Skip to main content

Oral Answers to Questions

Volume 461: debated on Tuesday 12 June 2007


The Secretary of State was asked—

Barnett Formula

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the operation of the Barnett formula as it affects Scotland. (140952)

The Government have no plans to replace or review the Barnett formula, which has delivered fair, stable and transparent settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under successive Administrations for almost 30 years.

Public expenditure in Scotland is £8,414 per head, yet in the east midlands it is a quarter less, at £6,334. In Wellingborough, a secondary school has been demolished, there have been cuts in the police force and we do not have a local hospital. Why should the population of Wellingborough and the rest of the east midlands subsidise the population of Scotland by the massive amount of £2,080 a year? What is the justification for that huge difference in public expenditure?

In every constituency, in every part of every region and nation of this country, there has been a massive increase in public services: more schools, more doctors, more nurses. As it happens, investment in public spending in Scotland has increased in the past five years by 18 per cent., but in England it increased by 21 per cent., so there are higher rates of increase in England. As the hon. Gentleman has brought it up, I should point out that in his area there are 420 more teachers than in 1998, 163 more police officers and 62 police community support officers. In his NHS area, there are 6,886 more nurses, 725 more consultants, 353 more GPs and 548 more dentists—all on account of strong economic management by the Government—

Recently, I had the privilege of chairing an all-party review of services for disabled children. The Treasury’s response was to target £340 million for England and £34 million for Scotland. May I have my hon. Friend’s assurance that nothing in the Barnett formula will prevent us from continuing to negotiate with the Executive to ensure that funding is indeed targeted at disabled children and the needs we identified?

It is only right to point out that my right hon. Friend has done more to advance the cause of disabled children than almost any other Member of the House, and much tribute is due to him. He is right to point out that as part of the comprehensive spending review settlement for the Department for Education and Skills in England money additional to that agreed with the Barnett consequentials at the time has been made available. His point underlines the fact that, because of the strong economic performance of the United Kingdom over the past 10 years, significant sums of additional money are going to education and health in Scotland, as they are throughout the rest of the UK. Obviously, it is for each of the devolved Administrations to decide how to spend the money made available to them, but my right hon. Friend makes an excellent case that additional resources should be spent on services for disabled children, and I look forward to that happening.

When the Minister next has discussions with the Chancellor, will he also raise the issue of moneys not contained in the Barnett formula, particularly Nuclear Decommissioning Authority funding for decommissioning at Dounreay? He will be aware that earlier this year there was a severe threat to Dounreay caused by problems outside Scotland. Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend is aware of that so that such threats do not reoccur in future years?

I am happy to have that conversation and to inform the hon. Gentleman that I shall be visiting Dounreay next Friday, where I will be able to hold discussions with local management. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come along—[Interruption.] I am telling him now. Don’t start with the “no phone calls and no letters”—I am telling the hon. Gentleman now that I shall be there next Friday, so why do he and I not sit down with local management at Dounreay and discuss all those issues?

Economic Activity

2. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of economic activity in Scotland since the 2005 general election. (140953)

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my answer by placing on the record condolences on behalf of the whole House on the passing of the noble Lord Ewing who served the House and Scotland with great distinction.

Since the 2005 general election, output in Scotland’s economy has grown at above the long-term trend rate. In employment terms, economic activity has increased and is now at a record high.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such growth and stability in the Scottish economy do more for all our constituents in Scotland than constitutional wrangling?

I certainly find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit China, where I met a range of British businesses, including Scottish businesses, which are investing in that expanding economy. When one has the opportunity to meet such business people and discuss with them the challenges facing Scottish business in the global economy, it is perfectly obvious that the economic stability of the past 10 years has provided strong foundations on which to seek new markets, new prosperity and new jobs for Scotland.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I associate myself with the comments that the Secretary of State made about the record of public service of Lord Ewing?

Has the Secretary of State read the newly published survey of success by the Federation of Small Businesses that sadly shows Scotland lagging as the worst-performing country in western Europe? I know that the Labour party has just lost political hegemony after 50 years in Scotland, but what responsibility does it accept for this woeful state of affairs? How long will it take for the only party in Scottish politics that as yet holds out against more powers for the Scottish Parliament—the Labour party—to reassess that, join the rest of us and give the Scottish Parliament the powers to improve the economy and society of Scotland?

Notwithstanding that characteristically gracious question, may I pass on my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on assuming the leadership of the Westminster group of his party? I fear, however, that he will continue to articulate a case of “Scotland the Victim” rather than “Scotland the Brave”. If one actually takes the opportunity to consider the FSB index of success report, one will recognise that Scotland is above Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway in terms of educational attainment. Scotland ranks seventh out of 32 for employment, representing equality of opportunity and how that comes about.

Of course, it is right to recognise that we face a very considerable challenge in terms of life expectancy and public health. Those areas of responsibility touch on the issue of poverty, for which both this House and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility, but I fail to see from the hon. Gentleman’s argument how additional powers would help the Scottish Parliament, given that it has responsibility for health policy in Scotland. If he is concerned about health inequalities in Scotland, he will be better discussing them with the First Minister.

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the sad passing of Harry Ewing, who contributed an enormous amount to my election in 1992 when I defeated Jim Sillars of the SNP—a fact greatly welcomed by all concerned?

Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in my constituency has come down by more than 50 per cent. since 1997, but is he also aware that I am still not satisfied? Can he therefore tell us when he will be arranging for there to be an announcement about the orders for the two aircraft carriers?

I know of long standing that my hon. Friend is always proud but not satisfied in relation to employment in his constituency. His constituency is just one of the many constituencies—not just in Glasgow or west central Scotland but across the whole of Scotland—that has seen unemployment tumble in recent years as a direct consequence of the economic stability of which I was just speaking. Of course, much further work needs to be done in Glasgow, and it is the case that Ministry of Defence orders to British shipyards in Scotland have contributed significantly to the employment success that has been achieved in recent years. However, this Government recognise that more needs to be done.

I echo the tributes to Lord Ewing and, in particular, pay tribute to his role as joint chair, along with Lord Steel, of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that delivered many of the changes that Scotland benefits from today.

May I concur with the Secretary of State that many parts of Scotland are performing well and have the potential to develop more strongly? However, for that to happen in places such as the north-east, we need continual investment in infrastructure—for example, the western peripheral route and a commuter rail service between Inverurie and Stonehaven—and a regime for oil, gas and energy that encourages long-term development and investment. For businesses in my constituency, being part of a strong Scotland within a strong United Kingdom is an overwhelming priority.

Somewhat unusually, I find myself broadly agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of course the case that we want to see continued investment on the UK continental shelf in the North sea. Although the primary responsibility is with the Scottish Executive, it is also the case that we want to ensure that there is an infrastructure to support sustained economic growth. It is also the case that that has taken place not just on the platform of economic stability but as part of a significant global economy. That is why Scotland has enjoyed such economic success in recent years.

Act of Union Celebrations

3. What discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on the planned Act of Union celebrations in Scotland. (140954)

A range of activities has been planned to celebrate the Act of Union, some of which have taken place already. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, you and the Lord Speaker earlier today opened an exhibition in the Royal Gallery in the other place displaying some of the historic documents associated with the treaty of Union. That exhibition is due to travel to the Scottish Parliament later in the year.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern that what is undermining the Act of Union celebrations is not just the SNP victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections, but the fact that there is growing resentment in England about the unfairness of the constitutional settlement since devolution? Does he agree that the only way to ensure that we can celebrate the Act of Union in the long term—and, indeed, to save the Union in the long term—is to ensure that Scottish MPs in this House do not vote on matters that apply only to England?

I am not convinced by the case that the hon. Gentleman outlines. Opportunism is vying with principle on the Conservative Benches, as the Conservatives try to frame a policy on the United Kingdom. I am somewhat more optimistic than he is about the future of the Union, given that—notwithstanding the election of the First Minister a few weeks ago—at the elections the Scottish people overwhelmingly rejected the party that sought separatism. Two out of three votes cast were clearly in favour of the Union.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Union of Scotland with other parts of the UK does far more for each and every part of the UK than narrow nationalism ever will?

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, and not simply for the historic reasons relating to the strength that the Union brings to Scotland and England—the shared history, the common geography and the trading links that we have enjoyed in recent centuries. Looking to the future, the ability to balance the strength that we draw from each other with a recognition of diversity is a powerful message to send to the whole world. What a dismal message it would send to the world if, on the 300th anniversary, people were to judge that, instead of working together, we should split apart.

The Secretary of State and the Scotland Office have played an absolute blinder on this one. Look what we have secured in this anniversary year: we have a brand-new shiny £2 coin and a brand-new shiny SNP Government in Edinburgh. Will he pledge to continue to do what he has done so well and reflect the public’s enthusiasm for this celebration by continuing to do not very much at all?

What powerful eloquence from the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that Scottish people recognise that there is something useful about having a £2 coin—in clear distinction to an SNP-led Administration.

Surely the best way of celebrating this magnificent anniversary would be to reject once and for all the idea that some Members of the House should be prevented from voting on some matters before it. That is an undemocratic, anti-British proposal that would create a de facto English Parliament and lead inexorably to the break-up of Britain.

I know that my hon. Friend is tireless in his advocacy not just of his part of the west midlands, but of the case for the United Kingdom. A United Kingdom needs a united Parliament. The argument that Members on the Opposition Benches sometimes articulate—that somehow there is a great oppression of England by Scottish MPs—ignores the fact that more than 80 per cent. of the House is not composed of Scottish MPs. The House reflects the geography and the population shares of the respective nations of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that there is a strong case for having a single class of MPs who are able to legislate on the matters that come before the House. That has served us well in the past, and I believe that it will serve us well in the future.

May I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s comments about Lord Ewing?

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that one aspect of the Act of Union to be particularly celebrated is the retention of Scotland’s distinct legal system. So like me and Jack McConnell, was he appalled by the Prime Minister’s apparent willingness to ride roughshod not just over the Scottish legal system but over the whole devolution settlement in seeking to agree a prisoner exchange deal with Libya? What hope can we have for the continuation of the Act of the Union if the First Minister and the Prime Minister do not even communicate?

I have something of an advantage over the hon. Gentleman—not only by being educated and trained in Scots law, but by having practised as a Scottish solicitor. Greater familiarity with the tenets of constitutional law, including the Scotland Act 1998, might allow him to recognise the error of his statement. The memorandum of understanding states:

“The UK Government will seek to obtain the agreement of all three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom in each case.”

That is entirely consistent with the devolution settlement.

What is not consistent with the devolution settlement is the discourtesy that was shown to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive by the Prime Minister in failing to raise this issue before he began the discussions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to celebrate the Union is to demonstrate our commitment to it in all our actions? Surely that means that when a memorandum of understanding is signed between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations it should be adhered to; that when a joint ministerial committee is set up, it meets; that when Scotland elects a First Minister, the Prime Minister speaks to him; and that if the intergovernmental relations as previously envisaged are not fit for purpose, they are revised. Is it not about time that the Secretary of Scotland showed his commitment to the Union in deeds, not words?

Forgive me, but I have some difficulty taking seriously the hon. Gentleman’s assertions of his commitment to the Scottish Parliament. This is a man who was, in one of his own memorandums, somewhat scathing in his views of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. On the integrity of the United Kingdom constitutional settlement in light of the memorandum of understanding, there is nothing in the memorandum of understanding that is prejudicial either to the interests of the jurisdiction that rightly continues to be the province of Scots law, and indeed of the Scottish Parliament, or to the right of the UK Prime Minister to negotiate on foreign affairs on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Electoral System

We have just heard the Secretary of State say that notwithstanding the fact that two out of three voters voted to continue the Union, we face a perverse situation in which the party in government in Scotland is determined to push for independence. The Under-Secretary of State will recently have heard many of his Labour colleagues call for a return to the first past the post system, so will he instigate a review and consider returning to a simple, clear method of electing Members of the Scottish Parliament, namely the system that we have here—first past the post?

We set up an independent commission, led by Sir John Arbuthnott, to consider the consequences of having different electoral systems in Scotland. He and his commission looked into the matter and came back with the recommendation that we should not move back to first past the post, or move to the single transferable vote system right across Scotland, but that we should keep the current system as it is. It is a reflection of the fact that during the Scottish Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to reach consensus. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman’s party had taken part in the Constitutional Convention, it might have been able to make the hon. Gentleman’s comment at the time. We have a system and it has produced a result that we openly acknowledge: it has given the Scottish National party a one-seat advantage, but it should not think that it has any mandate whatever to break up the United Kingdom. That would be going against the clear wishes of the vast majority of the people of Scotland.

But will the Minister accept that the voting system for this place should remain as it is—that is, that it should be first past the post?

As the newly elected Scottish Executive have a good Gaelic song, doubtless the SNP could have looked forward to election victories regardless of the voting system used. However, is it not the case that Scotland’s electoral system should be a matter for Scotland’s Parliament and all the parties within its Parliament?

The Scotland Act 1998 is very clear: issues relating to the constitution are reserved to this place, and that includes the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. We have no plans to change that.

When looking at the Scotland Act, will Ministers consider the position that it is completely wrong that someone should be able to stand under first past the post, under the list system and for a local authority, and so may fail in the first, fail in the second and fail in the third? There are parties in which people are able to do that, whereas in our party we stand for only one position. Surely that is right.

I think that it is probably best to leave the issue to the individual parties concerned; it is up to them to make a decision on whether they should have people who are on the list, who stand under first past the post and who stand for the council, too. My hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that the Arbuthnott commission looked into that, and rather explicitly ruled it out.

I am sure that all Members want trust in our electoral system to be restored after the mess of last month’s elections, and a full and comprehensive inquiry is clearly vital to that. However, we now face the ludicrous situation in which the inquiry investigating the thousands of spoiled ballot papers will not be able to see a single one. Will the Minister tell me why he has not yet brought forward the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the inquiry is able to examine the spoiled ballot papers, and will he do so now?

We have been absolutely and consistently clear: the inquiry is independent of Government, and an independent international expert has been brought in to lead that inquiry. If I were to start second-guessing what those carrying out the inquiry might ask for, or how they should go about their inquiry, I would rightly be accused of interfering with it. We have said that we stand ready to co-operate with Mr. Gould, and so we do.

The Minister will be aware that the subject of the elections was raised at First Minister’s questions in the Scottish Parliament on 31 May, when the First Minister referred to his telephone discussions with the Secretary of State. Although I am pleased to learn that they were cordial, the First Minister also indicated his intention to push for

“a more thorough and independent inquiry”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 31 May 2007; c. 316.]—

into the Scottish election debacle. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister accede to that request?

The First Minister has not actually made the request, so it is difficult for me to accede to a request that has not been made. I have not had a telephone conversation with the First Minister, but I had the unalloyed joy of spending three hours with him over a curry in Renfrew a week last Sunday, and he did not raise the matter with me then, either. If he says one thing to the Scottish Parliament and does not say it in this place, that highlights the fact that he has a seat here and if he came and took his seat and served his constituents in Banff and Buchan, he could make that point to us at Scottish questions.

Energy White Paper

5. What assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the Energy White Paper on energy production in Scotland. (140956)

But as we have seen, the White Paper may lead to a loss of investor confidence. We have lost the carbon capture and storage project in Peterhead. We need clarity from the Government for investors. To that end, will the Minister rule out entirely any liability for nuclear waste or nuclear decommissioning from new generation plant falling on the public sector?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said at the Dispatch Box on Thursday, in response to a question from the hon. Gentleman, I think, we are sorry that BP is not going to continue with the competition, but there are seven other important players in that competition. It was never the case that the Government could simply hand out the necessary awards to one particular company. Even if BP had stayed in with the Peterhead project, there is no guarantee that it would have won the competition in any event. However, the Government’s position on new nuclear build was set out comprehensively in the White Paper. It is not for the Government to build nuclear power stations. It is for industry to come forward to Government and say that it would like to build a new nuclear power station. At that point, the discussions can take place.

I too pay my tributes to Lord Ewing, who was a good friend and colleague and a great parliamentarian. He will be a loss to both Parliament and Scotland. I send my best wishes to his wife Margaret and his family.

May I press the Minister to accept that, in view of the utterances from the new leadership in the Scottish Parliament, an important issue such as the energy White Paper would be better discussed by the Scottish representatives at Westminster in the Scottish Grand Committee? I cannot think of anything more important to discuss in the Scottish Grand Committee than the energy White Paper.

My hon. Friend’s tenacious advocacy of the Scottish Grand Committee reflects well on him. It is a matter for the usual channels and the House authorities to instigate Grand Committees. I point out that since the Grand Committee stopped meeting regularly, it is possible to hold one and a half hour debates on important issues in Westminster Hall, and it is open to my hon. Friend to apply for such a debate.

Following on from the discussion of nuclear power in an earlier question, if a company wished to build a new nuclear plant in Scotland, would it be up to the Scottish Executive to make that decision or would it be up to the Department of Trade and Industry?

The situation is crystal clear. The Scottish Executive would have the final say on any application for a new nuclear power station in Scotland or even for any non-nuclear significantly large power generator, both under the Electricity Act 1989 and under planning legislation.

Economic Activity

Central Scotland has benefited from the stability generated by the Government’s management of the economy, which has delivered above trend economic growth and the strongest labour market for decades.

May I associate myself with the remarks about Lord Ewing, who represented Falkirk in this place and will be sadly missed here?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the remarkable and historically high levels of employment in the Falkirk area. Does he agree that the future success of the economy of central Scotland, and particularly the Falkirk economy, will be based in large part on our unrivalled communication links and the intelligent use of land?

My hon. Friend is right. Unemployment in his constituency stands at 2.5 per cent., which is below the Scottish average. I am sure that Lord Ewing would have liked to be able to say that during his time representing that constituency, when throughout long periods of the last Conservative Government places such as Falkirk were severely blighted by high unemployment. Falkirk now has a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the thriving economy in central Scotland, including the thriving financial services sector and the great improvements that are being made in the manufacturing sector. At the heart of that lie the key transport links. I know that for as long as my hon. Friend is a tireless advocate, the future will be very bright for Falkirk.

Communities and Local Government

The Secretary of State was asked—

Affordable Housing

John Hills’ review of social housing underlined the importance of promoting mobility and tackling worklessness. The report has provoked a wide-ranging debate on the role of social housing in the 21st century. We are carrying out a programme of work to address the issues raised.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Hills report says that of 4 million tenants nation wide, only about 5,000 to 6,000 move in any one year owing to employment-related factors, so existing mobility schemes simply do not work. Yet the number of homeless of people who live in socially rented housing is significantly higher than in any other tenures. That means that something must be done. What indications can she give us that she is considering this, and that action will be taken to help those people to get into employment?

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. More than half of all social tenants of working age are not in work of any form, and enabling mobility to allow them to take up work must be an important part of our response. Of course, increasing the supply of social housing will be vital, and we plan to continue that, but we must also think about how, within our choice-based lettings schemes, at a local authority level and more broadly, we can enable people to move both within their area and across boundaries. I will say more about that later.

But following the collapse of Move UK earlier this year, when will social housing tenants in my constituency be able to move to another part of the country using something like the national mobility scheme, which the Government inherited in 1997?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that he used the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to raise this issue recently. Indeed, national mobility schemes are probably an important part of our response, although I point out to him that there have traditionally been far more mutually arranged exchanges than have ever taken place through a national mobility scheme. One way in which we can make this happen more quickly and easily than by resurrecting any of the old schemes—it was right that we took action when we did to correct a contract failure—is to ensure that choice-based lettings work thoroughly and appropriately to enable choice within the local authority area and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), to enable people to move on a sub-regional basis across local authority areas or more widely.

According to a recent parliamentary answer to me, mobility has been falling for some time. Last night, I spoke to two tenants in my constituency. One was a single person living in a three double-bedroom flat and seeking to downsize; the other was a family of six living in a one-bedroom flat and hoping to get out of a desperately overcrowded situation. While the match is not exact, as we know, mobility can clearly make a real impact on overcrowding and on homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend commit to a major injection of energy and resources to try to get internal and external mobility back up even to the level that it was at a few years ago?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is working with the Greater London authority to ensure, especially in London, that incentives are given for people who want to change home, particularly to downgrade. I understand that so far about £20 million has been invested to that end. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is a priority. We must do more, and we are thinking about all the measures that we can take to make it easier for people to move home.

As the Secretary of State knows, in 1981, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), in a Conservative Government, introduced a scheme that allowed social housing tenants to move to new homes anywhere in the United Kingdom and retain their secure tenure. This year, under a Labour Government, the scheme has collapsed, scores of people have lost their jobs and tens of thousands of tenants have been left in the lurch, with no new homes to which to move and no scheme in place to offer support. After the incompetent introduction of home information packs and penal stamp duty, which have made it much more difficult for home owners to move, the Government have now made it much more difficult for social tenants to move. May we have a word of apology?

I clearly regret the failure of Move UK. It was set up to replace an already failing scheme, which did not deliver appropriate moves for tenants throughout the country. As I have already said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), far more moves took place under mutually agreed exchanges than any national mobility scheme ever produced. Clearly, the performance of the new scheme was unsatisfactory and I regret that. We must now work urgently to try to develop a choice-based lettings scheme, which is a preferable method of encouraging mobility, especially because most local authority tenants want to move in their area and fairly close to home—perhaps for child care support or employment reasons—and we must then work quickly to expand that scheme so that people have the opportunity to move across the country.

Will my right hon. Friend also address the issue of enforced mobility in the social housing sector whereby people who live in terribly overcrowded conditions are forced to move away, as she says, from their jobs and homes to find satisfactory accommodation? Will she examine the Housing Corporation-funded scheme that was piloted by Luton community housing association, which enabled social housing to be extended in the same way as we have loft and other extensions in our homes, to enable families to retain their jobs, places at schools and all the links with their communities rather than being forced to move?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is right that social tenants have choice just as it is right for people who own their homes to choose whether to move, build an extension or convert their loft. That is precisely why we are working with the Greater London authority and others in London to give people the opportunity to convert their social homes so that they have more choice about whether to move or stay where they are.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, if the Government’s policies push an extra 500,000 families on to the council house waiting list—as they have done—the pressure will reduce mobility, not increase it? Is not the cure to build more social housing? On balance, does she believe that mobility will be improved or worsened if the housing allocation policy of the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), were adopted nationally?

Of course the answer is to build more homes. That is why I am proud that the Labour Government are building more private sector homes as well as increasing the number of homes that are built in the social sector. The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of social sector homes has increased by 50 per cent. in the past two years. It is my priority and that of my Department in the comprehensive spending review to put new-build social housing at the top of our list. We must do more—he is right to acknowledge that. However, as he rightly says, it is a matter of increasing the supply of new housing, affordable housing and social homes.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 80 per cent. of the population in my constituency have no chance of buying into the private sector and that the only hope of those who are in overcrowded council accommodation is mobility within the borough or nearby? Yet in London, the chronic shortage of council housing means that it is impossible for many families who live in grossly overcrowded accommodation, with teenagers growing up three or four to a room, to have any chance of getting somewhere decent to live. Will the Government please invest a lot of money quickly in building council houses for rent for people in desperate housing need?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a real issue. I hope that he supports the additional investment that the Government have made in increasing the number of homes available at affordable rent. We must continue to make progress on that. We are now building at a rate of around 30,000 homes a year. We must increase that further to tackle the pressures that he rightly outlines.

Home Inspectors

We have received a number of representations from home inspectors and domestic energy assessors, and we have held meetings with them and their representatives.

What message would the Minister give to recently qualified home inspectors in Vale of York and across England and Wales who at their own expense have qualified as either energy assessors or home inspectors? They did so in the expectation of earning a living in that capacity from 1 June, but now have no likelihood of earning any money before 1 August and possibly later. What is her message to them and when will she share with the House her definition of a “bedroom” for purposes of the home information pack?

Yesterday, we set out a series of further details, which included an update on implementation and proposals for supporting a number of free energy certificates in advance of August. We are also working with housing associations to bring forward energy certificates for social housing. We have been clear that we want to bring in energy certificates and home information packs as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. Lady told her constituents that her and her party’s message is that they want to abolish work for them altogether.

When I met representatives of the Milton Keynes home improvement and domestic energy assessors association a week ago, they were very clear that they understood which party in this House had been trying to get energy performance certificates moving forward and which party had been opposing it. They are also extremely keen that the Minister should lay out with even greater clarity the triggers for rolling out the energy performance certificates from four to three-bedroomed houses and then to other housing, and clarify what work will be provided from now until 1 August for those who have no other source of employment.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, we set out further details yesterday as part of our implementation update and we will provide further regular updates on the website, particularly for energy assessors across the country who want to be able to begin work at the earliest possible opportunity. This is about bringing in changes that will help cut carbon emissions from homes. That is important and we need to get on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I love you!

I too have received correspondence from constituents—Mr. Stuart Little and Mr. Murray Pakes, who trained and invested many hours in becoming domestic energy assessors and home inspectors. They are now disillusioned and completely demotivated by the Government’s broken promises to them. What should I tell them about reclaiming their costs? Can they sue the Government, or shall I tell them that they will have to lose that money if, as is likely, they do not wish to proceed?

I presume that it was not me whom the hon. Gentleman said he loved as he stood up! He should very honestly explain to his constituents his party’s policy. His party has been campaigning for the end of energy certificates and for an end to the work to be done by energy assessors. We have set out a programme to bring forward the energy certificates and HIPs at the earliest possible opportunity and we have set out steps to bring forward more energy certificates in advance of 1 August.

The private contractors seem to have failed many of those who wished to train as assessors. Will my hon. Friend consider contracting directly with colleges, such as Wigan and Leigh, in order to provide the training necessary to produce the numbers required?

I would be happy to look at my hon. Friend’s proposals. Many energy assessors are now coming through the training and passing their exams, but we know that much of the uncertainty—including around the legal case brought by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against the energy certificate—deterred people from completing accreditation. Now more than 1,000 people have completed accreditation, but we clearly want more coming through so that we can introduce energy certificates at the earliest opportunity.

Does the Minister accept that her reply to the previous two questions about people who have spent £6,000 and more on training to be assessors was completely inadequate? I have a constituent in that situation who has written to the Minister saying that he is

“left in limbo, wondering when a full day’s work will ever come his way”.

What can the Minister do to make these people understand what they can do to reclaim their costs?

Again, I have to say that we set out further details yesterday and we will update them on the Department’s website so that people can be clear where work is already starting in order to start rolling out energy certificates, both in social housing and as part of free energy certificates supported by the Department. The hon. Gentleman must be honest with his constituents about his party’s policy. He has been campaigning to prevent the introduction of important measures that will cut carbon emissions from our homes by 1 million tonnes. Those measures are important, and hon. Members should stop contributing to greater uncertainty and making it difficult for energy assessors to start doing their jobs.

Has my hon. Friend’s Department ruled out the option of drawing on organisations that already go into people’s homes but which are not yet being allowed to train people to carry out the energy assessment element of the survey? Would their involvement not encourage people to come forward, so as to increase capacity? May I also say that the estate agents in Plymouth to whom I have spoken are very happy with the Government’s proposals and keen to roll out the provisions as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. An accreditation system was set up to support those who already had a lot of experience and might have needed only a little updating in order to become accredited. The system was known as the experienced practitioners’ route and was designed to ensure that additional energy assessors, often with different kinds of experience, were in place to carry out the work. I am afraid that that accreditation scheme has not yet delivered many people to be trained to be fully accredited. It is run by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Green Belt

16. Whether a positive average annual change in the green belt will be achieved in each region over the period 2002-07. (141603)

The 2007 figures are not yet available. Between 2003 and 2006, there was an increase of 7,500 hectares in the green belt across the country, excluding the re-designation of the New Forest as a national park. Six regions showed small increases and three showed small decreases in the total amount of green belt land.

I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am pleased that she thinks that extensions to the green belt, where appropriate, are welcome. Does she accept, however, that the continuing policy of urban extensions, led by the market, will result in areas that have repeatedly been turned down for development—such as the so-called white land at Leckhampton, near my constituency—being placed under increasing pressure unless the protection of green belt status is extended to them? Will she reconsider the policy of market-led urban extension, which seems to encourage developers to focus on such affluent areas rather than on urban regeneration, social housing and struggling small villages, or on counties such as Cornwall, which need and want the housing more?

We certainly support the continued protection of the green belt, and that protection will need to increase in some parts of the country. It is a matter for regional planning authorities and local councils, however. The hon. Gentleman asked about urban extension and other areas needing additional housing. We all need to recognise that we need to build more homes for the next generation. We are not building enough at the moment. The number has increased substantially over the past few years, but it is still not high enough. It is a matter for local councils to take responsible decisions about where the new homes should be built and where protection is needed, but we cannot run away from these important decisions.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the formulation of a local development framework provides a good opportunity to consider whether any changes should be made to the green belt. In my constituency, the local authority is proposing a couple of sensible changes around Tinsley park, but another proposed change in the Bridle Stile area and the attractive Moss valley has been withdrawn because, although the council’s proposals would allow the land to remain as open space, it believes that putting it into the green belt would trigger a wholesale review of all the green belt in the city, with all the time and cost consequences that that would entail. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter to ascertain whether it is possible to make such marginal and beneficial changes without triggering a comprehensive review, with all the problems that that could create?

I am happy to look at the case that my hon. Friend has raised. He will be aware that we are unable to comment on individual cases, and that there are proper procedures that need to be followed when planning designations need to take place, but I will certainly look further into the case that he has mentioned.

Members will have read with interest the reference in The Times today to an interview with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), in which he talks about scrapping the green belt. Will the Minister take this opportunity publicly to reject his comments and to pledge her continued support for green belt protection? If not, is not the future of the green belt under Labour more uncertain than ever?

That is complete nonsense. We have just published a planning White Paper in which we make it absolutely clear that the green belt protection needs to continue. The green belt is important. However, the hon. Lady often uses the green belt and concern about house building in general to argue against house building. In fact, she said in response to the White Paper that regional assemblies were building too—

Order. The Minister is answering the case for herself. It is not for her to say what the policy is of the shadow Minister.

Of course it is not just about the quantity of green belt, but about the quality and whether it is publicly accessible. One of the positive legacies of the former Greater Manchester council 21 years ago was the transformation of the old industrialised river valleys into pleasant open spaces and country parks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important in urbanised areas such as Denton and Reddish that we not only look after and protect these open spaces from unwarranted encroachments by the industrialised and urban areas surrounding them, but look to build on them and extend them further to create more open spaces for my constituents?

My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that the quality of the environment is improved. That includes green spaces on the edge of towns and those in towns as well. That is why we have made investing in the environment and green spaces a priority across areas such as the Thames Gateway, because it is important that local communities have access to good quality open space.

Revenue Support Grant (Worcestershire)

The current formula grant distribution system is designed to take into account the individual circumstances of each local authority relative to all others. The Government consider that a fair way of distributing grant to local authorities.

I find the Minister’s answer somewhat disappointing. May I impress on him the situation in Worcester, where in education, for example, the gap 10 years ago in pupil spending per year between us and Birmingham was a matter of a few hundred pounds, which was condemned by Labour candidates at the time? That gap is now in excess of £800 a year and rising. I implore him to go back to his Department, look again at the way in which the figure is calculated and consider whether, for example, Worcestershire should be given area cost adjustment status, which is given to neighbouring Warwickshire, with a similar geographic location and similar demographics. That would at least begin to address some of the appalling unfairness shown to the people who live in Worcestershire.

In comparing the hon. Lady’s authority with Birmingham, she fails to point out that the revenue of both has risen substantially. It is only fair to mention that. Of course, the dedicated schools budget is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills. However, I take on board her point about the area cost adjustment. Like the rest of the House, she will have to wait for the formal consultation on the formula grant distribution system, which is especially important this year as we intend to make a three-year grant settlement.

The Minister talks about substantial increases, but one thing that has increased substantially in Worcestershire is the council tax, which in 10 years has gone up by 120 per cent., caused by unfunded burdens and fiddle-funding. Who is responsible for this massive increase in its council tax? Is it 10 years of the current Prime Minister or 10 years of the current Chancellor?

It is neither; it is Worcestershire county council that sets the council tax. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too lost in his soundbites and clichés, let me point out that the grant floor, which he presumably opposes, protects Worcestershire county council to the tune of £2.9 million. I presume that he is not asking me to get rid of that floor.


The Government of course welcomed the all-party parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism, and published their response in March this year. We have set up a cross-Government working group to act on the all-party group’s recommendations. Jewish stakeholders and others have been invited to the first meeting, which will take place on 20 June.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the stance he has taken on this issue and on combating extremism, but does he agree that by singling out Israel from all other nations, including Iran, China and Sudan, the proposed boycott of Israel is likely to exacerbate the anti-Semitism identified in the all-party parliamentary report?

As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly condemn that decision. I consider it a terrible decision. I was pleased to learn that the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), had travelled to Israel to make that very point. I strongly support what he said there—as, I suspect, does the whole House, including the Opposition parties.

May I say how much many of us welcome what the Minister has just said?

One of the key recommendations of the all-party report was that there should be a clearer definition of anti-Semitic offences so that we could do something to improve the appalling conviction rate, which is only about one in 10. What progress has been made in that regard?

Two issues are involved. One is the work of the Crown Prosecution Service, which has taken the matter up as a result of the work of the all-party group—on which I congratulate it again—and the second is the working definition of the European Union, to which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom has signed up.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the passing of a resolution by the so-called academics is not the first instance of the pursuing of such a course by this particular organisation? Is it not worrying that there is an underlying and pervasive atmosphere which accepts that anti-Semitism is perfectly normal, and should we not be doing all we can to combat that in every conceivable way?

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think it very important for Parliament, as well as Government, to issue that condemnation. I believe we can unite strongly on the issue. I know that Sally Hunt, joint general secretary of the University College Union, is very concerned about it.

On a personal note, as a former leader of the National Union of Students let me say that—again, on a cross-party basis—we have always opposed anti-Semitism, as well as the way in which some people, no doubt deliberately, confuse condemnation of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Impact Assessments

19. If she will make a statement on the role of the proposed impact assessments in speeding up small-scale planning applications. (141606)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Angela E. Smith)

We are currently consulting on proposed changes to permitted development rights for householders. Developments with no impact beyond the host property would be permitted, and clear limits on size and siting would set out what was allowed. It is estimated that the number of householder planning applications would be reduced by about 85,000.

I welcome the proposed impact assessments as a way of strengthening the rights of third parties in planning disputes, but how do the Government intend to reconcile the new protection with their simultaneous commitment to speeding up planning applications?

This is a twofold protection. It not only strengthens the rights of other householders to object, but it strengthens the right of the individual householder to know exactly what is permitted. It is like the old volume allowance, but with clear guidelines. As I have said, we expect the number of planning applications to fall by about 85,000, and that in itself would help to speed up the planning system.

Elsewhere in Europe, local authorities have been able to speed up the planning application process while also speeding up the process of change to a renewable and sustainable energy agenda, because they are allowed to set clear terms and requirements for collection and recycling of water and the incorporation of energy-generating systems in any planning developments. Is the Minister contemplating adopting the same system across the board in the United Kingdom, so that all local authorities can be clear about the change agenda?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and we are consulting on making microgeneration much easier for individual households on smaller scale developments. We have to get a balance between ensuring local flexibility and allowing every single local authority to do something completely different, which could then hamper progress towards developing greater take-up of new technologies. It is important, at the same time, that we have a degree of flexibility for local authorities. The key is to ensure that we move as quickly as possible to increasing microgeneration.

Affordable Housing

New housing is now at its highest rate for 20 years but we need to go further, given the serious pressures on affordability. Regional assemblies also need to do more. That is made harder in my hon. Friend’s region because of the approach of the South East England regional assembly, which is arguing, unfortunately, for cuts in the level of house building.

Does my hon. Friend have any words for those on the Conservative-dominated regional assembly, who on one hand tell my constituents that the south-east is to be concreted over, and on the other shout about the need for more affordable housing? I find that despicable and unfair; those people should see how desperate some of the hard-working families at our constituency surgeries are for new housing.

My hon. Friend is completely right. We have an ageing and growing population, with more people living alone. We need to go further and build more homes for the next generation; it is not fair on them if we do not. Frankly, the approach of the Conservatives in the south-east is bonkers.