivered to users of those services, or
(b) the range of health services available to those users.’.—[Andrew Stunell.]
Question put: That the amendment be made:—
It being after Six o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
New Clause 8
Joint overview and scrutiny committees: local improvement targets
‘(1) For the purposes of this section, “group of partner authorities” means—
(a) a county council in England; and
(b) one or more district councils which are partner authorities of it.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which a group of partner authorities may—
(a) appoint a joint committee (a “joint overview and scrutiny committee”); and
(b) arrange for any functions of making reports and recommendations falling within subsection (3) to be exercisable by the committee.
(3) A report or recommendation falls within this subsection if—
(a) it concerns a matter which—
(i) relates to the attainment of any local improvement target specified for the time being in a relevant local area agreement; and
(ii) is not an excluded matter; and
(b) it is made to—
(i) the county council, or
(ii) the county council and one or more district councils,
in the group of partner authorities.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) “excluded matter” means any matter with respect to which a crime and disorder committee could make a report or recommendations—
(i) by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (local authority scrutiny crime and disorder matters); or
(ii) under subsection (6) of that section;
(b) the reference to a report or recommendations being made to a county council or district council is, in the case of a local authority operating executive arrangements under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), to be read as a reference to a report or recommendations being made to the local authority or its executive.
(5) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular—
(a) provide for arrangements to be made only in circumstances, or subject to conditions or limitations, specified by the regulations;
(b) in relation to joint overview and scrutiny committees, make provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of—
(i) section 21(4) and (6) to (12) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22),
(ii) sections 21A to 21D of that Act, or
(iii) section 246 of, and Schedule 17 to, the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41),
with or without modifications;
(c) make provision—
(i) as to relevant information which associated authorities must provide to a joint overview and scrutiny committee (or, if the regulations make provision for the appointment of sub-committees of such a committee, to such a sub-committee); and
(ii) as to information which may not be disclosed by an associated authority to a joint overview and scrutiny committee (or, if the regulations make provision for the appointment of sub-committees of such a committee, to such a sub-committee).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(c), in relation to a joint overview and scrutiny committee—
“associated authority” means—
(a) the county council in the group of partner authorities which appointed the joint overview and scrutiny committee; or
(b) any person which is a partner authority in relation to that council other than—
(i) a police authority; or
(ii) a chief officer of police;
“relevant information”, in relation to an associated authority, means information which is relevant to a local improvement target in a relevant local area agreement which relates to the associated authority;
and section 81(2) or (3) applies for the purpose of determining whether a local improvement target relates to an associated authority.
(7) Regulations under this section may not make provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (5)(c) with respect to information in respect of which provision may be made in exercise of the power conferred by section 20(5)(c) or (d) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters).
(8) In this section—
(a) “relevant local area agreement”, in relation to a joint overview and scrutiny committee, means a local area agreement of the county council in the group of partner authorities which appointed the committee; and
(b) “local area agreement”, “local improvement target” and “partner authority” have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of this Part.
(9) Any group of partner authorities and any joint overview and scrutiny committee must, in exercising or deciding whether to exercise any functions conferred on it by or by virtue of regulations under this section, have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Overview and scrutiny committees of district councils: local improvement targets
‘After section 21D of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (inserted by section 97) insert—
“21E Overview and scrutiny committees of certain district councils: functions with respect to partner authorities
(1) This section applies to any district council which is a partner authority in relation to a county council (“the related county council”).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision under which a district council to which this section applies may confer on their overview and scrutiny committee, or any of their overview and scrutiny committees, power to make reports and recommendations to the related county council, or that council’s executive, which relate to any local improvement target which—
(a) relates to a relevant partner authority, and
(b) is specified in a local area agreement of the county council.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may make provision applying or reproducing any provision of section 21B, 21C or 21D (with or without modifications).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “relevant partner authority”, in relation to a district council, means—
(i) the related county council, or
(ii) any other authority which are a partner authority in relation to that county council, other than—
(a) a police authority, or
(b) a chief officer of police,
(b) “local area agreement”, “local improvement target” and “partner authority” have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and
(c) section 81(2) or (3) of that Act applies for the purpose of determining whether a local improvement target relates to a relevant partner authority.” ’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Guidance
‘In section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees: authorities operating executive arrangements), at the end insert—
“(16) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions—
(a) an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority in England, or a sub-committee of such a committee, must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State; and
(b) an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority in Wales, or a sub-committee of such a committee, must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Welsh Ministers.
(17) Guidance under subsection (16) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee or sub-committee.” ’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Overview and scrutiny committees: consequential amendments
‘(1) In section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees)—
(a) in subsection (4)—
(i) after “this section” insert “, sections 21A to 21C”; and
(ii) at the end insert “or any functions which may be conferred on it by virtue of regulations under section 21E”; and
(b) omit subsection (8).
(2) For section 32(3) of that Act (alternative arrangements) substitute—
“(3) Regulations under this section may make provision with respect to committees or sub-committees falling within subsection (1)(b), including—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)—
(i) any provision of sections 21 to 21D or paragraphs 7 and 9 to 11 of Schedule 1,
(ii) any provision made under section 21E or 22A,
(iii) any provision of section 246 of, or Schedule 17 to, the National Health Service Act 2006, or
(iv) any provision made under section 244 of that Act, and
(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)—
(i) any provision of section 21 or 21A(1)(a) or (b) or (2) or paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 1,
(ii) any provision of Schedule 17 to the National Health Service Act 2006,
(iii) any provision of section 186 of, or Schedule 11 to, the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or
(iv) any provision made under section 184 of that Act.”.
(3) In section 245(3)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (c. 41) (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for “(15)” substitute “(17)”; and
(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(ia) sections 21A to 21D of that Act,
(ib) section 22A of that Act,”.
(4) In section 185(3)(b) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (c. 42) (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for “(15)” substitute “(17)”; and
(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(ia) section 21A(1)(a) or (b) or (2) of that Act,” ’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 94
Reference of matter by councillor to overview and scrutiny committee
Amendments made: No. 96, page 62, line 29, leave out from beginning to ‘insert’ in line 33 and insert
‘After section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)’.
No. 97, page 64, leave out line 6.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 96
Powers to require information from partner authorities
Amendments made: No. 98, page 64, line 38, at end insert—
‘(4) The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision, in relation to a relevant district council committee—
(a) as to information which associated authorities must provide to the relevant district council committee, and
(b) as to information which may not be disclosed by an associated authority to the relevant district council committee.
(5) In subsection (4), references to information do not include information in respect of which provision may be made in exercise of the power conferred by section 20(5)(c) or (d) of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)—
“relevant district council committee” means—
(c) an overview and scrutiny committee of a district council which is not a responsible local authority (“the district council”), or
(d) a sub-committee of such a committee;
“associated authority”, in relation to a relevant district council committee, means—
(e) the county council which is the responsible local authority in relation to the district council, or
(f) any person (other than the district council) which is a partner authority in relation to that county council, other than—
(i) a police authority, or
(ii) a chief officer of police;
and for this purpose, “responsible local authority” and “partner authority” have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different persons or committees or descriptions of person or committee.
(8) The power conferred by subsection (7) does not affect the power conferred by section 105(2)(b).” ’.
No. 99, page 64, line 39, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 97
Overview and scrutiny committees: reprots and recommendations
Amendments made: No. 100, page 66, line 33, leave out ‘Primary Care Trust’ and insert ‘health service body’.
No. 101, page 66, line 36, leave out ‘Primary Care Trust’ and insert ‘health service body’.
No. 102, page 66, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (5), “health service body” means—
(a) a National Health Service trust,
(b) an NHS foundation trust, or
(c) a Primary Care Trust.’.
No. 103, page 69, line 4, leave out ‘local authority executives’ and insert ‘executives of local authorities in England’.
No. 104, page 69, line 4, at end insert
‘, or under any provision of regulations under section 21E which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provision of section 21B,’.
No. 105, page 69, line 12, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 98
Transitional provision
Amendment made: No. 106, page 69, line 16, after ‘applies’ insert
‘(in addition to the cases mentioned in subsection (1) of that section)’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
New Clause 2
Registered social landlords
‘(1) In section 40(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (studies relating to registered social landlords), omit “(other than registered social landlords in Wales)”.
(2) In section 41A of that Act (inspections of registered social landlords), omit subsection (1A) (registered social landlords in Wales).
(3) After section 41B of that Act insert—
“41C Advice and assistance for registered social landlords
(1) The Commission may, if it thinks it appropriate to do so, provide advice or assistance to a registered social landlord for the purpose of the exercise by the registered social landlord of its functions.
(2) Advice or assistance under this section may be provided on such terms, including terms as to payment, as the Commission thinks fit.”
(4) Omit section 42 of that Act (consultancy services relating to audit of accounts of registered social landlords).
(5) For section 43 of that Act substitute—
“43 Meaning of “registered social landlord”
In sections 40 to 41C, “registered social landlord” means a body registered as a social landlord under Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996, other than a body mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 56(2) of that Act (bodies registered in Wales).”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Registered social landlords in Wales
‘After section 145C of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) insert—
“145D Advice and assistance for registered social landlords
(1) The Auditor General for Wales may, if he thinks it appropriate to do so, provide advice or assistance to a registered social landlord in Wales for the purpose of the exercise by the registered social landlord of its functions.
(2) Advice or assistance under this section may be provided on such terms and conditions, including conditions as to payment, as the Auditor General for Wales thinks fit.
(3) This section has effect without prejudice to paragraph 21 of Schedule 8 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (arrangements between Auditor General for Wales and certain bodies).
(4) In this section, “registered social landlord in Wales” means a body which is—
(a) registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996, and
(b) mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 56(2) of that Act.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 119
Interaction of the Audit Commission with other authorities
Amendment made: No. 29, page 86, line 13, after ‘before’ insert ‘the italic heading preceding’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 124
Studies at request of particular bodies
Amendment made: No. 30, page 89, line 8, leave out from ‘Authority)’ to end of line 13.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 126
Reports on English Local Authorities
Amendment made: No. 31, page 90, line 5, at end insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of “English local authority” in subsection (4) by adding any authority or body which is a best value authority, other than—
(a) an authority or body which is a Welsh best value authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999;
(b) a police authority for a police area in Wales.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order remove from that definition any authority or body for the time being mentioned in it.
(7) The powers in subsections (5) and (6) may be exercised to add or remove an authority or body to the extent that it acts in a capacity, or exercises functions, specified in the order.
(8) Before making an order under subsection (5) or (6) the Secretary of State must consult the best value authorities concerned or persons appearing to him to represent the best value authorities concerned.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 134
Disclosure of informaton obtained by the Audit Commission or an auditor
Ordered,
That the clause be transferred to the end of line 37, page 91.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
New Clause 3
Pre-commencement invitations etc
‘(1) In this section a “pre-commencement invitation” means an invitation given by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this Chapter which, after that commencement, could have been given under the power in section 2.
(2) If before the commencement of this Chapter—
(a) a pre-commencement invitation was given,
(b) guidance as to what a proposal should seek to achieve, or as to matters that should be taken into account in formulating a proposal, was given by the Secretary of State in connection with such an invitation,
(c) a proposal was made in response to such an invitation, or
(d) consultation was carried out by the Secretary of State in relation to such a proposal,
it is immaterial that the invitation or guidance was given, the proposal made, or the consultation carried out, before rather than after the commencement of this Chapter.
(3) Accordingly (and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2))—
(a) any reference in this Chapter to an invitation under section 2 includes a pre-commencement invitation;
(b) any reference in this Chapter to a proposal made by virtue of section 2 includes a proposal (whenever made) made in response to a pre-commencement invitation;
(c) any reference in this Chapter to the Secretary of State’s receiving a proposal in response to an invitation under section 2 includes his receiving before the commencement of this Chapter a proposal made in response to a pre-commencement invitation.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 2
Invitations and directions for proposals for single tier of local government
Amendment made: No. 1, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
‘(9) Subsection (1) is subject to section 3(1).’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 3
Invitations, directions and proposals: supplementary
Amendments made: No. 2, page 3, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1) A direction under section 2—
(a) may not be given after 25 January 2008; and
(b) may be given on or before that date only where the Secretary of State believes that giving the direction would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government.’.
No. 3, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
‘(8) But a direction under section 2 may not be varied after 25 January 2008 if—
(a) the direction as originally given required the making of a Type A or Type B proposal; and
(b) the direction as varied would require or permit the making of a Type C or combined proposal.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 4
Procedure on receipt of proposals
Amendments made: No. 4, page 3, line 26, leave out from ‘proposal’ to ‘under’ in line 27 and insert
‘in response to an invitation or direction’.
No. 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (4).—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 7
Implementation or proposals by order
Amendment made: No. 6, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) But where the Secretary of State has made a request under section 4 in relation to the proposal received in response to the invitation or direction, he may not make an order or decision under this section before the end of six weeks beginning with the relevant date (as defined by section 6(7)).
(3) The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) implementing a proposal unless he has consulted the following about the proposal—
(a) every authority affected by the proposal (except the authority or authorities which made it); and
(b) any other person he believes to have an interest.
(4) For the purposes of this section an authority is “affected by” a proposal if it is a principal authority for an area which is, or any part of which is, in an area that the proposal suggests should have a single tier of local government.
(5) Subsection (3) does not apply if the proposal was made jointly by every authority affected by it, and in that case the Secretary of State may before making an order under subsection (1)(a) consult any other person he believes to have an interest.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 10
Implementation of recommendations by order
Amendment made: No. 86, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
‘(3) Before doing as mentioned in any of those paragraphs the Secretary of State may request the Boundary Committee to provide him with additional information or advice.
(4) Where they receive such a request the Boundary Committee may provide the information or advice requested.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 11
Implementation orders: provision that may be included
Amendment made: No. 7, page 8, line 17, leave out ‘7’ and insert ‘7(1)(a)’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 16
Agreements about incidental matters
Amendment made: No. 8, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
‘(6) In this section “public body” includes a parish council.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 20
Correction of orders
Amendment made: No. 9, page 13, line 26, at end insert—
‘(3) In subsection (2) “public body” includes a parish council.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Clause 21
Pre-commencement invitations etc.
Amendment made: No. 87, page 13, line 27, leave out Clause 21.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
New Clause 12
Responsibilities of Commissioners
‘(1) Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (appointment and removal of Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (8) and (9) (allocation of cases by geographic area) substitute—
“(8A) The Commission must—
(a) divide the matters which may be investigated under this Part of this Act into such categories as they consider appropriate, and
(b) allocate, or make arrangements for allocating, responsibility for each category of matter to one or more of the Local Commissioners.”
(3) In subsection (10)(a), for “to accept cases for which they are not responsible” substitute “to deal with matters for which they do not have responsibility pursuant to subsection (8A)”.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Power to investigate
‘Before section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) insert—
“24A Power to investigate
(1) Under this Part of this Act, a Local Commissioner may investigate a matter—
(a) which relates to action taken by or on behalf of an authority to which this Part of this Act applies,
(b) which is subject to investigation under this Part of this Act by virtue of section 26, and
(c) in relation to which subsection (2), (3) or (5) is satisfied.
(2) This subsection is satisfied if, in relation to the matter, a complaint which satisfies sections 26A and 26B has been made to a Local Commissioner.
(3) This subsection is satisfied if, in relation to the matter—
(a) a complaint which satisfies sections 26A and 26B has been made to a member of an authority to which this Part of this Act applies, and
(b) the complaint has been referred, or is treated as having been referred, to a Local Commissioner under section 26C.
(4) Any question whether subsection (2) or (3) is satisfied in relation to a matter shall be determined by a Local Commissioner.
(5) This subsection is satisfied if—
(a) the matter has come to the attention of a Local Commissioner, and
(b) section 26D applies to the matter.
(6) In determining whether to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation, a Local Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of this section and sections 26 to 26D, act in accordance with his own discretion.
(7) Without prejudice to the discretion conferred by subsection (6), a Local Commissioner may in particular decide—
(a) not to investigate a matter, or
(b) to discontinue an investigation of a matter,
if he is satisfied with action which the authority concerned have taken or propose to take.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Authorities subject to investigation
‘(1) Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (authorities subject to investigation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
“(b) to a committee or sub-committee of that authority (including a joint committee or joint sub-committee on which the authority are represented),
and (for the avoidance of doubt) subsections (4ZA) to (5) apply for the purposes of this subsection.”
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4ZA) Any reference to an authority to which this Part of this Act applies also includes, in the case of a local authority operating executive arrangements, the executive.”
(4) In subsection (4A) (Greater London Authority), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).
(5) Omit subsection (4B) (sub-committees of the London Transport Users Committee).
(6) In subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (c), after “constituted” insert “by the authority”;
(b) in paragraph (d), after first “school” insert “maintained by the authority”;
(c) in paragraph (e), after “constituted” insert “by the authority”.
(7) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Subsection (7) has effect where an authority to which this Part of this Act applies exercise a function entirely or partly by means of an arrangement with another person.
(7) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, action taken by or on behalf of the other person in carrying out the arrangement shall be treated as action taken—
(a) on behalf of the authority, and
(b) in the exercise of the authority’s function.
(8) Subsection (7) does not have effect where, by virtue of another enactment, the action would be treated as action taken by the authority.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Matters subject to investigation
‘(1) Section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (matters subject to investigation) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) For the purposes of section 24A(1)(b), in relation to an authority to which this Part of this Act applies, the following matters are subject to investigation by a Local Commissioner under this Part of this Act—
(a) alleged or apparent maladministration in connection with the exercise of the authority’s administrative functions;
(b) an alleged or apparent failure in a service which it was the authority’s function to provide;
(c) an alleged or apparent failure to provide such a service.
(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to the following provisions of this section.”
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4) (procedure for making complaints).
(4) In Schedule 5 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation), for paragraph 3 substitute—
“3 (1) Action taken in matters relating to contractual or other commercial transactions of any authority to which Part 3 of this Act applies relating to—
(a) the operation of public passenger transport;
(b) the carrying on of a dock or harbour undertaking;
(c) the provision of entertainment;
(d) the provision and operation of industrial establishments;
(e) the provision and operation of markets.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not include transactions for or relating to—
(a) the acquisition or disposal of land;
(b) the acquisition or disposal of moorings which are not moorings provided in connection with a dock or harbour undertaking.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not include action taken by or on behalf of the London Transport Users Committee in operating a procedure for examining complaints or reviewing decisions.
(4) Sub-paragraph (1)(e) does not include transactions relating to—
(a) the grant, renewal or revocation of a licence to occupy a pitch or stall in a fair or market, or
(b) the attachment of any condition to such a licence.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Complaints and matters coming to Commissioners’ attention
‘(1) After section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) insert—
“26A Who can complain
(1) Under this Part of this Act, a complaint about a matter may only be made—
(a) by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of the matter,
(b) by a person authorised in writing by such a member of the public to act on his behalf, or
(c) in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) Where a member of the public by whom a complaint about a matter might have been made under this Part of this Act has died or is otherwise unable to authorise a person to act on his behalf, the complaint may be made—
(a) by his personal representative (if any), or
(b) by a person who appears to a Local Commissioner to be suitable to represent him.
26B Procedure for making complaints
(1) Subject to subsection (3), a complaint about a matter under this Part of this Act must be made—
(a) in writing, and
(b) before the end of the permitted period.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), “the permitted period” means the period of 12 months beginning with—
(a) the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matter, or
(b) if the person affected has died without having notice of the matter—
(i) the day on which the personal representatives of the person affected first had notice of the matter, or
(ii) if earlier, the day on which the complainant first had notice of the matter.
(3) A Local Commissioner may disapply either or both of the requirements in subsection (1)(a) and (b) in relation to a particular complaint.
26C Referral of complaints by authorities
(1) This section applies where a complaint about a matter is made to a member of an authority to which this Part of this Act applies.
(2) If the complainant consents, the complaint may be referred to a Local Commissioner by—
(a) the member of the authority to whom the complaint was made,
(b) any other member of that authority, or
(c) a member of any other authority to which this Part of this Act applies which is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a referral under this section must be made in writing.
(4) A Local Commissioner may disapply the requirement in subsection (3) in relation to a particular referral.
(5) If a Local Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant asked a member of an authority mentioned in subsection (2) to refer the complaint to a Local Commissioner, he may treat the complaint as if it had been referred to him under this section.
(6) In this section, references to a member of an authority include—
(a) in relation to a National Park authority, a member of any of the councils by whom a local authority member of the authority is appointed;
(b) in relation to a joint board, a member of any of the constituent authorities of the joint board;
(c) in relation to a joint authority established by Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985, a member of a constituent council of that authority.
26D Matters coming to attention of Local Commissioner
(1) This section applies to a matter which has come to the attention of a Local Commissioner if—
(a) the matter came to his attention during the course of an investigation under this Part of this Act,
(b) (subject to subsection (3)) the matter came to his attention—
(i) before the person affected or his personal representatives had notice of the matter, or
(ii) in any other case, before the end of the permitted period, and
(c) it appears to the Local Commissioner that a member of the public has, or may have, suffered injustice in consequence of the matter.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)(ii), “the permitted period” means the period of 12 months beginning with—
(a) the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matter, or
(b) if the person affected has died without having notice of the matter, the day on which the personal representatives of the person affected first had notice of the matter.
(3) A Local Commissioner may disapply the requirement in subsection (1)(b) in relation to a particular matter.”
(2) In subsection 27 of that Act (provisions relating to complaints)—
(a) for the title substitute “Members of the public”;
(b) in subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “In this Part of this Act, “member of the public” means an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, other than—”;
(c) omit subsection (2).’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, and read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Reports and statements of reasons
‘(1) Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (reports on investigations) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) If a Local Commissioner completes an investigation of a matter, he shall prepare a report of the results of the investigation and send a copy to each of the persons concerned (subject to subsection (1A)).
(1A) If, after the investigation of a matter is completed, the Local Commissioner decides—
(a) that he is satisfied with action which the authority concerned have taken or propose to take, and
(b) that it is not appropriate to prepare and send a copy of a report under subsection (1),
he may instead prepare a statement of his reasons for the decision and send a copy to each of the persons concerned.
(1B) If a Local Commissioner decides—
(a) not to investigate a matter, or
(b) to discontinue an investigation of a matter,
he shall prepare a statement of his reasons for the decision and send a copy to each of the persons concerned.
(1C) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (1B), the persons concerned are—
(a) the complainant (if any),
(b) any person who referred the matter under section 26C(2),
(c) the authority concerned, and
(d) any other authority or person who is alleged in the complaint, or who otherwise appears to the Local Commissioner, to have taken or authorised the action which is or would be the subject of the investigation.”
(3) In subsection (2), for “the complaint” substitute “a complaint about the matter”.
(4) In subsection (2AA)(a), for “the duty imposed by subsection (1)(c) above” substitute “the duty to send a report or statement to the Authority under subsection (1), (1A) or (1B)”.
(5) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “report” (in each place) insert “or statement”;
(b) for “the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant” substitute “the interests of the complainant (if any) and of other persons”.
(6) In subsection (3AA), after “report” insert “or statement”.
(7) After subsection (3A) insert—
“(3B) Subsections (4) to (8) apply in the case of a report under subsection (1).”
(8) In subsection (7), for “the interests of the complainant and of persons other than the complainant” substitute “the interests of the complainant (if any) and of other persons”.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
Power of Commissioners to make recommendations etc
‘(1) Section 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (further provisions about reports on investigations) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) This section applies where a Local Commissioner reports that there has been—
(a) maladministration in connection with the exercise of the authority’s administrative functions,
(b) a failure in a service which it was the function of an authority to provide, or
(c) a failure to provide such a service.”
(3) For subsection (2B) substitute—
“(2B) Where the report relates to maladministration, those recommendations are recommendations with respect to action which, in the Local Commissioner’s opinion, the authority concerned should take—
(a) to remedy any injustice sustained by the person affected in consequence of the maladministration, and
(b) to prevent injustice being caused in the future in consequence of similar maladministration in connection with the exercise of the authority’s administrative functions.
(2BA) Where the report relates to a failure in, or to provide, a service which it was the function of the authority to provide, those recommendations are recommendations with respect to action which, in the Local Commissioner’s opinion, the authority concerned should take—
(a) to remedy any injustice sustained by the person affected in consequence of the failure, and
(b) to prevent injustice being caused in the future in consequence of a similar failure in, or to provide, a service which it is the function of the authority to provide.”
(4) In subsection (3)(b), for “maladministration” substitute “the maladministration or failure”.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Publication of reports etc by Commissioners
‘After section 31A of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) insert—
“31B Publication of reports etc by Commissioners
(1) A Local Commissioner may—
(a) publish all or part of a report or statement under section 30,
(b) publish all or part of a report under section 31,
(c) arrange for further publication of a statement published under section 31(2D) or (2G), or
(d) publish a summary of a matter which is the subject of a report or statement under section 30 or 31,
if, after taking into account the public interest as well as the interests of the complainant (if any) and of other persons, he considers it appropriate to do so.
(2) A Local Commissioner may—
(a) supply a copy of a report, statement or summary mentioned in subsection (1) to any person who requests it, and
(b) charge a reasonable fee for doing so.
(3) Subsection (3) of section 30 applies to a summary mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of this section as it applies to a report or statement prepared under that section.”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Disqualifications
‘(1) Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1) (disqualification for being Local Commissioner)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “any of the authorities mentioned in section 25(1) of this Act” substitute “any authority to which Part 3 of this Act applies”;
(b) in paragraph (b), omit “or is a member (by co-option) of a committee of any of those authorities”.
(3) In paragraph 1(2) (restriction on Local Commissioners conducting cases), for the words from “has been a member of that authority” to the end substitute “—
(a) has been a member of that authority,
(b) has taken action on behalf of that authority in the exercise of any of their functions, or
(c) has taken action which, by virtue of an enactment, is treated as having been taken by that authority in the exercise of any of their functions.”
(4) For paragraph 2 (disqualification of Local Commissioners for appointment to paid office by authority) substitute—
“2A A Local Commissioner shall be disqualified for being appointed to a paid office by an authority to which Part 3 of this Act applies—
(a) while the categories of matter for which the Local Commissioner has responsibility pursuant to section 23(8A) include—
(i) matters relating to the authority, or
(ii) matters of a description which may include matters relating to the authority, and
(b) for three years after the Local Commissioner ceases to have responsibility for such matters pursuant to section 23(8A).”’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Minor and consequential amendments
‘Schedule (The Commission for Local Administration for England: minor and consequential amendments) (minor and consequential amendments) has effect.’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 138
Making complaints etc electronically
Amendments made: No. 108, page 96, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
No. 109, page 96, line 5, after ‘32’ insert
‘of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)’.
No. 110, page 96, line 8, after ‘34’ insert ‘of that Act’.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you received any notice from the Secretary of State for Health that she intends to come to the House to make a statement to correct the record in the light of the statement made to the High Court today by Nicholas Greenfield, an official at the Department of Health, in the judicial review proceedings on the medical training application service, to the effect that one of the primary causes for the abandonment of the system for appointing junior doctors was that the IT system could not be relied upon to deal with appointments properly or effectively? In other words—the Department had no alternative but to abandon the scheme. That is a highly embarrassing fact and a key point that she omitted to mention in her written statement and in her response to this week’s urgent question.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not something for the Chair to rule on. I have certainly not been made aware that any Minister wishes to come to the House on that matter.
delegated legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
Lord Chancellor
That the draft Lord Chancellor (Modification of Functions) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Question agreed to.
european Union documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Diplomatic and Consular Protection of Union Citizens in Third Countries
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6192/07 and the UK response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries submitted to the Commission on 26th March 2007; joins the Government in welcoming the Commission’s contribution to the ongoing debate on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the consular assistance provided by Member States to one another’s nationals; but notes the legal, political and practical difficulties to many of the proposals; and agrees with the Government’s approach as laid out in its written response to the Commission.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Question agreed to.
Blackwall Tunnel (Contraflow)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. Perhaps I can briefly set out a little of the background. For 29 years, a contraflow system has operated during the morning peak hour in the Blackwall tunnel. That means that there are three lanes of traffic going northbound from south-east London and Kent into London, and one lane of traffic going south. That sensibly reflects the demands of the traffic at that time of the day. On 20 April, Transport for London, which took over responsibility for the Blackwall tunnel in 2000, with the creation of the Greater London authority, terminated that contraflow operation at something less than 48 hours notice. The effect of that was to reduce the capacity on the principal arterial route from south-east London, Kent and even the channel ports into London by one third at the busiest time of day.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I do not want to interrupt his flow, as Transport for London has interrupted the flow in the Blackwall tunnel. My constituents are extremely concerned—as I know his are—about the situation, and I am delighted that he has been able to bring it to the attention of the House so swiftly after the terrible event.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. The issue has caused huge concern among residents in our part of south-east London. Both he and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who is in his place, have received a huge number of letters and e-mails about the matter. Importantly, the issue also affects the strategic national road network—the A2, the A20 and, potentially, the Dartford crossing. It has significant implications.
The practical effects for drivers using the tunnel were well set out in the Evening Standard the following week, which stated:
“Approach roads to the Blackwall Tunnel have been in ‘absolute chaos’ this week after a…priority scheme was scrapped…As early as 6am, drivers have been left fuming in tailbacks…Queues have tailed back three miles to the South Circular Road”.
Having looked at the scene on a number of occasions, I can verify that. The change has brought chaos to the area and there have been frequent reports that it has added anything up to an hour extra to the journeys of people coming in through that key entry point to central London.
I can reinforce my hon. Friend’s point by saying that constituents of mine who live 40 miles from the Blackwall tunnel are having their businesses seriously damaged by the delays. This is not just a disaster for south-east London; it is a disaster all over Kent. It is particularly hurtful to those people, because they have no chance to choose the Mayor of London, who runs Transport for London. Their lives are being severely damaged and they have no say over the person who is damaging them.
My hon. Friend makes two important points: first, that the issue goes well beyond the London boundary, which is why I am raising it with the Minister tonight; and secondly, that it is not just a matter of inconvenience for commuters, but does economic harm and harm to business. He also draws attention to the fact that the people who use the Blackwall tunnel at that time of day do not do so for the sake of their health, despite the rather extraordinary comment of a Transport for London official, who said that many of the people using the tunnel could choose to do otherwise. They do it because they have no alternative. That is why the issue is so important.
That importance has been reflected in correspondence and in a number of website petitions. The decision has been condemned by the AA, by the RAC Foundation, by the Association of British Drivers, by London Councils, on behalf of all the London boroughs on a cross-party basis, and by other local authorities.
Two issues arise: first, the justification for the decision itself, and secondly, the complete lack of consultation, debate or any assessment of alternatives. That second point goes to the heart of the lack of accountability of Transport for London to Londoners and their elected representatives.
Ostensibly, the decision is said to have been made on the advice of the Metropolitan police because there had been an increasing number of near misses and there was a road safety hazard. Obviously, that is something that we want to look into, but we have to remember that the scheme has been operating for the better part of 30 years, while volumes of traffic have increased, which is not likely to have happened overnight.
Very little evidence has been released by TFL to justify the decision, and such as there is is, frankly, flimsy. The material that we have so far—getting information out of TFL is like drawing teeth—indicates that there have been 99 accidents in the area of the tunnel over the last three years. I am not aware of any fatalities, or of the seriousness of any of the accidents. When we look further, however, we find that only six of them occurred during the period that the tidal flow is in operation. That is an average of two a year—hardly a significant figure, given the volume of traffic on that road. It probably compares pretty well with the figures for many of the routes coming into London at that time of day. That is a wholly inadequate evidential basis for taking such a major step.
The evidence raises a number of other questions. There is closed circuit television in the tunnel. TFL relied on evidence of near misses. As the RAC legitimately points out, if some people—a minority of drivers—are driving badly, the first thing that TFL and the police should do is prosecute those people, because they have the footage to do so. We have no evidence of any prosecutions being mounted. It is wrong to use the misbehaviour of a minority to cancel a scheme that benefits the vast law-abiding majority.
In addition, it would have been possible to consider a much more rigorous prosecution policy—to publicise the prosecutions, as has been done successfully for drink-driving and for assaults on TFL staff. Why not consider having a visible police presence at the entry and exit to the tunnel? We could look at installing much more warning signage before and inside the tunnel. We could consider having cameras showing average speeds, which are already installed in the Limehouse link, not far away. All those alternatives should have been considered before this drastic step was taken.
A second point that TFL relied on was guidance under a European directive, but when we examined that we found that it applies to the trans-European network, of which the Blackwall tunnel is not part, so that hardly stacks up either.
As for the complete lack of consultation, it has become apparent that TFL had some concerns about the issue when a report by Capita, its favourite consultant, was submitted in 2005. One might have thought from TFL’s justification for the decision that it was a sudden and urgent matter, but in fact it was an issue in 2005. The obvious and responsible thing to do would have been to bring it into the public domain then, so that all those alternatives that I have just listed could have been raised with the local authorities, the Highways Agency, the Department for Transport—and, indeed, the travelling public. We could have had a sensible debate about how to resolve the problem, if there was one. None of that was done.
We have also discovered that on 12 January—the Minister kindly confirmed this for me—TFL discussed with the Highways Agency the potential cessation of the contraflow. It claims that it also discussed it with the London borough of Greenwich, which is where the tunnel comes out, although the people there are by no means the most affected by the decision. In fact, the London borough of Greenwich says it has no record of any such meeting or discussion taking place. Someone is not telling the truth—and my money is on the London borough of Greenwich being right.
There was no consultation, but if TFL was making the proposal in January, why did it not bring the matter into the public domain at that time? Still nothing was done. The decision was taken at a meeting of the Transport for London road traffic board—apparently a private meeting—on 28 March. It was recommended that a communications and consultation strategy be put in place, building up to a closure of the scheme on 30 July. In fact there was no such communication or consultation, and there was an abrupt closure on 30 April. No evidence has been adduced and no reason has ever been given for that change of tack in TFL’s handling of the matter.
I regret to say that such behaviour is absolutely typical of Transport for London. It has form—form as long as your arm, to use a lawyer’s phrase—in terms of operating in a high-handed fashion, keeping decisions close and within itself, and not consulting partners. Its failure to consult has been criticised by the London assembly, criticised on the Floor of the House during debates on the Greater London Authority Bill, and repeatedly criticised in the press. TFL’s behaviour meant that the assembly, which is charged with oversight of London policy, had no opportunity to debate the proposal—a significant strategic matter—in advance. That was wrong. What on earth was Transport for London hiding?
We know that there are likely to be effects on the national road network. There must be a risk of effects on the Dartford crossing, through displacement, and on the new Thames Gateway bridge, which is being considered by the Department for Transport. None of that has been brought into the public domain. That is the second real rub. A decision was taken based on the most dubious and limited evidence, and no attempt was made to take public opinion along or to consult partners. On any view, that cannot be right. Such conduct certainly ignores the guidance issued under the Highways Act 1980 that there should be consultation on such matters.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), does not have direct managerial responsibility for this matter, and I am grateful to her for the assistance that she has given. However, she can put pressure on Transport for London and the Mayor, and can point out that there are implications that go beyond their own little bailiwick, and that other ways of dealing with the matter should be considered. I hope that she will consider whether her Department should contact the Mayor and Transport for London as a matter of urgency, and say that the issue should be reviewed.
Perhaps the Department could say that the contraflow should be reinstated until such time as there has been a proper risk assessment and public debate, all the evidence has been put in the public domain, and all the alternatives have been looked at. Then we will be able to consider the options in a mature fashion and come to a decision that has some chance of taking the travelling public with it. Unless that is done, it will inevitably be believed that Transport for London has a hidden agenda. It is ironic that only a matter of weeks before, the Mayor had to backtrack on the suggestion of introducing a congestion zone in the Greenwich area around the Blackwall tunnel. It would be in their own interests for TFL and the Mayor to be up-front with people about what is driving the decision.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall simply say that I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue, which affects hundreds of thousands of people in London and the south-east.
I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for allowing me to speak in his debate. I share his view that it is important that we have the widest possible consultation and debate on the implications of what has happened. As the hon. Gentleman said, the southern portal of the tunnel is in Greenwich, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is unable to be here this evening because of an important constituency engagement.
Although I share Opposition Members’ concerns about the implications of the peak hours changes for traffic flow, congestion and pollution, and about the lack of open debate and consultation, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has actually seen the CCTV footage of traffic in the tunnel that led the police to advise TFL to make changes on safety grounds.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have.
I wonder what the Opposition would be saying if Transport for London had not heeded the police advice and a head-on collision had occurred in the tunnel. The hon. Gentleman talks of near misses, but the consequences of a head-on collision would be horrendous. The evidence suggests that the emergency services would not be able to get to the scene, and there could be damage to the tunnel, which would not just affect the tidal flows but put it out of action for months, if not years.
I share the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the lack of debate, information and consultation, but my view, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, is that it would have been difficult for Transport for London to ignore the clear police advice on the subject. Nevertheless, the changes present real problems, not only for neighbouring areas but for more distant ones, too, and hon. Members have referred to those problems. If my right hon. Friend were here tonight, he would argue that the changes in tidal flow highlight the importance of an urgent reappraisal of the case for a third Blackwall crossing—the Silvertown link, which he and I both supported.
As the Minister knows, I, and others in the Chamber, were objectors to the Thames Gateway bridge. I have drawn to her attention the implications for traffic flows of proposed changes to the tolls at the Dartford crossing and of changes at Blackwall. The extra traffic expected at the proposed Thames Gateway bridge is likely to mean that tolls on that bridge would have to be changed. The Minister has so far rejected my calls, and calls from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), for the reopening of the Thames Gateway inquiry to take account of revised traffic forecasts, but I hope that she will now agree that the case has been made for reopening that inquiry to take account of the new situation, following the cessation of the peak tidal flow at Blackwall.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for allowing me to make a short contribution to his Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on obtaining the debate and on his excellent speech. He has set out well the concerns about the termination of the Blackwall tunnel peak-hour contraflow, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is a rational and reasonable woman, listened avidly to what he said. I hope that she will take on board his comments and make representations to the Mayor and Transport for London after the debate.
The lack of consultation, the speed with which the change was implemented, the failure of TFL and the police to give the real facts and figures behind the termination, the consequent problems of traffic congestion and the increase in pollution are the real issues that need to be addressed, and that is what we are debating this evening. Of course, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said, we are all concerned about road safety, the consequence of accidents in the tunnel and the deteriorating standards of driving on our roads. Those are worrying issues and they need to be addressed. However, the contraflow has been in operation for nearly 30 years.
There are driving and safety issues for both tunnels, and not just during the contraflow. The behaviour of some of the drivers in the tunnel when the contraflow is not in place is quite appalling. Why are the offenders not severely punished? There should be more traffic cameras and more investment in the tunnels. The police should do more, and there could perhaps be notices warning motorists that crossing the white lines or overtaking in the tunnel will result in tough punishment. People in lorries, cars vans or motorbikes who drive dangerously, cross the white line, overtake or drive badly, or in some cases disastrously, would then face really tough punishments.
Does TFL have any long-term plans? The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said that the situation needs to be improved; perhaps we should consider a bridge over the Blackwall tunnel, just as at Dartford, but we would not want it to be tolled, as the bridge at Dartford is. The costs of that toll are going up, and that will be a problem for those who have to pay the extra cost every time they cross.
In conclusion, problems include the speed with which the change was implemented, the failure to discuss and debate, and the inability of TFL and the police to get the information into the public domain. The public should know that information, so that the bodies concerned can take the public with them, whatever decisions are taken in future. In the short term, I hope that the contraflow will be reopened and that more consultation and discussion will take place on this important issue.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate on what is clearly an important matter not only for his constituents, but for many constituents of other Members present and of Members who could not be with us. I appreciate its seriousness and I also appreciate the manner in which Members have raised their concerns this evening.
As hon. Members know, responsibility for operating the Blackwall tunnel lies with Transport for London, which maintains it and takes operational decisions on its use, in conjunction with the Metropolitan police. However, the Government do of course take an interest in how TFL operates its network and the outcomes, not least because reducing congestion and improving road safety are of paramount importance to us. We work in the expectation that TFL deliver will on both those objectives.
Let me give a little of the background history. The tidal flow system was introduced in 1978 in Blackwall’s southbound tunnel. During brief periods during the morning peak, one of the two lanes in the southbound tunnel was turned over to northbound traffic, which was done in response to traffic patterns at the time. The decision to run a tidal flow system in the Blackwall tunnel was never an ideal solution. Although it made more efficient use of the tunnel, it has become less efficient as traffic flows have changed. Operating a tidal flow system also introduced “head-on” traffic conditions. TFL tells me that that risk of accidents has risen under that system and is far higher than under a single-flow traffic system.
The Metropolitan police operate tidal flow at Blackwall. They observe traffic levels and take operational decisions on exactly when the tidal flow should be opened during the morning peak. It is incumbent on TFL to respect their views when making strategic decisions on the safety of the tunnel’s operation, and TFL can operate the tidal flow system only with the support of the Metropolitan police, who recently approached TFL with reports of increasing levels of dangerous driver behaviour in the southbound tunnel. They were particularly concerned about the increasing number of drivers overtaking in the tunnel.
The Metropolitan police were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with having to operate the tidal flow, and the issue was brought to a head by accidents in the tunnel on 10 and 17 April. However, it was not just a question of the increasing risk of accidents. A crash in the tunnel could have appalling consequences, such as a fire, or the huge disruption that TFL was mindful might result from a major incident in the tunnel. Such an incident could mean the total closure of one tunnel, and possibly both.
TFL’s safety record is impressive, and like the Government it is meeting challenging targets to reduce road casualties.
Last Friday, Len Duvall, the Greater London authority member for Greenwich and Lewisham, and I met representatives of TFL to discuss this issue, and I can confirm the facts that my hon. Friend has just given and those given by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). Does my hon. Friend agree that the information from the police, particularly on recent incidents, is extremely compelling upon TFL? It had a lot of difficulty in sticking to the time scale that it set for holding a public consultation and informing people of this change. If a further accident had happened, there could have been some recourse to compensation from TFL, and some blame laid at its door for not taking heed of what the police had said.
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. All Members will agree that it would be quite wrong of TFL to dismiss any advice given to it by the Metropolitan police. I will deal in a moment with the consultation arrangements, which are well worthy of a mention.
Modelling was carried out by TFL, which of course felt compelled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has just said, to act to protect the public. The modelling showed that additional queuing on the approach roads was possible until the situation had stabilised. Analysis also showed the likely diversionary impact, and TFL was satisfied that traffic diverted to other routes could safely and efficiently disperse across other routes. TFL did indeed, as we have heard, discuss its concerns with the Highways Agency. The agency was content that if TFL and the police decided that tidal flow could no longer be sustained, the decision would have only a negligible impact on its roads.
So what has happened? Northbound congestion has increased, as anticipated, and there is indeed a clear impact on the A2, the A102 and other northbound approach roads. Clearly, that is frustrating to drivers and residents in the area, and I appreciate that it is far from ideal. Any change to traffic flows takes time to bed down as traffic diverts and dissipates across a broad area. TFL is monitoring traffic levels and will take remedial action where necessary. Of course, there is another side to the story. The release of southbound capacity within the tunnel has had a beneficial impact on traffic conditions north of the river.
It is not for the Government to defend the individual operational decisions that TFL and the police make. I agree with hon. Members that TFL might have engaged more effectively with stakeholders, including hon. Members, and might have given earlier warning of the termination of the tidal flow. However, once the decision to withdraw the tidal flow had been made by TFL, the police took the view that there was no alternative but to implement that decision without delay. That unfortunately meant that TFL was unable to communicate the decision widely, as had been planned.
I understand that TFL has offered concerned Members of the House, as well as local councillors, the chance to be briefed in detail on the decision to end the tidal flow system. I can assure all hon. Members that the concerns that they expressed this evening will be raised directly with Transport for London, which I know will be paying close attention to the debate.
I thank the Minister for the care that she has taken with her reply. Can she confirm that there was no impediment to Transport for London, had it so chosen, placing in the public domain any of the information that it received from the police, which the hon. Lady has helpfully given us?
I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance. The point that I am trying to convey is that there was no lack of will on the part of TFL, but that it acted for operational reasons. It is conscious of the fact that it did not involve hon. Members and others, as it would have liked. I am keen to ensure that I draw to the attention of TFL all the concerns that have been voiced in the House this evening.
To conclude, continuing a system that TFL, on advice from the Metropolitan police, believed to be inherently dangerous would have been irresponsible. It is not for the Government to second-guess this decision. It was rightly a matter for those two bodies to determine. However, I can give the assurance that the Government will, of course, continue to liaise with TFL on the matter, and I shall take a personal interest in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o’clock.