Duchy of Lancaster
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—
Youth Citizenship Commission
I am co-ordinating the Government response to the Youth Citizenship Commission. I have been impressed by the breadth of commitment of all Government Departments in engaging young people as active citizens in their communities and as they go through the transition to adulthood. I expect to publish my findings in response to the YCC in February, when I shall report on the significant amount of Government initiatives on delivery for young people.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As she knows, the UK Youth Parliament is absolutely key to delivering on the proposals outlined by the YCC. Will she press the House authorities to provide core funding for the UK Youth Parliament to secure its future, so that it can deliver on those proposals?
I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on all her work for the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs. She does an excellent job. The UK Youth Parliament is a real success story: my hon. Friend will know that it held a great debate here in the House, and one of its key priorities is to lower the voting age to 16. She makes a valuable point, and I will indeed press the House authorities to try to ensure that we get some core funding for the UKYP.
We are all very keen to get more young people involved in the electoral process, and to ensure that they vote and participate. An election is near, so what more can the Government do to fulfil the commission’s recommendation that eligible pupils should be encouraged to register via school to make sure that they participate when it comes?
The hon. Gentleman makes another valuable point. We do not need any changes in law to ensure that young people are registered in schools, colleges and universities. We need to encourage those institutions to make sure that young people are encouraged to sign on and be registered to vote when they reach 17, so that we have the maximum number participating in the next election.
Get Safe Online Initiative
By sponsoring the Get Safe Online initiative, my Department continues to work with private sector partners to raise the very important issue of public awareness of internet safety. The Get Safe Online initiative has won two prestigious awards for this joint working, and it continues to increase the number and length of visits to its website. There have been more than 605,000 links to the site—far more than its US counterpart, which has achieved only 25,000.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. A lot of people in my constituency still enjoy using cheques, which is a good thing, but more and more people—especially elderly people—are seeking to shop online because it is easy. What additional support and advice can she offer older users of the internet, who may be less familiar with the systems? What protections are in place?
My hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue on behalf of her elderly constituents. It is an extremely important matter, as people over 65 are the fastest growing group of internet users. That may seem slightly counter-intuitive, but that group of users grew by 15 per cent. in 2009 over the previous year, whereas the number of younger people using the internet grew by only 3 per cent. in the same period. Get Safe Online works specifically with Age Concern and has focused precisely on the important issue of security in banking and other financial transactions. It is important that the technology and content of websites always keeps ahead of fraud’s capacity to cause great anxiety and distress.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Get Safe Online is a joint initiative, involving the Government and important private sector sponsors such as HSBC and Microsoft. Indeed, the Minister for the third sector, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), recently hosted a sponsorship event as a result of which two new sponsors came on stream. It is clear that sponsors understand the initiative’s potential public benefit when it is presented to them. It is a very attractive sponsorship proposition.
The Minister mentioned fraud. With an increasing number of people being used as money mules, what are the Government doing to track down the foreign international gangs behind those schemes, and in particular to prosecute UK citizens who take their cut of the money?
I would like to refer the hon. Gentleman’s question to the Home Office, which takes the lead on this. I do not think that I referred specifically to money mules; I referred to protection for elderly people doing their banking and other financial transactions online. I hope that, as far as there is operational responsibility for this, his point about anticipating crime and future forms of fraud is taken into account in the constant review under the auspices of Get Safe Online working with the relevant organisations.
There has been a dramatic increase in cyber crime related to online transactions, as the Minister mentioned. Treasury figures show that transactions have more than doubled in the last three years, but the amount of identify theft and fraud has nearly quadrupled in the same period. What are the Government doing to tackle this growing problem, and what assessment has been made of the Payments Council’s decision to phase out cheques?
I have discussed the accounting arrangements for NHS charities with the Charity Commission and with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope). The funds of an NHS charity are, and will continue to be, controlled by the charity’s trustees for charitable purposes. The international financial reporting standard will have no effect on the independence of those funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby, however, has engaged with colleagues in the Treasury to seek to delay the implementation of that requirement for a further year.
The hon. Gentleman may operate in a world in which yes or no does it for him, but most things in life are a bit more complex. However, I can give him a categorical assurance that the finances of NHS charities will remain entirely controlled by the trustees of those charities, which is appropriate. All that we are talking about, and the source of the confusion and misunderstanding, is a technical change to accounting and reporting arrangements. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that funds will remain controlled by the trustees, and will continue to be controlled by the trustees.
My right hon. Friend will know that many communities give a great deal of support to NHS services, both in the hospice movement and in general health services. People would be dismayed if they thought that the moneys given voluntarily would be used against the NHS hospital budgets.
I agree with my hon. Friend, and they will not be. This is purely a technical accounting matter, so I am sorry about those concerns, because they are unfounded. There is no intention whatsoever that anything should be done with charity funds, which should remain with those charities. It is a purely technical accounting matter, and I hope that those assurances will satisfy my hon. Friend.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no such intention. This arrangement will not centralise any funding or any control of those charitable funds at all.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that she is going to defer implementation for 12 months, but may I persuade her to go back and have further meetings, and support the Sunday People campaign not to introduce the new arrangement at all, and ensure that people feel happy to give freely and openly to charities in the NHS without any issues?
First of all, I do not have the power to introduce it or not. It is a matter for the Treasury, because it is a technical—
If I can finish answering the question that my hon. Friend asked. [Hon. Members: “Oh!] I would always wish to respond to my hon. Friend in full, and I will continue to do so. I am sorry that there is misunderstanding about this, because we do not want people not to give to charities in the NHS because they think that the money will not be used appropriately. It is purely a technical matter but, as I said, the Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, has asked the Treasury to defer implementation for a year to provide the reassurance that is required.
The Charity Commission does not agree with the Government. It warned 18 months ago that the proposals risk undermining public confidence in the independence of NHS charities, but still the Government dither. Those accounting standards were never meant to be applied to charities. Other countries have chosen not to apply them in this way. They are being imposed because of bureaucratic diktat. The issue needs gripping by Ministers, so will the right hon. Lady pledge to work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Monitor to persuade the Treasury not just to defer a decision for another year, but to drop this whole nonsense altogether?
I am not sure that there is any disagreement in the House on the principle of what the Government seek to do. NHS charities should have their funds independently administered by the trustees, which is the law. As I said, the Health Minister, who has been dealing with the matter with the Treasury, fully understands the views of the House and will ensure that they are represented at all times.
The census rehearsal, unlike the 2011 census, was voluntary and was carried out in just three areas. To date, the provisional percentage response is 38 per cent. overall and analysis of the rehearsal returns is still ongoing.
The Minister, knowing Southend well, will know that I am appalled by those low figures, given that the 94 per cent. average at the last census was even lower in Southend. We felt that we undercounted by about 20,000 people, which cost us £7 million each year. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Southend council in the time before the general election to make sure that we are fully prepared for 2011?
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I would be happy to meet him after the general election as well, to discuss the matter. I understand the points that he makes, but the census rehearsal is voluntary. There was no publicity about it and it does not in any way reflect the response rate that we will get for the census, which I anticipate will be much the same as at the last census. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman, which will be helpful in terms of the points that he raises, is that additional work is ongoing by the Office for National Statistics, which undertakes the census, to ensure that the response rate is as high as possible. That is part of the reason for the rehearsal—to look at the actions that the ONS can and will take in areas that traditionally send in fewer response forms. So action is being taken to address the very points that he made. Indeed, the ONS has been meeting Southend council and others to look at increasing the response rate.
The ONS has put additional work into that. More than £2 million will be spent to encourage organisations and individuals who have been more reluctant to respond to the census to encourage them to do so. Billions of pounds of public money is allocated in expenditure each year, and it is right that we have projections of where the population lives and what the needs of future populations will be. That applies to all populations in this country, so every effort will be made and extra resources will be put into ensuring that those people are able to respond.
How can the cost of half a billion pounds, which is double the cost of the last census, be justified at this time of fiscal crisis? In 2001, 10 per cent. of the data was not even counted; it was imputed. Is this not a thoroughly wasteful and inaccurate exercise?
Absolutely not. It is a very valuable and important exercise. The cost is about £482 million, but we estimate that the benefit to the economy of the work that has been done is about £700 million, so the benefits outweigh the cost. The cost is about 87p per person per year. For every person in the country to pay 87p per year for the benefit that we get from the census is good value.
The census is not even accurate. Why are Ministers rushing to send millions of the 32-page census forms to the printers this March, a full 12 months before the census date? Should not a responsible Government be scaling the census back? Is not the answer a less intrusive, much cheaper census that offends the public less, increases compliance and therefore yields much more accurate information?
I think the right hon. Gentleman struggles to make his point. If we look at the costs of censuses across the world, our census is better value for money and cheaper than those conducted in such countries as New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the USA. In the USA the census costs more than £2 per person per year—significantly more than in this country. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may find that amusing, but I find value for money quite an important aspect. The Government are doing everything they can, working with the ONS, to ensure that the information is accurate. It is important that the response rate is as high as possible. We use the information to help to allocate Government priorities and Government expenditure, so I totally refute the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Voluntary Sector (Government Funding)
I regularly meet third sector organisations to discuss various issues, including any potential changes to the levels of Government funding. Owing to the third sector’s value to the community, public funding increased to £12 billion in the most recent financial year, an increase of more than £3.5 billion over seven years. The Government have further increased their support to the sector with a recession action plan, which is worth up to £42.5 million, and the £17.4 million hardship fund provided additional support. We have also funded a website that provides a one-stop shop for information about funding and financial opportunities, including advice and guidance on sustainable funding opportunities.
I am very grateful to the Minister. Whoever wins the next election, there are likely to be spending cuts in national and local government, and that will inevitably reduce the amount of funding for the third sector just at a time when its burden of social care is on the increase. How does the Minister intend to square that circle?
The issue of local government funding has caused the third sector considerable concern, and we have been working with local government and those who commission services from the third sector to ensure that commissioners are aware of the value of the third sector and how they can best apply for the work that it undertakes on behalf of local government. In terms of social care, that is the most crucial consideration.
There are issues with Government funding, but council budgets are under huge pressure, too, and, in the drive to enable the third sector to undertake core social services, that is leading to a double pincer movement for many local charities. What will the Minister do to ensure that councils do not simply say, “We cannot fund you,” and that we do not lose the core social services that councils used to run?
If third sector organisations are undertaking core social services, they will be doing so on behalf of the local authority, which will fund those services. I say to all local authorities, look for the third sector’s value for money and its contribution to the overall objectives of the council and the overall benefits of the area. I am convinced that, when those issues are taken into account and councils see the value that the third sector brings to their area, it will impact on their funding decisions.
It is gratifying to receive so much support for Government funding of the third sector; it has not always been forthcoming from the Opposition. We have addressed those funding issues. During the recession, the Government have given an extra £42.5 million to the third sector, and that support has been absolutely crucial. We want to ensure that we still support the third sector, but we will not regard it as a cheap option for the provision of public services. It is a quality option that deserves to be properly funded.
Government Information Service
The Government Communication Network is the successor to the Government Information Service, which was disbanded in 1997. Over the next 12 months, the permanent secretary at the GCN will improve the professional skills of communicators throughout the civil service, maintain professional standards, increase efficiency and deliver maximum value for money. Effective communication performs a critical role in providing important information to the public and improving access to public services. The Government will continue to use communications in support of their policy agenda, building on current successful campaigns.
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am sure that the Government Communication Network does a marvellous job, but at a time when we are looking to ensure that public money is well spent, will she explain why, for example, it is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to have 255 people employed in communication?
Over the years, there has been a lot of demand on press officers’ time. I will give the hon. Gentleman some figures. There are 374 media personnel in the Press Gallery and more than 3,000 journalists at the BBC, and each of their queries demands a response. On average, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, for instance, receives 600 calls a day. The increase in numbers is a direct response to the increased number of questions to Departments.
Charities (Regulatory Burden)
The Government are committed to cutting burdens on charities and other third sector organisations. Further plans outlining how this will be achieved were published last month. The changes that we have already made to charity law and to the accounting and reporting thresholds have resulted in savings for up to 5,000 charities.
Gift Aid is a matter for the Treasury. However, I have regular meetings with representatives from the third sector, as well as with Treasury Ministers, who are reviewing the operation of Gift Aid to see what more they can do to assist charities in this regard.
Is it not the case that the Charities Act 2006 brought rationalisation to the regulations governing the charities sector and therefore made it much easier, in many ways, for them to function? Is it not also the case that where third sector organisations are delivering other services such as hospices and so on, they must be regulated in terms of the service that they are delivering? What is important, therefore, is not the quantity but the quality of the regulation that we have imposed.
My hon. Friend, who has vast knowledge of the charitable sector, makes a valid point. This is a matter of balance. We need to ensure that there is adequate regulation to protect donors’ money and the services that they provide, but we do not want to overburden those organisations with unnecessary regulation.
I will start again, Mr. Speaker.
As charities are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain income streams, would not now be the very best time to try to reduce the regulatory burden even further to minimise the adverse effects on all charities, including NHS charities?
I do not think the hon. Lady heard my answer to the original question as regards exactly what we are doing. We are publishing plans outlining what more we can do. However, the measures that we have taken to date in relation to charity registration, and other matters, have been welcomed by charities, and we will continue to do what we can to support them.
Advice and Advocacy Services
Because of the third sector’s value to the community, public funding increased to £12 billion in the last financial year, which amounts to more than £3.5 billion extra over the past seven years. During the recession, we have provided additional funding to advice centres and to the communities they help. That includes an extra £13 million for legal aid, an extra £10 million for additional hours of service by citizens advice bureaux, and more than £6 million for information, advice and guidance services and hardship funds. These services are open to those in every community irrespective of their employment status.
The national minimum wage protects the earnings of vulnerable workers, but during the recession bad employers have sacked low-paid staff or unfairly changed their working conditions, especially in non-unionised workplaces. What have the Government done to support vulnerable workers to ensure that they get good advice and representation about their rights at work?
I would urge every member of the public in employment to be a member of a trade union that protects their rights. However, the Government provide additional support to ACAS, to the pay and work rights helpline, and to the Directgov website. We also have a campaign to ensure that workers are aware of their rights at work so they cannot be discriminated against and treated as my hon. Friend describes.
Grassroots Grant Programme
The £130 million grassroots grants programme has already provided more than 13,000 grants to small charities and voluntary organisations, totalling more than £33 million. Those grants have enabled small groups across England to do what they think is best to meet the needs of their own communities. More than £13 million has been received in donations from businesses and individuals, which has been boosted by the Government’s provision of £25 million through match funding.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that voluntary organisations in receipt of that money are best placed to provide opportunities for young people to get employment through sport and training opportunities, and that that provides people with an excellent opportunity to participate in making their communities better?
I would commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in his constituency on this issue, working with the third sector and encouraging young people to volunteer and engage. He is absolutely right that the ability to volunteer seems to be a route into employment because of the skills and confidence that people gain through volunteering.
Charities (Regulatory Burden)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) a moment ago about how the Government are reducing burdens on charities and the voluntary sector.
I recently visited a mental health charity that was getting its funding from 27 different sources and having to fill in 27 audits and 27 accounts of how it was doing its job properly every year. It was having to employ at least one full-time person just to do the paperwork. Surely that is a nonsense and we can streamline that whole system.
We can to an extent, and one thing that we can do is consider having one reporting system for such organisations. However, I do not think for a minute that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some of the independent funding organisations should not give money to such charities. I commend the charity that he has in mind for being so successful in gaining funding from every source. We are looking into the issue of reporting and forms and working with the sector on it.
The Prime Minister was asked—
I have been asked to reply.
As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland, where talks are ongoing to secure agreement on the devolution of policing and justice powers. The Prime Minister will make a written statement to update the House later and place it in the Library of both Houses.
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Rifleman Peter Aldridge from 4th Battalion the Rifles, serving as part of 3 Rifles Battle Group, and acting Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper from 3rd Battalion the Rifles, who have died in Afghanistan. They were both heroes who displayed extraordinary courage, spirit and absolute commitment to the tasks that were before them and their colleagues, who, along with their families and friends, will remember them with great, great pride.
May I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to those who have lost their lives in the service of their country? Is she aware that the compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence to the families of those killed in action is then taken into account when calculating benefit assessments, with the result that some families receive no compensation at all and others are actually left worse off? Will she look at that as a matter of urgency to see what can be done to put it right?
The Ministry of Defence has been very concerned indeed to ensure that we support those who have been injured in the line of service. The Secretary of State for Defence produced a Command Paper that particularly addressed the issue of support for veterans. There has been a big upgrading of the compensation scheme and a further review of the scheme is under way. The Secretary of State for Defence has been working closely with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on this.
We recognise the importance of manufacturing in South Derbyshire, where between them the aerospace, automotive and railway sectors in the area directly employ more than 32,000 people and account for more than £10.3 billion of economic output. My hon. Friend strongly supports manufacturing in his area, and we have an advanced manufacturing package of support for skills and a manufacturing advisory service. We look forward to strong growth ahead in this sector.
We wish the Prime Minister well in his endeavours in Northern Ireland because we all want the devolution of policing and justice to be completed and progress in Northern Ireland to continue.
I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper and Rifleman Peter Aldridge, who have joined the lengthening list that is read out in the House of members of the armed forces who have died serving this country.
On that subject, we welcome the appointment of a new NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan, and the fact that it is the current British ambassador to Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, whom we all hold in very high regard. Are the Government confident that his work will be closely co-ordinated with that of the United Nations so that, this time, military gains will be followed by effective reconstruction?
Indeed, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commendation of that distinguished diplomat. It is precisely to support that work that the conference is to be held in London to look at taking forward issues on Afghanistan. There are 70 countries attending, as well as the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.
Looking ahead to that conference tomorrow, should we not recall the lessons of the previous Afghan conference in London in 2006, which set dozens of extremely ambitious objectives for Afghanistan, most of which have never been met? Do the Government agree that, this time, the conference should focus on realistic goals that can be delivered, concentrating on improved governance and reintegrating former Taliban members? Will the Government seek regular reviews of the progress made, including at the conference proposed for Kabul in a few months?
Of course, we are looking to ensure that we play our part so that, in Afghanistan, we have the right military action to tackle terrorism, we support the Afghanisation of the armed forces and the police services, and we have economic and political development. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to support the work that will go on tomorrow instead of simply carping.
The right hon. and learned Lady should know the position. Immediately after Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will visit President Karzai to push forward exactly the same agenda as the Government, so there is no need to make party political points about that important subject.
Doubtless, President Obama will mention Afghanistan in his State of the Union address tonight, but he is also expected to talk about reforms to the regulation of the banking system. No country was left more exposed to the failure of the banking system than the United Kingdom. President Obama has called for retail banks to be prevented from getting involved in large-scale proprietary trading. Why are the Government not supporting the President’s proposals enthusiastically and working with him to realise them?
We are working very closely internationally, including, of course, with President Obama. The United States has different structures and different problems in its banking system, which the US Government are seeking to address. We have been addressing the problems in our banking system, and it is important that we all work together internationally to ensure that we can deal with the problems that have so affected all our economies.
Well, of course it is important to work together internationally, but the Prime Minister said that he did not envisage a
“divide in future between… retail and corporate deposit taking… and investment banking and trading conducted at an international level.”
That is the Prime Minister’s stated position, which is very different from the President’s, and I put it to the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister is probably wrong.
Let me ask about something else for which President Obama has called. There is a clear case for a levy to compensate taxpayers for what happened in the past and what may happen in future. Is it not time to work with the President on agreeing the sort of levy that he proposes and drop the Prime Minister’s Tobin tax on transactions, which has been rejected throughout the world and was ridiculed yesterday by the Governor of the Bank of England?
We have never argued for a one-size-fits-all solution, with every single country taking the same action. We have always agreed that all countries should work together—whether in the G20 or the European Union—to tackle the global economic crisis. We agree with President Obama and just about every other country in the world that we need a fiscal stimulus to support the economy in recovery. The only people who seem to disagree with that are the official Opposition.
President Obama has just announced a freeze on spending in the United States and the UK Government have just raised the rate of VAT, which is hardly a fiscal stimulus. The Governor of the Bank of England said that President Obama’s proposal is much more serious than the Prime Minister’s Tobin tax. In fact, the Governor said that he could not think of anyone internationally who was enthusiastic about the Prime Minister’s idea, so let me ask about a third aspect of banking reform.
There is a growing consensus that only central banks have the authority, ability and know-how to maintain proper supervision of the banks. The Prime Minister took that power away from the Bank of England in 1997 and created a system that failed. Given that countries such as the United States and Germany want their central banks to have more responsibility for banking supervision, will the Government now change their policy and adopt that approach?
Obviously, what America has been doing is dealing with a very fragmented system of regulation, which involved no fewer than eight regulators. We have already rationalised the system of regulation. What is important is that the organisations have the right powers within the right framework, and that is what the Financial Services Bill and other measures are determined to ensure. The Conservatives said they wanted less regulation when they were in government, so it is good to hear that they are supporting firm action to tackle irresponsibility in the markets.
It was the Prime Minister in 2007 who trumpeted his record—as he thought of it—of deregulation in the City and said we could look forward to a
“golden age for the City”
from then on. Is it not clear that the Prime Minister was wrong and is wrong now on the system of financial supervision, wrong on the Tobin tax, wrong to build an economy based on debt, and wrong not to back the United States on banking reform? Are not those failures just another part of a miserable record, in which we have the biggest budget deficit in peacetime history, the largest bank bail-out in the world, the deepest recession since the 1930s and the weakest recovery in the G20? Does the right hon. and learned Lady think it is time to back some of the United States’ proposals to sort out the banks in future?
We have helped the economy through the recession and supported the recovery. When the right hon. Gentleman was in government and sitting in the Cabinet, there were double the number of repossessions; when he was in government, there were three times as many bankruptcies; and when he was in government in a recession, there were four times as many job losses. I have to say that his reversing is even worse than mine. We are building up Britain, and the Conservatives are trying to talk it down.
Could the Leader of the House have discussions with her colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport to ensure that we get a decision on the high-speed rail link this side of the general election, and that, when we get that decision, Birmingham and the west midlands get the links they deserve?
May I add my condolences for the loss of Lance Corporal Cooper and Rifleman Aldridge?
May I congratulate the Leader of the House on her foresight in establishing the National Equality Panel, which reported today? It helpfully reminds us that after 18 years of Conservative Government, inequality had widened and reached the level described in the report as “shocking”. Will she explain why now, after 12 years of Labour Government, income inequalities are the same—still shocking—wealth inequalities in shares and property are worse, and, as we discovered on Monday of this week, child poverty is growing?
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking Professor John Hills and his panel for the important report by the National Equality Panel. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report states that under the Conservatives—[Interruption.] Under the Conservatives, inequality widened, and as a result of the effect of this Government’s policies, most particularly on tax and benefit, the growing inequality has been stemmed. We have also tackled poverty, especially child poverty and pensioner poverty, but we think that inequality, which persists and can be handed down the generations, matters for the individual, for opportunity, for the economy and for a more peaceful society, so we are determined to do more to tackle it.
Well, the Government may be determined, but the brutal truth is that economic inequality is getting worse. Part of the problem is the failure to reform the unfairness of the tax system. We all understand why Conservative Governments might wish to give top priority to rewarding the wealthy, but why have the Labour Government given overriding priority to cutting the tax rate that wealthy people pay on their capital gains to a lower rate than the tax paid by working people on their earnings, and why have they left wholly unreformed a property tax system under which ordinary families pay the same amount of tax on a modest family house as billionaires pay on their multi-million pound mansions?
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in what he says about the report’s findings. It says that over the 13 years that we have been in government the effect of our tax policies, combined with our benefit policies, has been to narrow inequality. We have tackled poverty, in particular pensioner poverty and child poverty. One thing that would not help those on low and modest incomes would be the savage cuts proposed by the hon. Gentleman’s party.
The threat of the third runway at Heathrow continues to blight my community. Although a compensation scheme has been introduced that will protect the homes of some residents, many residents are excluded from it. It also does not cover people such as the local shopkeeper, the hairdresser and the publican who live above their premises and who will lose their homes and their livelihoods. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting between local MPs and Ministers to discuss what compensation can be provided to those people?
These matters, which were debated and decided on in this House of Commons, are now the subject of the Chilcot inquiry. It is choosing the evidence to be brought before it and that it requires to be examined. It is independent and I suggest that we thank it for its work and await its report.
I agree with my hon. Friend that education is important, not only for every individual to achieve their potential, but to ensure that we have a dynamic economy. I am delighted that Woodhey high school has seen such a big rise in its results, not only last year but in the last three years, and I join him in congratulating the school. Those results are due to the hard work and dedication of the teachers and pupils, but they are also thanks to the extra investment we have put in. We will continue to sustain and support investment in education.
We are determined to ensure that there is social mobility, and one of the important findings of the NEP report is that more unequal societies have less social mobility, which is why we are determined, with Government action, to continue to support policies that spread fairness and equality.
I will support my hon. Friend’s urgings to my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I am delighted to join him in congratulating the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on its first 10 years of operation. I know that he has worked with fellow MPs in former mining constituencies to ensure significant regeneration in these areas, which face such challenges, particularly after the devastation of the Tory years.
The right hon. and learned Lady was right the second time.
In March, the Lord Chancellor himself said that the sort of anti-Catholic and anti-woman provisions at the centre of our constitution have no place in a modern society, and that the Prime Minister was ready to consult Commonwealth Heads of Government. Will the right hon. and learned Lady suggest that he write to them, if he is too busy to consult, so that we can get on with this reform?
As the Prime Minister has said, people recognise the need for change, but that change can be brought about only by the Prime Minister working with the 16 other countries. The discussions are continuing. We cannot speak for those other countries, but we are sure that progress will be made.
Equitable Life policyholders lost out as a result of mismanagement that went back to the 1980s. There is concern on both sides of the House about that. The hon. Lady knows very well that there has been an ombudsman’s report on the matter, that we have apologised for the regulatory failures that caused loss, and that we have set up a system to establish how there should be ex gratia payments. Sir John Chadwick has got this work under way and will be making his interim findings in the spring.
May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the causes of the growth in inequality has been the extension of outsourcing of jobs that were previously done in-house? A class of working people has grown up that no longer qualifies for pensions, sick pay, redundancy pay and all the other things that in the 20th century we used quaintly to associate with civilisation. Is it not time that the Government started to discourage outsourcing?
The transfer of undertakings regulations were designed to give protection where work was transferred out from direct employment in the public sector to the private sector. However, the Equal Opportunities Commission has documented evidence to show that this has acted as a downward pressure on women’s wages and their income in retirement. We are determined to ensure not only that people in public services can give a good service to the public, but that they are fairly treated in employment.
Today is Holocaust memorial day, 65 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the evil of the holocaust is unique, its lessons must be applied to the racism and anti-Semitism of today, so that a better society can be enjoyed by everyone?
I support absolutely what my hon. Friend has said. We in this House regard Holocaust memorial day, which is today, as very important. There will be a debate in the House tomorrow and there is a book of remembrance that can be signed. The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust is very important indeed, but we must also bear in mind the lessons that come out of the holocaust about prejudice, discrimination and anti-Semitism, which we must fight wherever they rear their head in this country.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government are strong supporters of the Royal Mail and want it to have a secure and prosperous future at a time of big change. We are committed to the universal service six days a week and to a post office network. We are also committed to changing the regulations to allow more ability to compete, and we obviously want to ensure that the pension liabilities are secure as well.
Each year, 1,000 women die from cervical cancer. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland young women can get screening at the age of 20, yet in 2004 the Government sought to increase the age for women in England to get screening to 25. Why do the Government discriminate in that way, and will they consider redressing that injustice?
We are very concerned indeed to make sure that we prevent, and have early detection for, as many cancers as possible. In that, we ensure that the necessary resources are available but we are guided in the application of those resources by clinical judgments. The hon. Gentleman is no more a scientist than I am; what we have to do is take the best advice and act on it, and make sure that there are the resources to back it. That is why we have trebled investment in the national health service.
We need that day even more now. Before the earthquake in Haiti, many of the 200 orphanages there were actually fronts for child trafficking. Since the earthquake, we have a new problem: 380,000 children at risk. Will the right hon. and learned Lady speak to her international aid contacts this afternoon and establish a network for children at risk, so that they have somewhere safe to be until they can trace their family or until there is time to set up some kind of arrangement to ensure their safety? The traffickers are circling. We need to make sure they do not catch the children.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the issue, which he has consistently and intelligently raised in the House. I agree that there is work to be done by the police and prosecutors internationally. There is also the work of voluntary organisations, which I know he supports, helping to bring the message warning people of the dangers of trafficking, and protecting those victims. I congratulate him on his suggestion. We will look into it.