House of Commons
Tuesday 8 December 2009
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Queen’s Speech (Answer to Address)
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with its Address of 18th November, was pleased to receive the same very graciously and give the following Answer:
I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.
I also have to inform the House that the Address of 2nd December praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the right hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request. The appointments of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp became effective from 3rd December 2009. That of the right hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker will become effective from 12th January 2010.
Beverley Freemen Bill [Lords]
Bill read a Second time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Communities and Local Government
The Secretary of State was asked—
Private Rented Housing
We consulted over the summer on our response to the independent review of the private rented sector conducted by Julie Rugg. We received more than 250 responses, and I intend to publish a summary of them shortly.
May I ask the Minister about the next steps? Might they include measures to address the concern that is felt in my area and others that contain a large amount of rented private sector student accommodation?
They may include such measures. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have also consulted on proposals to strengthen local authorities’ ability to deal with houses in multiple occupation, which sometimes give rise to the concern to which she refers. She will have to be a bit patient and wait for my summary, which will be available shortly to her and to all other Members throughout the House who take an interest in the issue.
There are 8 million people in the private rented sector. At present, if a landlord’s property is repossessed, the first that such people know about it is when they come home to find that the locks have been changed. A succession of Ministers have promised to legislate. When will the Minister act? When will he take on mortgage lenders and keep his promise to tenants?
In fact there are 3 million households in the private rented sector, not 8 million, but the hon. Lady has a point. The number is rising, and last year it was up to about one in seven.
The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about the position of those who may be renting from landlords who are struggling with their mortgages, and who may not be aware that those landlords are having problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) proposes to introduce a private Member’s Bill, to which I am more than prepared to give every assistance and a fair wind because it constitutes exactly the sort of legislation that I think the hon. Lady wishes to see. I hope that, in the best tradition of private Members’ Bills, it will receive support from Members in all parts of the House.
May I suggest two measures that could be considered? First, the Government could try to persuade local authorities to become more proactive in dealing with the worst landlords, particularly through the use of discretionary licensing arrangements. Secondly, they could try to persuade institutional investors to invest for the long term in high-quality developments, and also in long-term management arrangements The properties should be built, and then there should be high-quality management.
My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and is one of the House’s experts on these matters. He is right to suggest that local authorities have an important role which could be reinforced, allowing them to take action against the worst landlords who provide the worst housing, and we are considering doing exactly that. It is one of a number of actions that we need to take to bring the general standard of the private rented sector up to scratch.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), in May the Government pledged at the earliest opportunity to change the law and give tenants at least two months’ notice if their landlords’ properties were being repossessed. Here we are, six months later, and nothing has happened. Why have the Government not taken advantage of an amendment to the recent Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and why did the Queen’s Speech contain no measure to deal with the problem? Do not the Department’s own estimates show that 1,200 people will be evicted at short notice in the next year simply because the Government have failed to act? We now understand that they will have to do so via a private Member’s Bill. Is that not the opposite to “Real help now”?
The hon. Gentleman recognises that primary legislation is required. Perhaps I can take it from his question that he and his party’s Front-Bench team will support the private Member’s Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—and if so, I warmly welcome that.
Thurrock Council
Officials from the Government office for the east of England discussed the appointment of a permanent chief executive and other matters with the leader and senior managers of Thurrock council on 9 November. In addition, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), will in his role as Minister with responsibility for the Thames Gateway meet the leader of the council on 9 December—tomorrow.
Since 2004, there have been two permanent chief executives and three interim chief executives of Thurrock council, at enormous cost and loss to the taxpayer, and now there is an interim treasurer and an interim head of housing. There is a culture of paying off people to go away, without any real examination of that. Is it not time that there was publication and full disclosure of these top salaries in Thurrock council and other councils, and that a kick up the backside was delivered in order to get this dysfunctional council working properly?
I can tell my hon. Friend that the Audit Commission is conducting its “boomerang bosses” inquiry. I can also assure him that the Government have been taking a close interest in developments in Thurrock because of the matters he raises. We have put in a level of support through the Government office for the east of England and local government organisations, which are supporting the council and the interim chief executive. We are working closely with them to ensure that a permanent chief executive is appointed, and the Government office and the Audit Commission will continue to monitor whether more formal intervention is required.
Housing Transactions
By the end of September, there had been almost 100 completions under the special mortgage rescue scheme and 1,800 rent to homebuy completions. Homeowners mortgage support scheme figures will be published later this month.
Even without the unpublished figure, which is presumably pretty bad, is this not a sad little tale? It is all hype, spin and nonsense. It is about spending taxpayers’ money to set up schemes that have benefited hardly anybody. Would the Minister care to apologise?
I am stunned. What on earth does the right hon. Gentleman say to the 100 families who are still in their own homes because of this special back-stop scheme? What does he say to the 1,000 families whose applications are in the pipeline? What does he say, too, to the 330,000 families who have had help across the range of advice from Government over the past year, which has helped them when they have been struggling with their mortgage repayments and helped them to stay in their own homes without running the risk of repossession, and which is testimony to the fact that this Government have been ready to act, unlike what happened in the 1990s? That is why repossessions are running at half the rate of the last recession.
As the housing market recovers and house prices rise, there will be a temptation for some lenders who have hitherto exercised forbearance to move to repossess properties. Will the Minister ensure that the measures that have been put in place to protect home owners are kept in place until we are completely out of the woods, in order to avoid a second spike of repossessions?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our experience tells us and our forecasts say that, as the economy moves out of recession during next year, the pressure on repossessions will increase. I can do better than she urges me: we will not only look to keep the current support in place, but we will extend and strengthen it. We are extending the campaign that allows people to get access to free advice. We are toughening up the rules in court, too. Through the Financial Services Authority, we are also looking at toughening up the regulations on lenders, so that any repossession is genuinely a last resort. In this way, we can get ahead of the pressures we anticipate for next year, and try to ensure that more families are able to stay in their own home, which is where they should be, despite the pressures of recession.
The Minister spoke of the need to extend and strengthen the schemes. Specifically, will the Department be looking at monitoring the impact that unsuccessful applications have on individuals? A constituent of mine took several months to make what was eventually an unsuccessful application. As a result, their personal financial circumstances were worse, not better. Does the Minister’s Department not need to understand that impact, so that it can be sure it gets the scheme right?
The hon. Lady did not mention which scheme she was talking about. I assume that it was the mortgage rescue scheme—
indicated assent.
She might like to know that we have almost trebled the number of housing associations that are part of the scheme. We have a fast-track team in place that takes referrals directly from lenders and we are doing exactly as she urges—we are learning from the experience of the scheme so far and improving it so that it is better at providing the support that is needed. If the hon. Lady would let me have the details of her case, I shall certainly look into it.
The Minister is giving the House a lot of figures, so can we ask for one more? How many people to date have actually bought a home through the rent to homebuy scheme?
The hon. Gentleman might not have been listening when I gave my first answer. At the end of September, the figure was more than 1,800.
We are very grateful to the Minister for that answer. Perhaps he will be able to tell us in a moment exactly how much that cost per person, given that expenditure on the scheme was £115 million.
The mortgage rescue scheme was meant to help up to 6,000 households at a cost of about £47,000 each. Since it has helped only 92 households to date, that works out at about £3 million per person helped. Is that the value for money that we can expect from tomorrow’s pre-Budget report?
I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. He was on the shadow Treasury team for a while, and perhaps we have seen why he is now on this team. He confuses expenditure with budgets. Not only have nearly 100 families stayed in their own homes because of the mortgage rescue scheme back-stop, but some 1,000 applications are in the pipeline and more than 11,000 families have had help and advice directly from their local authority that is part and parcel of the scheme. That is only part of the help that we have put in across the piece to help home owners who are struggling with their mortgages to stay where they should be—in their homes.
Sustainable Communities Act 2007
The Government are committed to implementing effectively the Sustainable Communities Act. I shall update the House later this month on how we are progressing with local spending reports. The timing of decisions on whether local proposals should be implemented will depend inevitably on the number and complexity of the proposals shortlisted.
Given that the Local Government Association is due to submit its proposals by the end of the month, can the Secretary of State not simply commit to making a final decision by the Easter recess?
We need to look at the proposals once they have been shortlisted by the LGA. As the hon. Gentleman says, they are due—this is my understanding, although it is not in my control—before the end of the year. We then need to assess the complexity and practicality of the schemes that are proposed.
“Planning for Prosperous Economies”—planning policy statement 4—has a lot to say about sustainable communities and particularly about the viability and vitality of town centres. Will the Secretary of State say what the Government are doing to reaffirm a commitment to “town centre first” policies and adopt a presumption against out-of-town developments, which seem to be creeping back in, and whether there has been a definition of what is meant by “town centres”?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know that some years ago the Government introduced the planning guidance to which he refers with the intention of protecting town centres. Further development of that guidance is under discussion, as he will know, but I assure him that we remain as committed as we ever have been to the effective protection of town centres from unplanned and badly planned out-of-town shopping developments.
Yesterday, the Government published a Command Paper, “Smarter Government”, in which the Prime Minister himself claimed to “put the frontline first” by allowing flexibility in local spending, yet nowhere in all 68 pages is there a single mention of local spending reports. Is it the Department for Communities and Local Government or, once again, the Treasury that has no interest in supporting this flagship policy of the Sustainable Communities Act?
The hon. Lady perhaps has not grasped the fact that the proposals for making data publicly available set out in the White Paper published yesterday are far more extensive and ambitious than those discussed when local spending reports were proposed. I made these points in a debate in the House just a few weeks ago. At that time I promised that, as we developed the work being led by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt and his panel of experts on making local data widely available, we would not drop our commitment to developing local spending reports in the interim. That is why I shall bring forward our proposals setting out where we will go next on local spending reports, as I promised, before the end of the year.
There are of course only five sitting days left before the Christmas recess, but we look forward to receiving that information. There might have been no reference to local spending reports in the document, but there was a clear reference to arm’s length bodies costing the taxpayer a massive £18 billion a year. What about asking those 750 quangos to reveal in local spending reports how much they spend, or would the Minister prefer taxpayers to be kept in the dark about how much money is wasted on central bureaucracy?
We have debated this point before. The hon. Lady regards the doubling of spending by the quango known as the Higher Education Funding Council as a waste of money, but I do not. I believe that it is represented by a significant investment in universities and by opportunities for young people and older people. It is right that we want to bear down on costs and on salaries that are too high. In our previous debate on this issue, I undertook to bring forward another report on local spending reports, because I took the point that it would be useful for local spending reports to give access to available data from organisations such as the funding council and the Learning and Skills Council. The hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that every penny that is spent by an organisation that funds our universities is wasted money, but she keeps saying that.
Regeneration (Liverpool)
Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of regeneration in north Liverpool. There has been significant investment in the area, including £34 million of housing market renewal funding, £40 million to support business and create jobs, £18.4 million of European regional development funding, and £8.6 million through the future jobs fund, creating 1,320 jobs. I am also pleased that the £5.5 billion Liverpool Waters plan is moving forward, as is the £150 million Project Jennifer redevelopment of Great Homer street. We will continue to support the regeneration of north Liverpool.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, although I barely recognise the picture that he paints. May I invite him to visit my constituency to see for himself the result of 10 years of malign neglect under Liberal Democrat council control? While he is there, will he advise us on how Everton and Liverpool football clubs could be used to lever in the kind of regeneration funding that is still desperately needed, notwithstanding the roll of honour that he has just related?
I assure my hon. Friend that the investments that I have described either are or have been taking place or are anticipated in the future. I shall welcome the opportunity, if it arises, to go to his constituency; I always welcome an opportunity to inspect the malign neglect of Liberal Democrat councils.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has just made clear, the regeneration of north Liverpool is intricately linked to the regeneration of Kirkby. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the efforts that are being made by Knowsley council, Tesco, the Government office for the north-west, the Northwest Regional Development Agency and the Minister for the North West, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), to put together a modified application for the regeneration of Kirkby, which I hope will be presented to my right hon. Friend in due course?
I pay tribute to the efforts that my right hon. Friend has consistently made to support his constituency and regeneration. My decision on that planning application was taken on the basis of planning guidance, planning law and the conclusions of the inspector’s report. However, I am very pleased that, following discussions with me, the Regional Minister and others are engaging with the council and others to see what is the best way forward for the regeneration of Kirkby.
Houses in Multiple Occupation
Since the introduction of the licensing provisions for houses in multiple occupation, councils in England have received applications for about 30,000 HMOs, and have issued licences for about 20,000.
I thank the Minister for his response. Last year, I asked Denbighshire county council how many HMOs it had licensed in a three-year period. The answer was just 33. After pressure, it has agreed to apply for additional and selective licensing, and next year it will start on licensing 433, taking the council from the worst to the best in the country. What lessons has the Minister learned from the Welsh experience in increasing the number of HMOs that are licensed?
The whole House will have heard my hon. Friend and learned the lesson that local authorities that are prepared to tackle the worst landlords in their area, and to build up concentrations of HMOs that change its nature and character, are able to put in place additional licensing schemes. I am glad to hear about the successful campaign that he has run to persuade his council in that regard. That is precisely the way ahead, as we want councils to make maximum use of the provisions that are in place at present.
Landlord licensing is one solution, but the use classes order is far more significant in many areas with concentrations of HMOs. Will the Minister give me an update on the progress of the Government’s examination of that? Does he agree that restrictions on the number of HMOs in such areas will increase the balance of the community and be in the interests of all?
Indeed, and that is why our general policy is to promote mixed communities, as they tend to be better balanced and more stable. The hon. Gentleman asked for an update on our examination of whether changes to the use classes might help us pursue our objectives. At present, we are sifting the 900 or so responses that we have received to the consultation, and I hope to be able to update the House on this shortly.
Gas Storage Facilities (Planning)
Government circular 04/00, “Planning Controls For Hazardous Substances”, provides that the Health and Safety Executive must be consulted on any proposed development near hazardous substances installations such as gasholders and that, in view of its acknowledged expertise, any advice from the HSE that planning permission should be refused should not be overridden without the most careful consideration.
Is my hon. Friend aware that planning permission was granted in Wandsworth for a 42-storey tower only 18 metres from a gasholder? That was against the HSE’s advice, which said that the risk from a fireball was “unacceptable” and 17 times higher than the level at which it would normally advise against. Is it not a matter of concern that planning committees have the power to disregard HSE advice even when it is expressed so strongly, and that it is so often left to public inquiries to assess the real risk to the public?
We are working closely with the HSE to ensure that local planning authorities are fully informed about the advice available to assess risk around major hazards, and to make that advice more accessible. I cannot comment on the specific planning application that my hon. Friend has raised, but an inquiry into the development of the Ram brewery site in Wandsworth is currently under way. The inspector will submit his report and the Secretary of State will determine the application as soon he reasonably can.
I well understand the concern of the residents represented by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), but what does the Minister have to say about the fact that we in Britain have only 15 days’ strategic gas storage? That compares to 92 days in Germany and more than that in France. Elsewhere across the world we have large quantities of gas. What is Britain going to do to stimulate investment in gas storage, taking into account the concerns of residents such as those that have been raised?
That is probably a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman is written to. However, the question that he ought to be asking his Front Benchers is why the Conservative party continues to refuse planning applications for wind turbines.
FiReControl Project
The estimated cost of delivering the FiReControl project is £420 million.
At the start of this debacle in March 2004 we were told that tried and tested methods would be used for IT, and that the project would be done and dusted by November 2007. There has been a little bit of slippage on the time scale, but is the Minister serious and does he stand by the words of his predecessors? Was the IT really tried and tested, because that clearly does not seem to be the case?
The case for FiReControl is absolutely compelling—[Hon. Members: “No, it is not!”] It is interesting, because I met representatives of the Chief Fire Officers Association only last week, which is as committed to FiReControl as ever. The idea that the Opposition are better placed to talk about national resilience in the context of the fire service than the CFOA is frankly laughable. FiReControl will improve national resilience and bring unprecedented levels of co-operation and interoperability—[Interruption.] That is a difficult word as well. For the first time, we shall have a national network with nine regional control centres, all of which will be able to operate at peak times in a way that we have never seen before.
Given the vast over-cost and the considerable delay, does the Minister believe that taxpayers are seeing value for money?
We would not have engaged in the project if we did not believe that it was value for money. All the major stakeholders believe that it is value for money. Sometimes I think that the Conservatives seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The set-up costs of the FiReControl project are already £400 million over budget, the project is years behind schedule and the Local Government Association and the Chief Fire Officers Association—previous supporters of the Government on the project—are bailing out. In his written statement of 15 July, the Minister promised to underwrite all pre-cutover upfront costs of the project. Is he still in a position to meet that undertaking?
We are fully committed to ensuring that FiReControl is achieved as set out. The idea that there is a £400 million overspend is so far off the mark that it is frightening. The reality is that when rescheduling took place in July this year the cost went up from £380 million to £420 million. Those costs will all be reaped back from EADS via royalties and a reduced fee for FiReControl operations.
Public Service Delivery
Local government has improved significantly during the past decade. It plays a key role in local areas, ensuring that citizens receive high-quality public services from all local providers. In yesterday’s White Paper we announced increases in flexibility and reductions in bureaucracy, which will help fulfil that role more effectively. Tomorrow, we will see the first comprehensive area assessment results, which will provide transparent information, enabling citizens to hold local service providers to account.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he agree that in localities such as the Barnsley metropolitan borough council area the regional development agency plays a very important part in ensuring that the effectiveness of local authority services is improved, by being able to focus on the wider issues of transport and employment to help in creating the jobs that Barnsley needs so much?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the role that regional development agencies play. In many other ways, they support growth and the improvement of public services, which is why the CBI, the House Builders Federation and many others are so appalled at Conservative proposals to abolish regional development agencies and the essential role they play.
Is the Secretary of State not completely right to say that local authorities have improved enormously over the past few years, because most of them are now Tory-controlled?
The reason why local authority services have improved is that real spending and real investment by central Government in local authorities has improved by 37 per cent. over the past 10 years. That is a sharp contrast with the 7 per cent. real-terms reduction when the Conservatives were last in power. Local government has improved because for the first time there has been comprehensive and effective inspection and accountability of those services, and I am proud of the role that this Government have played with local councils of all parties in improving the quality of services to local people.
Council Housing
Forty-nine local authorities were successful in bidding for grant to build new council homes. All are set to start on site, with 217 schemes, before the end of March, which makes it the largest council house building programme for nearly two decades. The deadline for round 2 submissions was the end of October, and I hope to make announcements on successful bidders early in the new year.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent work in making resources available for council house building? However, he will be aware of speculation about the demand for those resources, so will he consider making a statement to support new bids for council housing where the demand for resources outstrips what has been allocated so far?
My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about those matters, is right. The level of interest and the number of bids that we have had for the second round of the council house building programme has certainly been greater than that which we received for the first. When I announced the £1.5 billion of extra funding in the housing pledge, I made it clear that the four elements of that pledge, and the budgets allocated against them back in the summer, included the capacity to flex some of that spend between those parts of the programme, and I am certainly ready to do so if there is a good case.
This Labour Government have let down the poor in so many ways, but I shall not mention spiralling youth unemployment, falling educational standards or, indeed, failing public health. Instead, I want to ask why this Labour Government have built fewer affordable houses than were built in any year of the previous Conservative Administration. Why is that? Why have this Government let down the poor on housing?
May I say that this Labour Minister in this Labour Government is pleased to have been able to offer the hon. Gentleman’s Tory council money to build council homes, which are needed in the East Riding of Yorkshire just as they are throughout the rest of the country.
When the Mayor of London published his draft housing strategy, he tore up the commitment to make 50 per cent. of all new homes affordable, saying that his target of producing units would help us to deliver more affordable housing. Given that this week it has been announced that he will miss that target, too, will my right hon. Friend have urgent discussions about how we can deliver the much-needed homes to tackle overcrowding and homelessness in London?
The jury is very much out on Mayor Johnson and the pledges he made more than 18 months ago. In housing, more than any other area, there is a big shortfall if we compare what he promised in the run-up to his election with what he has been able to deliver so far to meet the very serious housing needs that exist throughout the capital.
Home Information Packs
We are currently working up proposals to evaluate the effectiveness of the HIPs programme, and we expect the results to be available in 2010. However, early independent research undertaken by Europe Economics and published in November 2007 concluded that the introduction of HIPs would not have a negative impact on the housing market.
Let me add my voice to the research, because all my constituents tell me that they find the HIPs to be—[Hon. Members: “All?”] Those constituents who raised the matter with me tell me that they find HIPs to be untimely, expensive, bureaucratic and, really, a waste of time. They quite like the energy performance certificates, so will the Government realise the error of their ways, realise what a waste of time—time, effort and money—the process has been, and scrap it?
The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask ludicrous questions like that to confirm to the House that he is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. [Interruption.] However, thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process. Some 13,000 people—[Interruption.]
Order. I realise that there is some enjoyable badinage, but I actually want to get down the Order Paper and reach some questioners lower down. I know that Members will want to take that into account—rudeness notwithstanding.
Thousands of jobs and hundreds of small businesses depend on the HIP process. Some 13,000 people have invested thousands in training as energy assessors, so the Opposition need to explain why they would put all those jobs and all those businesses at risk, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain to all the people in his constituency whose livelihoods depend on that process why he wants to put them out of work.
Does the Minister not realise that most house purchasers would far rather rely on searches and inquiries carried out on their behalf by a solicitor of their choice than by a home information pack provider, of whom they know nothing?
The Leader of the Opposition swans off to the Arctic to hang around with huskies, but the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition are showing today why nobody will take seriously anything they say about climate change. As a result of HIPs, 2 million home owners now have an energy assessment and energy recommendations that can help them to cut their fuel bills by up to £300 and reduce carbon emissions. Is it not extraordinary that even today, as the world gathers in Copenhagen, the Opposition are still committed to abolishing the HIP, which is one of the main ways of helping home owners to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change?
Local Housing Development
No recent representations of this nature have been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The tragic events of the past few weeks underline the importance of reducing flood risk to new development. Planning policy statement 25 provides a robust policy framework for local planning authorities to avoid, manage and reduce flood risk to new development, as endorsed by Sir Michael Pitt in his review of the lessons learned from the 2007 floods published last year.
Is the Minister aware that the Somerset levels are low-lying and very prone to flooding, both from the sea and from river water? Why, therefore, have the Government placed almost the whole of my constituency in flood zone 3, which will prevent almost all development, including housing development, while failing to provide funding or means for flood relief? Does the dull instrument on the Treasury Bench—
Order. The Minister can deal with the point now.
This is a very important issue. That is why we have produced a clear, strengthened planning policy statement, PPS25, to reduce flood risk to new development and to deliver safely, without exposing people to unnecessary flood risk, the level of house building we want to see. I am not aware of the particular circumstances in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I would be happy to meet him to discuss that in more detail.
House Building Targets
There has long been a mismatch between the supply and building of new homes and the demand for those homes. That mismatch led the Government to consider and set the house building targets in the first place. Clearly, the situation has got worse as a result of the global economic downturn, with the demand and need for housing continuing to grow and, particularly in the private sector, the level of building falling through the floor. That is why we stepped in over the summer to put extra money—£1.5 billion—into building the homes we need right across the country.
But surely the economic crisis and the subsequent fall in net immigration that we saw as a consequence has caused a reduction in forecast demand for new housing need. Can the Minister therefore now reduce the target for new housing need so that we can increase the protection of our green belt, which is most important to our constituents?
I said a moment ago that there was a long-term mismatch between the houses we are building and the demand and need for them. Taken over the long term, that continues. Migration is cyclical. It is a relatively small part, but a part nevertheless, of the projections of the need for housing in future. A bigger factor is demographic change in our own country, with the number of households increasing, people growing older and living for longer, and the need for greater mobility within Britain. We are trying to ensure that we can build the homes to meet those factors in future.
My right hon. Friend is right—there is a mismatch. The mismatch in Chorley is between lots of house building but no social housing; the council collects section 106 money for social housing but never spends it. What is he going to do to ensure that social housing is provided in the Chorley constituency?
I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend’s report about his local council and the attitude it is taking towards affordable housing. I have to say that this is not the first time I have been disappointed to hear his reports about Chorley borough council. There is a great deal more that it can and should do to ensure that the affordable homes needed in his constituency are provided. It can play a much greater role in that, and I hope he will not cease in his campaign to try to ensure that it does so.
Flood Risk (Planning)
Again, the terrible events of the past few weeks underline the importance of these issues. Our planning policy requires local planning authorities to re-consult the Environment Agency where the agency objects to a planning application on flood risk grounds. This is backed by a direction requiring planning authorities to provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to intervene where the agency sustains an objection to major development proposals.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I recently read a briefing which said that about a quarter of local authorities were ignoring Environment Agency recommendations against developments in areas prone to flooding. Does that cause him some concern?
This issue will concern many members of the public, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise it. We have made the Environment Agency a statutory consultee on planning applications in areas at risk of flooding. The figures I have suggest that in about 97 per cent. of cases in which the agency objects on flood risk grounds, the final decision is in line with its advice. I know how seriously he takes these matters, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss in more detail the figures that he has.
Will the Minister go further and join in our calls to make water companies statutory consultees as well, to ensure that where there are major new developments, sewage can fit into waste water pipes to prevent future flooding?
I have not considered that issue, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and talk about it in more detail.
Business Rates (Public Houses)
Regular revaluations are a statutory part of the business rates system and as such do not require impact assessments. However, we have carefully considered the impact of the 2010 revaluation on businesses, including public houses, and are introducing a £2 billion transitional relief scheme for the minority facing increases. An impact assessment of that scheme has been conducted and was published on 17 November. From 1 April, we will also offer extra help to individual public houses in rural areas by increasing their rateable value relief threshold from £10,500 to £12,500.
I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she not agree that it is irresponsible not to conduct a full impact assessment on such policies, especially in the case in question? The distortions that accrue from using April 2008 property figures may bake property boom prices into business rates for pubs in urban areas and businesses next door to them.
The hon. Lady is quite correct to point out that the system contains problems, as it values properties backwards so that the 2008 values are reflected in the 2010 figures. That is exactly why the multiplier is set at a 17-year low of 15 per cent., and why we have implemented a transitional rate relief scheme this year and had an impact assessment.
Topical Questions
I want to ensure that councils are performing as efficiently as possible and making the best possible use of every pound of council tax. I am pleased to be able to confirm today that councils have forecast efficiency savings of more than £3 billion by March 2010, making good progress towards the target of £5.5 billion by March 2011. “Smarter Government”, published yesterday, sets out how Government will support councils in continuing to deliver improved services with improved value for money.
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Many people in communities such as Southwark and Bermondsey live near major developments from which they get no necessary personal gain. Will he look sympathetically on the proposal to allow development gain money, traditionally called section 106 money, to be used to build or renovate housing for rent in the area affected?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He will be aware that we are already committed to the development of a more flexible and strategic approach to development gain. We will introduce the community infrastructure levy to supplement and replace section 106, which will give local authorities greater flexibility in the use of development gain money.
My hon. Friend is quite right to say, particularly in this week as we build up to the Copenhagen international conference on climate change, that we need to do a great deal more with our homes in future. More than a quarter of our total emissions in this country come from our homes, which requires us to design, build and plan to a new standard in future—I have set out in some detail the plans from 2016 on—and to undertake a national refurb programme, the details of which I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Energy and Climate Change are currently working on following the heat and energy saving strategy, which we published earlier in the year.
I think the hon. Lady would agree with me that local authorities need to be able to draw up appropriate development plans for their areas. I am not sure whether she is suggesting that we should specifically limit the way in which they approach these issues, but we are working with third-sector organisations in this area to promote the importance of allotments and to encourage local authorities to make allotment land available. I share with her the view that adequate provision of allotments is a very beneficial thing for local authorities to include in their local planning.
I know my hon. Friend has a historic market in his constituency—I think it dates back to the 15th century. It is not quite as old as Doncaster market, but it is still a very valuable one. Under the draft planning guidance—planning policy statement 4—it is possible for local authorities to look very closely at the effect that, for example, an out-of-town development would have on the market. Such effects could include social and economic effects, and perhaps consumer choice would be reduced. That, plus the ability to look much more closely, under the economic assessment duty that is being introduced, at what can be done to assist local markets better are new powers that are being given to local authorities. We also have a retail markets group, which I chair, which will be reporting to Ministers with more ideas as to what we can do.
I do not believe so. The right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends on the Front Bench indicated their question on that matter earlier. If the right hon. Gentleman consults the record, he will see that in response to his original question, I said that up to the end of September, about 1,800 rent-to-homebuys had been completed—I did not use the word “purchased”. However, I have indicated to Conservative Front Benchers that I will check the record, particularly in relation to the second exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). If I made a mistake the second time around, I shall clearly correct it, but if the right hon. Gentleman consults the record, I think he will find what I have explained now, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity to do so.
Indeed I will; my hon. Friend has been very forceful in making that point to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so we will certainly do so.
I certainly accept that it will not cover all of them, but in most cases it will cover a percentage of the increases. Also, under the business rates deferral scheme, businesses will be able to extend their payments over a period of three years.
I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, call-in proposals are considered by Ministers on the basis of the case that is made, but he has made his views very clear this afternoon.
Does the Minister not understand that the transitional relief scheme will not mitigate the huge business rate hike for businesses in my high street, which face an increase of 120 per cent. in their liability? Is this not the wrong time to push through a revaluation based on 2008 inflated prices, when many of my businesses are struggling to cope in the recession?
May I suggest to hon. Members whose businesses are rightly concerned about business rate increases—there are increases, although the majority of businesses will see a decrease as a result of the 2010 revaluation—that they go on to the Business Link and the Valuation Office Agency websites and make the calculation, because there is a cap on the increases? For small businesses, the cap is 5 per cent. and on large businesses it is 12.5 per cent. If we take into account negative inflation, that drops to 3.5 per cent. and 11 per cent. I am very sorry that businesses are getting so concerned about this when measures are in place to help them with it.
What measures are the Department taking to protect council tax payers against botched asset sales such as those we saw under the previous Government, and which Plymouth city council has now embarked on with its sale of Plymouth CityBus? The figures appear not to stack up.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course the Government do not oppose asset sales per se, but they have to be carried out properly, in the public interest and with the values properly established to ensure that the council tax payer does not lose out. I hope that her council is not like Southampton council, whose leader said a few months ago that the council would privatise for ideological reasons. That is not the way to approach such an important issue.
In light of the economic downturn and the reduction in new homes being built, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of models such as the Milton Keynes tariff in delivering development for local communities?
We looked at this very carefully when we were considering proposals that were part of the Planning Act 2008 and the community infrastructure levy. Shortly, I will be able to set out final decisions and regulations to put that levy in place from 1 April. While the hon. Gentleman is right about the fall-off in building new homes for private sale, he is wrong about the reduction in building for affordable homes. Because of the action the Government have taken, that number is up.
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 made tens of millions of pounds in additional, unhypothecated funding available to the Department for Communities and Local Government for electoral registration. Can the Minister guarantee that all the money given to the Department for electoral registration was spent on that, and can he liaise with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that proper funding is available for that purpose?
A certain amount of money is given to the Electoral Commission to look at electoral registration, and that is closely monitored. On discussions with the Ministry of Justice, I shall pass on my hon. Friend’s comments and get back to him.
May I take the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), back to home improvement packs? Will he put his undoubted, enormous intellectual talent, of which you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, to answering a simple question, without resorting to his trademark personal abuse? What proportion of home buyers and sellers, when surveyed, responded that they found the HIP useful?
The hon. Gentleman spent half an hour dreaming up that question, which confirms the point that I made about him earlier. The figures to which he refers actually show that already, in such a short period, nine out of 10 buyers are using the HIPs and one out of three said that it had helped them to decide whether to make an offer. [Interruption.] That is a massive improvement on the figures shortly after the HIPs introduction—[Interruption.]
Order. I feel sure that the outbreak of disorder on the one hand, and the presence of the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the other, are entirely unrelated.
Those figures are a big improvement on the position shortly after the HIPs introduction and show that the system is becoming more helpful to home buyers all the time.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter relating to the accuracy of the official record? In the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 25 November, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when speaking about Government action, said, “It is bringing unemployment down.” There was some reaction in the Chamber, given that unemployment has been rising for many months. She did not resile from that statement, but the official record does not include those words. It includes a softer version. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how I can ensure that the words that the Secretary of State said are the words that appear on the record?
I say to the right hon. Lady that I shall happily check the record, and I shall come back to her when I have done so. I am grateful to her for her point of order.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to you on Friday about this matter. I seek assurances that no decision by the Members Estimate Committee, or subsequent decision by the House reliant on the MEC’s recommendations, will prejudice a Member’s right to challenge a final decision, relating to so-called paybacks or restitution, in a court of law or an employment tribunal, that no deductions from salary or allowances will be attempted in respect of those payments until its legality is demonstrated in a process that is independent of the House of Commons and its Officers, and that such deductions should not be made until a Member has had the opportunity to test the issue of repayment in a court of law or employment tribunal.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The matter that he raises on the Floor of the House this afternoon by this device is one that he has raised with me in correspondence. I am grateful to him for that. I can only say to him today that the issues of concern to him are properly matters for discussion in the Members Estimate Committee, which will meet next week. He can be assured that the concerns that he has raised with me will be relayed to colleagues on the Committee and will be considered.
Opposition Day
[1st allotted day]
Disability Benefits for the Elderly
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the vital support that attendance allowance and disability living allowance provide for people with disabilities; notes that these benefits are intended to meet the additional costs of living with an impairment or long-term health condition; further notes with concern that approximately 2.87 million people in the UK who receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance are not eligible for social care services; acknowledges that some 20,000 individuals have petitioned the Prime Minister and many more have petitioned individual hon. and right hon. Members to ensure that these benefits are secured; welcomes the Government’s announcement that disability living allowance for people under 65 years will not be scrapped; and urges the Government to ensure that attendance allowance and disability living allowance for people aged 65 years and over are secured and not abolished as part of any future reform of the social care system.
The House will no doubt be aware that the motion is in exactly the same terms as early-day motion 1.
The hon. Gentleman reminds me—I was going to say this anyway—that early-day motion 1 stands in his name and that of 105 other hon. Members. I claim no authorship of the early-day motion, as he will no doubt verify. He composed it no doubt. He might have done so with others, but he did not compose it in direct association with me. None the less, I was happy to sign it, and I and my colleagues agree with it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am also grateful to the charity Scope, which provided the background. I readily put on the record the fact that Scope is the organisation that helped me. When the vote comes later, I look forward to seeing the 41 Labour MPs who have signed early-day motion 1 voting for what it says in the Lobby.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has provided that confirmation and that he has referred to the cross-party nature of the support for his early-day motion, which is represented by all parties in the House. Because it relates to benefits, which are a United Kingdom matter, Members other than those from England alone have had occasion to sign it.
For some years we have made it clear that we need a consensus about how we can achieve sustainable and high-quality social care for the longer term. We have had years in which reports have come and gone, including the royal commission on long-term care, the long-term care charter, the Wanless report, which was produced for the King’s Fund, and the Green Paper, which was published in July. As I made clear to the Secretary of State at this Dispatch Box when he made a statement accompanying the Green Paper on 14 July, I am quite clear that I do not regard the Green Paper as providing a sufficient range of options on the basis of which we can take forward the future of long-term care and, in particular, the funding of it.
On page 15 of the Green Paper, the Government said:
“In developing the new system, we think there is a case for drawing some funding streams together to enable us to deliver the new and better care and support system we want to create. We think we should consider integrating some elements of disability benefits, for example Attendance Allowance, to create a new offer for individuals with care and support needs.”
When the Green Paper was published, it asked people a number of questions—Members will no doubt recall the questions that were set out in chapter 7—but none of them asked whether the organisations and individuals responding to the Green Paper thought that it was a good idea to transfer attendance allowance and other disability benefits into the funding of the national care service.
I do not know whether a Minister or the Secretary of State wants to let us know about this, but on the face of it, the implication of using attendance allowance as an example of disability benefits—in the plural—in the Green Paper is that other benefits would also be included. We have assumed, as have others, including disability organisations generally, that it would be wholly discriminatory and perverse for the attendance allowance to be withdrawn and incorporated into the funding of the national care service, and for that not to be the case in relation to disability living allowance for those beyond the age of 65. I will continue on the basis that we are essentially talking about those two benefits for that purpose, unless Ministers were to tell us otherwise.
With the exception of the “pay for yourself” option, each option in the Green Paper implies the integration of those disability benefits into the funding of the national care service. Notwithstanding the fact that the Green Paper did not ask a specific question about this, we know that many organisations and individuals who responded highlighted the implication that is set out in the Green Paper and responded to it. I therefore invite the Secretary of State to tell us what proportion of the Green Paper responses received up to 12 November supported incorporating attendance allowance and disability living allowance into the national care service. I wonder whether Ministers know the answer to that. [Interruption.] Apparently not.
Let me help Ministers on this subject. On the Downing street website, as we now know, there are opportunities to petition the Government on the subject, and 24,000 people have now signed such a petition—the sixth most popular petition on the Prime Minister’s website—expressing their opposition to the proposal. The Disability Alliance asked its members whether they supported the proposal to absorb attendance allowance into care budgets, and 93 per cent. said that they did not. The Parkinson’s Disease Society asked the same question, and 95 per cent. were opposed. Carers UK asked the same question, and 96 per cent. were opposed.
Age UK, which incorporates Age Concern and Help the Aged, said in response to the Green Paper:
“We oppose funding the National Care Service from Attendance Allowance…We do not feel that the proposals will provide a system that sufficiently replicates the very important role that Attendance Allowance plays in promoting independence.”
I note from the debate on the Queen’s Speech in another place that the Minister, when challenged on who supported the options in the Green Paper, quoted Carers UK in a general sense, but not its response to the Green Paper that stated:
“We are concerned and against the proposal to take Attendance Allowance and place it into local care budgets. We believe that this will disenfranchise and impoverish carers and their families.”
The Parkinson’s Disease Society said in response to the Green Paper that
“our findings warn the Government that scrapping Attendance Allowance and other disability benefits could be detrimental to the independence of people with Parkinson’s.”
Macmillan Cancer Support said that
“we are strongly opposed to the proposal…to merge the Attendance Allowance funding stream with current social care funding streams to pay for the new National Care Service.”
It is important for us to recognise why these organisations feel so strongly about this. The arguments against using this mechanism for funding the care service are compelling, not least because attendance allowance and disability living allowance were not introduced simply to pay for the costs of personal care. They were intended to compensate for the high living costs associated with disability, and not simply to provide for specific care needs.
The White Paper that introduced disability living allowance stated clearly that it was for
“better coverage of assistance with the extra costs of being disabled”.
There are also costs that are distinct from, and additional to, social care needs, as described in the Green Paper. That is precisely why disability living allowance and attendance allowance payments have never been calculated on the basis of what is required to provide for social care needs. Rather, they have been calculated on the basis of what might add to the overall cost of disability. They were never intended to provide enough to pay for a professional care service, and it would be wrong to take them as being designed for that purpose. If Ministers were to proceed in the direction indicated in the Green Paper, it would constitute a fundamental change in the purpose and definition of disability benefits.
There is ample evidence of the costs that those benefits go to meet, and they go far beyond being strictly associated with the costs of social care. The Green Paper describes the kind of personal needs involved. They include washing, help with eating and toileting, and so on, but what is provided for and supported by disability benefits goes far beyond that. The benefits are not just spent on direct care services; they have had a big impact on people’s lives. They pay for additional heating costs, different diets, and a whole range of support for informal and family carers.
The hon. Gentleman is raising some serious issues in a measured and thoughtful way, but is not that at odds with the way in which his party has approached this issue, in its scaremongering towards existing recipients? I have here a copy of the template for the press release for Conservative party candidates, which carries the words:
“(name), (position)—insert here—voiced (his/her) opposition”.
It says that
“an average of £3,400 a year will be snatched away from 2.4 million pensioners”.
Can he confirm that that figure refers to the current recipients of those benefits? Is it not the case that the Government have said that that money will not be snatched away?
Of course, the hon. Gentleman has never in his life issued a press release prepared by his own central headquarters. Age UK, which he will acknowledge is an organisation encompassing Age Concern and Help the Aged, has said:
“Without any detail in the public domain people are right to fear the worst”.
The problem with that—
No, I am answering the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). I will come to this point and set it out in detail.
Ministers have said in the Green Paper that, within the national care service, they are proposing to withdraw these benefits from existing recipients and to provide what they describe as equivalent support. However, it is entirely unclear what equivalent support means in this context. The hon. Member for Northavon makes exactly the point that I am making. If one is currently in receipt of disability benefits and what one spends the money on includes—the Disability Alliance has conducted research on this—attending hospital or medical appointments, the cost of transport, support with housework and gardening, higher heating and water bills and a whole range of other things, only 24 per cent. of the money is actually spent on care services as such, so the fact that one is having this income taken away and having personal care services provided does not mean receiving equivalent support—it means receiving something different.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he needs a break, as he is not doing very well at the moment—he can check the Hansard. Let me inform the House that existing claimants in receipt of attendance allowance and disability living allowance would see no cash loss in their benefits during a transitional process to a new system. If he were part of a Conservative Government, is he saying that he would never rule out making any changes to AA or DLA for pensioners?
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did exactly the same thing yesterday: he came before the House and—
Just answer the question.
I am just answering the question. Instead of talking from a sedentary—
Order. I must say to Mr. Hope that there has been quite a lot of sedentary chuntering taking place. I know that there are strong feelings on these matters, but the effect of this sort of chuntering is to crowd out Back Benchers and I want there to be plenty of time for Back-Bench contributions, which I hope means mercifully brief Front-Bench speeches.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall, of course, be as brief as the argument allows, but I tend to allow Members to make interventions and I am certainly happy to respond to them.
The Minister kept saying yesterday in response to questions that those who are currently entitled to these benefits would, under the Government’s proposals, receive the same “cash support”, but the amendment to the motion does not say that. It states that
“those receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support”,
which is the same language used in the Green Paper and the same language used by Health Ministers in responses to questions. There is a complete difference between those two things. If it is cash, what is the point of taking away a cash benefit from people in order to give them the cash back? If it is not cash and it is paying for the national care service, our precise point is that there will be a difference between what people use disability benefits to pay for now and what will be provided to them as personal care services under a national care service. There is a major discontinuity between those two things, which Ministers do not seem to understand at all.
rose—
I give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).
Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), it is a full 20 weeks since the publication of the Green Paper and the start of the present campaign on attendance allowance and disability living allowance, so will the hon. Gentleman confirm the rumour that the leader of his party will sack the head of the section for opportunism and scaremongering in Tory party headquarters for tardiness and incompetence?
I am astonished at the meaning or purpose of that intervention. The hon. Gentleman signed early-day motion 1, and what we have tabled for debate on the Order Paper today is couched in exactly the same terms and it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.
My constituents have a simpler concern than the one about how the Conservatives choose to organise their party. If the Conservatives form a Government, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that my elderly and disabled constituents would not be materially worse off? I am more concerned about the sums, however delivered, than the process of delivery, and I am sure that my constituents are, too.
I think the hon. Gentleman is right that people are concerned about that, and I am glad that he also signed the early-day motion, which makes an important point. I do not know why the Government should think that our argument is just about those currently in receipt of attendance allowance and disability living allowance, as we are debating what should be the long-term future of social care. The Green Paper was not about what is going to happen in the next six months, but about what ought to happen in the longer term. I am looking to find out what should happen in the long term for obvious reasons. I am making clear on behalf of my party our belief that the continuation of disability benefits, such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance in their current form, will give current recipients of such benefits and those who will be recipients in the future an opportunity, on a non-means-tested basis, to gain access to cash benefits that will enable them to buy a wide range of services such as informal care, family care, support for travel and support for house improvements on the basis of their own personal choice and control.
I find it astonishing that today is the day on which the Department for Work and Pensions chose to publish a document relating to other disability benefits, entitled “Making choice and control a reality for disabled people”. It is clear from that document that the reason the Government did not include attendance allowance, for example, in the “right to control” policy is that it is already a cash benefit. People receiving a cash benefit gain personalisation and choice, but if a Government were to withdraw direct access to that cash benefit and distribute it through the national care service, by definition they would create a lack of personalisation.
I have always considered that to be an agreed common objective. It has been our objective since the 2006 White Paper, and the Government have also moved in the direction of direct payments and personal budgets for social care. More recently, they have moved in the direction that we urged them to follow, which included access to some aspects of health care as part of an overall personal budget. The point is that the budget is a cash budget, and there is an issue over how it should work.
On page 102 of the Green Paper, the Government say:
“We know that disability benefits such as Attendance Allowance are highly valued by the people who receive them, and that they give people control over how they spend their money to meet their care and support needs. However, we also recognise that there are inconsistencies of approach between disability benefits and social care within the current system. This is because the social care and disability benefits systems have developed in isolation from each other and these two largest portions of government care and support expenditure are being allocated on different bases. This can lead to inconsistent and unfair outcomes.”
To me, the issue seems perfectly straightforward. If there are two sources of support for people and if one relates to social care and is means-tested while the other is based on an assessment of need, is not means-tested and is in cash form, and if there are inconsistencies between the two in relation to the assessment, what is the answer? The answer is to adopt a common process applying to both the assessment of need for the disability benefits and the assessment of need for access to social care. The answer is not to abolish the cash benefits and combine them in a single system. The Government have said—and it is in the amendment—that there should be a single assessment process; I hope they mean that, as we have agreed, there should be a common assessment process.
On 14 July, in response to the Secretary of State’s announcement of a Green Paper, I said to him—I apologise for quoting myself—[Interruption.] It was right then, and it is right now. I said:
“I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we need national standards—some consistency of assessment. We have long argued for that, and of course there needs to be central Government support, but we do not need a nationalised social care service.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 160.]
That seems to me utterly consistent with the view—which the Government have apparently supported, in rhetoric—that there should be personalisation, that whenever possible there should be cash budgets over which people have more control, and that abolishing access to disability benefits would be a retrograde step.
The hon. Gentleman has been making a powerful point about the advantage of cash benefits in giving individuals control. Does he accept that even if the Government concede that current recipients will continue to receive the cash, there will be a huge loss to future generations who will not receive it?
I agree that it is important to have in mind the longer term, and to bear in mind those who may be recipients of benefit and care support in the future. However, I do not think the Government have said—and they do not say it in the amendment—that current recipients will receive the same cash support. They say they will
“receive an equivalent level of support.”
Therefore, unless Ministers are willing to amend their amendment to the motion today, I am afraid that it simply does not answer this point.
My hon. Friend might care to know that the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) is a master of the lurid headline. His website reveals that he has issued press releases entitled:
“Docking alcoholics benefits fundamentally inhumane”
and
“New benefits scheme shunting ill onto lower support”,
as well as the astounding,
“Benefits changes will leave millions without social security”.
Therefore, so as far as lurid titles are concerned, the hon. Gentleman obviously knows his stuff.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point better than I could have done.
Part of the argument on this matter is that attendance allowance is effective; it works. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said much the same thing last month to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions:
“One of the things we have said is that Attendance Allowance provides very important support for an awful lot of people across the country in a way that they hugely value. In particular it gives people control; it gives them control themselves over the way in which they get support and it is a budget that they can spend themselves.”
The universities of Essex and Anglia Ruskin
“found no evidence that Attendance Allowance is paid long term to significant numbers of people who do not have accompanying health problems”.
When someone receives both the allowance and care services, the allowance itself is taken into account through the financial assessment.
Those people who use this allowance often do so to save some money to meet higher occasional payments, such as for a wheelchair. An Age UK survey of older people who received attendance allowance found that the allowance supports older people
“to live in their own homes for as long as possible with a reasonable quality of life given their health…it would be no exaggeration to say that Attendance Allowance transforms people’s lives.”
In summary, people use the attendance allowance and disability living allowance to help them, under their own control, to create a quality of life for themselves that helps them to remain independent. That is precisely in line with the policy we are all trying to pursue. It is clear that if one narrowly focuses only on care needs, we will miss out much that goes to constitute well-being, and there is no health without well-being, and there is no independence, without sustaining people’s quality of life.
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and now that he has come to the core of his argument, I have to respond to him. His motion suggests that anybody in receipt of attendance allowance would receive no help from a national care service, and he is repeating that suggestion in the House, whereas in fact we are proposing to replicate the cash control in a new system so as to give people who would receive those benefits the same control and cash in the future. The central plank of the hon. Gentleman’s argument is therefore knocked away, and I would be grateful if he would acknowledge that his motion’s comments about no help for so many million benefit recipients are simply not true.
I am sorry, but the Secretary of State is completely wrong about that. We are not asserting that people will get no help. We are asserting that existing recipients will not get access to cash benefits in the form in which they currently do, and they will therefore be able to exercise less choice and control because this will be routed through the national care service, which will have its own parameters and will not necessarily enable them to spend that money in the same form as they can now. Ministers have not said in their amendment that current recipients would get cash. Besides, the point is not just about current recipients; it is about future recipients and future reform. The last part of the motion
“urges the Government to ensure that attendance allowance and disability living allowance for people aged 65 years and over are secured and not abolished as part of any future reform of the social care system.”
This therefore refers to “future reform.”
I am grateful for that clarification, but let me read to the hon. Gentleman from his motion. It
“further notes with concern that approximately 2.87 million people in the UK who receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance are not eligible for social care services”.
The crux of his argument is his scurrilous campaign to frighten those people and to suggest that they would receive no support under a national care service. He knows what he is doing—he is raising concern and, frankly, it is gutter politics.
That is rather astonishing, is it not, Mr. Speaker? We have never said anything remotely like that. We always make it absolutely clear that we are opposed to the scrapping of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and their incorporation into the Government’s proposed social care service. We want to give people access to cash benefits, personalisation and choice.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was among the initial signatories of the early-day motion.
I hope that I can explain. The hon. Gentleman says that he said nothing like that. However, is it not the case that in your press release of 19 November, you vowed to
“fight against Gordon Brown’s plan”—
Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I have said nothing of the sort.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said, in his press release of 19 November, that he was leading a
“fight against Gordon Brown’s plan to scrap benefits for the disabled.”
Is it not disgraceful to suggest that anyone is planning to scrap benefits for disabled people?
The Government’s Green Paper is clearly intended to propose that disability benefits should be “scrapped”, which is the word I used, in order to fund a national care service. That is something that the Government have proposed. I know and respect the hon. Gentleman, but he is trying to find a way not to vote for the early-day motion that he signed.
I have not come to ask the House to endorse my press releases. I have come to ask the House to settle this issue. If it is the Government’s view—[Interruption.] No, I will not withdraw the motion. The Government should withdraw the amendment, which is clearly flawed, as they are saying that their policy is different from the amendment. If the Government believe that their policy would be consistent with our motion, they should vote for the motion. The debate is on our motion, not on something else.
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that proclaiming that the Government are planning to scrap disabled people’s benefits is not causing enormous concern among the most vulnerable individuals and communities in our society? Should he not be ashamed of saying that?
I am not ashamed. We are doing the job that the Government should have done, which is to get out there and explain to people what is in the Green Paper. What is shameful is publishing a Green Paper, at the heart of which is the major proposal of the abolition of cash benefits and their incorporation into funding a care service. The Government are happy to put out a proposal that states, “Would it be a good idea if the Government were to pay a quarter to a third of your care costs upfront?” and people say, “Yeah, that would be a good thing. That would be very nice, thank you.” What the Government do not tell them is that, in the process, if they are in receipt of disability benefits, they will lose those benefits in order to pay for it. That is a completely different debate. Fortunately, we have organisations such as Age UK, Carers UK and the Parkinson’s Disease Society who went out—we did not do it—and said, “Have you seen what is in the middle of this Green Paper?” They argued against it.
If the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and the Secretary of State want to put a stop to this now, they simply have to vote for the motion. Then the House will have spoken. There are a range of issues, including the impact on the overall income of pensioners. Some 40 per cent. of all attendance allowance recipients would be living below the Department for Work and Pensions poverty threshold if their disability benefits were removed. As for taking away a cash benefit and providing a care service instead, Ministers talk about equivalent support but they do not talk about equivalent support for future recipients. If the benefits were to be taken away and replaced by the care service, there would be a serious potential impact on the disposable income of many pensioners. Those issues are not explored in the Green Paper. There is no economic modelling associated with the Green Paper and no understanding of what the overall impact on people’s disposable incomes would be. There is no evidence about the relationship, in detail, between disability benefit recipients and those who would be the recipients of the national care service so that we can understand the implications for poverty and well being. I am afraid that that simply is not good enough.
The Government’s response has been first to deny that they are going to do that, then to get angry and now to engage in abuse. It is like when someone cuts you up when you are driving and then swears at you; first, we get injury from the Government and then insults. It is no good Ministers blaming people’s anxieties on us. The organisations that represent disabled people have been at least as voluble as we have been in making this point and in urging the Government to change their policy. We have been clear about the policy that we pursue, but we question whether the Government will be clear. Scrapping disability benefits to pay for the national care service would be a serious mistake and a retrograde step. It would undermine personalisation and control for care users, which they say they are in favour of, and it would undermine family and informal care as opposed to formal and council-arranged care. Members of the House who have followed the consultation on the Green Paper have the right to say no to that. Ministers should accept the motion and move on. That would not be such a big retreat after all the retreats that we have seen in recent months. I say to the Secretary of State, “Just do it. It will only be only painful for today, and tomorrow you will be in a better place as a result.” I urge Members on both sides of the House to help the Government to get off this hook. I commend the motion to the House.
I beg to move an amendment to leave out from ‘House’ to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s proposals to create the National Care Service, the first national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support in England; notes that the proposals will deliver real benefits to people including wider provision of prevention services, a single needs assessment across England and information, guidance and advice for all; recognises that in 20 years’ time, 1.5 million more people will have care and support needs, whilst the number of people aged over 85 will have doubled; further notes that around 400,000 people will benefit from enactment of the Personal Care at Home Bill, which contains no proposed changes to disability benefits; acknowledges that the Government is considering responses to the Big Care Debate consultation before any decisions are made between a range of options for the National Care Service; understands that changes to disability living allowance for under-65s as part of the introduction of a National Care Service have been ruled out; and welcomes the reassurance that, if disability benefits for older people were to be reformed as part of the National Care Service, those receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support.”
Let me begin by saying that I welcome the debate, which deals with a subject that matters greatly to many people in this country. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should be thanked for securing the debate, but I cannot stand the simplistic, petty and partisan manner in which the hon. Gentleman introduced it. So far, the approach has been nothing more or less than crude electioneering. The nasty party—the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary knows all about that—is back in all its glory, and it is showing its unpleasant side in the Chamber this afternoon. The debate deserves a higher standard of comment than that which the hon. Gentleman has given today.
Given what the Secretary of State has just said in his preamble to his speech, will he explain why 41 of his hon. Friends have signed early-day motion 1?
I am going to come to that point. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman right now that this debate raises difficult questions. If one seriously intends to embark on a reform of social care in England, one cannot, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) rightly said, reduce it to simple press releases that are designed for electioneering, in the crude, simplistic and crass way that the Conservative party seeks to do. The debate deserves better than that and is more complicated than that, and we would expect a better level of engagement from Her Majesty’s Opposition than they are offering.
I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with interest, but I seem to remember that every time there is an election, we knock on pensioners’ doors and they confront us saying, “The Labour party has told us that you’re going to take away this benefit and that benefit.” That is the Government’s strategy in every election, so the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Is that the best the hon. Lady can offer? This is crude electioneering. She has just owned up to it in the House. She has said, “That is what we are doing; you do it, so why can’t we do it?” She has let the cat out of the bag.
Let me set out the important context to this debate.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
I shall give way in a moment.
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me set out the important context. Some 61 years ago, the House agreed to the establishment of the national health service to end the unfairness that the people with the greatest needs faced the highest costs and that the people who had the least were in danger of having their needs left unmet. Today, the same unfairness exists in social care. A person who happens to develop dementia in old age, rather than cancer or heart disease, is yet to find the freedom from fear that Nye Bevan promised as the goal of the NHS.
My right hon. Friend has brought us on to the very point that I was going to make. He referred to the difficult issues that the Green Paper raises. Is not one of them that so many elderly people on the standard level of attendance allowance cannot be persuaded to apply for the higher level, even though their needs would certainly make them eligible for it? Is not one of the other difficult issues that so many people with disabilities or incapacities of any kind do not get the care they currently need precisely because of the absence of a national care service? The analogy with the formation of the NHS is absolutely the right one.
My hon. Friend puts it very well. It is because the system has grown in a piecemeal way over the years that it has become confusing and in many ways a lottery. It varies very greatly around the country, according to the eligibility criteria operated by councils and a range of other things. That means that the system is a lottery, and the serious purpose that lies behind the Green Paper is to create a fairer care system for all, in which the people with the greatest needs have those needs met and society as a whole shares the risks and costs of providing that care. In creating such a system, we will provide a better standard and quality of care.
As I said, those who suffer the most face paying the most. It is an enduring unfairness that was not resolved in the post-war settlement, but it becomes more evident and urgent as people increasingly live longer. This House has failed to address the problem, but I do not believe that that can continue. In my view, all parties should commit to reforming social care in England in the next Parliament.
One in five people will need care that costs less than £1,000 during their retirement. One in five will need care that costs more than £50,000. In the worst cases, the sum can exceed £200,000. This cruel lottery leaves us with no way of predicting our risk and makes it hard to protect ourselves against it.
The Secretary of State mentioned England for a second time just now. Does he accept that, if something happened to attendance allowances, that would also affect Scotland, Wales and, potentially, Northern Ireland? Has he decided how that would be dealt with?
The hon. Gentleman will know that social care is devolved, but he is right to point out that any change to attendance allowance, which is a UK benefit, would have implications for Scotland. Of course we would work with colleagues in Scotland, and with the First Secretary, on making progress with any changes.
The current care system is piecemeal and complicated. Many do not know that care is means-tested. People face a battle to access the care that they need. When they succeed, the care can be of a poor quality, but not always. Resources are not channelled to where they are needed the most and, as we all know, carers often do not get the support that they need to make life tolerable and to enable them to provide the care and support that they want to to their loved ones, while also balancing other aspects of their life, such as work.
This much we know, and we know that the problem will become more pressing as the population gets older. When the NHS was created, there were eight working adults for every retired person. Today there are four, and by 2050 that figure will fall to just two. If the system is left unreformed, there are real questions about its sustainability in the long term.
I turn now to the Green Paper that we brought forward in July.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the excellent work that carers do. Will he expand on exactly what the Government are doing to provide for carers, who in turn help elderly people to stay in their own homes?
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In years to come, this will be as important as Sure Start is in helping young mothers with children to balance work and home. That is something that we have discussed in our debates about child care. We must give people looking after elderly relatives quality support that they can draw down when they need it, because that gives them the ability to work and to balance work with caring for their relatives. If we cannot provide that support, there will be an economic consequence for the country.
We have taken steps to support carers, and my Department has made funds available from our budget to support respite care. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. A crucial part of any national care service is to provide quality support for carers so that life becomes tolerable and they can carry on with their work and other responsibilities, knowing that there is good-quality support for their loved one when they are not with them. For all those reasons, we brought forward a Green Paper.
Quality is really important to elderly people, and it takes two forms. It relates both to care workers—their training and their capacity to understand people’s care needs—and to when care is provided. Care should be given at times convenient for the person receiving it—when they want it rather than when it is convenient for the care agency. Are the Government eager to address and rectify that issue?
My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is why direct payments and personal budgets will lie at the heart of any proposed national care service. We want that level of control at the heart of any reformed system. She is also right to raise the issue of quality. Although there are good examples around the country, and many councils are doing their best, the system is stretched and—if we are honest—it is not systematically providing quality to people across the country. Many people who work in social care earn at or close to the national minimum wage, so in some parts of the country it is difficult to recruit care staff to provide the services that are so desperately needed. For all those reasons, and to put quality at the heart of the work force, we need to pick up the work on strategy in social care being done by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has responsibility for care services. If we can do what we did successfully for the NHS work force, we shall develop a clear career structure, putting money behind training and development to ensure we have a high-quality, motivated work force. For all those reasons, the debate is important and complicated. It cannot be reduced to the level the Conservative party seeks—it is more complicated than that.
We have had a detailed debate on our Green Paper and the consultation has attracted a huge number of replies. Overwhelmingly, people support the principle that the system has to be reformed. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not say that, but it is what people are telling us. Of course there are difficult views about the nature and shape the reform should take, but people are agreed that worst of all would be to leave the system as it is, with more and more people’s needs unmet as we go into a future with an ageing population.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the key role of qualified social workers in that scenario? They will have the important responsibility of assessing the needs of elderly people and vulnerable disabled adults before considering the care package that is needed. As he knows, social workers do an excellent job but, sadly, they do not get praise for their excellent work.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point came out strongly last week when the social work taskforce reported its conclusions. It pointed out the need to raise the status of social work as a profession and talk up the changes it makes in helping people to live better lives and give them more opportunities. The point was also well made by my hon. Friend, and we have to work hard to make it a reality. Everything in our Green Paper depends on those professional voices in social work. Helping people to unlock the benefits of personalisation and steering them through the system is crucially dependent on a motivated social work profession in adult services. Young people today want to make a difference. One of the biggest differences they can make is to go into social work, be it for children or adults. On both sides of the House, we need to work hard to communicate that message very strongly indeed.
Our Green Paper set out a vision of a national care service that is fairer, simpler and more affordable, underpinned by national rights and entitlements and personalised to individual needs. It set out a system with quality at its heart, whereby people get the care and support that they need. People would know exactly what to expect, what they were entitled to and what they needed to do to get it. The national care service is about helping people to live their lives the way that they want to. It is about putting the person’s needs and wishes first, and helping them to keep up relationships with family and friends, to live in their own home for as long as they can and, where possible, to continue to work and contribute to their community.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no inconsistency in the reform of social care service and the Government’s priority of independence, choice and control for disabled people and older people?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two systems are coming together. With the introduction of direct payments, we have seen council support beginning to replicate the benefits system, and the two systems have been slowly merging. Reform would continue and deepen that process, placing individuals with the most need in control of their budget so that they can draw down the support and care that they need. My right hon. Friend is quite right to make that point.
Every citizen would stand to benefit under that new system. As well as helping people who need care, the national care service is about changing the lives of the friends and relations who support them. Many carers in this country have told us about the daily battle they face to get the support that they need, and we want to end that battle by providing a reliable, transparent and accessible system that makes it easier for them to manage their responsibilities. We intend to publish a White Paper in the new year, setting out our proposals for the future of care and support, based on the replies that we have received to our consultation.
I turn now to disability benefits. The current care and support system is provided through a combination of local and central Government funding, personal contributions and benefits. It is complicated, it is not clearly targeted at levels of greatest need and it is not sustainable. In each case, the amounts are increasing. Local government expenditure on adult social care has gone up by more than 50 per cent. since 1997; and the total fees paid by people who use the services have increased significantly over the same period. Today, there are more than 1.5 million recipients of attendance allowance, amounting to expenditure of more than £5 billion a year; and there are more than 790,000 disability living allowance recipients who are over 65 years old, totalling expenditure of some £4 billion a year.
By 2026, we can expect that 1.7 million more adults will need care and support than is the case today, and the cost of disability benefits for the elderly could rise by almost 50 per cent. in real terms. Demographic and financial pressures on that scale cannot easily be met within the current unreformed system, so we have to find a better way to provide support to older and disabled people, and there may be a case for bringing together some disability benefits within adult social care. That is the argument that we are putting forward.
The Opposition’s motion refers to people who currently receive disability benefits but are not eligible for social care, and it is true that many people today do not get help from the state towards their care costs. However, that is precisely why this Government are showing leadership and looking at how we can best support care and reform services. As I said in my intervention, it is completely wrong to suggest that all those who currently receive disability benefits but do not receive support from social care services would lose out under a new system. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a big point of stating that he did not say that, but I am afraid that anybody who has picked up a Conservative party leaflet or a local newspaper recently will have been given a different impression from that which he has given the House this afternoon. He says one thing here and his party’s parliamentary candidates say quite another in constituencies throughout the country. If he is serious about this debate, he must get his story straight now. He needs to say here—at that Dispatch Box—the same thing as his candidates say throughout the country. I am afraid that he has been found out today, and he was very helpfully smoked out by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb).
Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not only the Opposition party’s parliamentary candidates who are saying that? I shall quote another person, who says:
“And to top it off, unbelievably, they’re cutting disability benefits for the oldest and most vulnerable members of our society.”
That was the Leader of the Opposition, on “The Blue Blog”, on 19 November.
I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is unbelievable. Conservative councils up and down the country are cutting day centres and nursing homes for older people—cutting social services budgets—and then the Conservatives make that kind of opportunistic statement that comes from a deliberate misreading of the situation in order to give fuel to their candidates in constituencies around the country. Whatever the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire says today, the reality is what my right hon. Friend has just read out, and it is now on the record for all to see.
It is completely wrong to say that people will lose out under a new system. This is not about using benefits to support the existing system. We want to create a new care and support system that goes beyond that and is fit for the 21st century. We accept that that means we need to carry people with this reform. We also need to protect people in the interim. We have therefore categorically ruled out using disability living allowance for the under-65s. No other decisions about benefit reform have yet been taken. However, we have been absolutely clear that if disability benefits are reformed as part of delivering the national care service, those currently receiving benefit will not lose out financially. To put it simply, there would be no cash losers from this reform. That will remain the case for life. Existing benefits recipients will keep the cash and keep the control—it could not be clearer.
People like disability benefits because they provide a universal entitlement, they provide a cash budget that can be spent on the services that people want, and they support lower-level needs that help people to stay well for longer. Those three principles will all be important features of the new care and support system that we seek to introduce.
May I seek clarification from the Secretary of State? Is he referring to people currently over the age of 65 who are in receipt of benefit or those over the age of 65, who will in due course require benefits? Will they have those benefits secured as well?
The hon. Gentleman is right—I am talking about existing benefit recipients. We are saying that, in future, we propose having a new system of support for people with care needs, but it is not correct to say that that means that support will be withdrawn, which is the argument that the Conservatives are advancing. Our whole aim in this reform is to give more help and support to the people who need it most. We believe that at the moment the money in the system is not properly targeted at those who need most support. That is the difference between our two positions.
Will the Secretary of State clarify what he is saying? He seems to have changed the policy. The policy up to now, including in the Green Paper and as stated in the Government’s amendment, has been:
“if disability benefits…were to be reformed as part of the National Care Service, those receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support.”
He has just, in effect, replaced the words,
“an equivalent level of support”,
with the words, “the same amount in cash”—that is, no cash loss. That is a completely different policy—which one is it?
I am sorry, but “equivalent level of support” is pretty plain—it means no cash losers. It is an equivalent level of support: that could not be clearer. I have said very clearly that people will keep the cash and keep the control. We have said that all along, but the hon. Gentleman has been choosing not to listen because it did not suit the grubby campaign that he has been mounting for the past couple of weeks. We have made this absolutely clear. He may not like it, because it does not suit his purposes, but it could not be clearer.
As I said, the three principles in the benefits system will all be important features of a new care and support system. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will stop chuntering, let me say that cash payments will be at the heart of a new system. The care services Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, and I have been saying that every day since we launched the Green Paper. That is what
“an equivalent level of support”
means. The hon. Gentleman has chosen not to listen to that because it was inconvenient—[Interruption.]
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but I must say to Ms Milton that there seems to be a competition among Front-Bench Members for the dubious accolade of chunterer-in-chief. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any help from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—he is often competing for that accolade himself
Thank you.
And we need no further intervention from him. I simply say to Front-Bench Members that they need to simmer down. It is good that there is a lively debate, but I want Back Benchers to be heard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire seems to have missed is that we have said all along that cash payments will be part of the new system. I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) a moment ago that in recent years, we have begun to see a merging of the local authority support system and benefits, with the introduction of direct payments. That is a trend that we want to continue. It is not about giving people’s benefits to councils, as the press releases accuse us of. People in the care system are already getting used to getting cash budgets, and the number of people receiving them has risen by 28.9 per cent. over the past year. Including carers, 115,000 people have received them, and our reforms will take the process further. Let me be clear: we will reform disability benefits only if we are certain that the new system can better support the needs of older and disabled people.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is often good at taking a big position without any reference to what other people in his party say. His whole thesis today was to raise the spectre of the loss of benefits, and he gave the idea that any reform of benefits means somebody losing out and that we cannot possibly raise these issues without trying to cut support. However, I have before me a speech that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made in Scotland on Monday 16 October 2006. It was a long and, I may say, quite good speech about how to provide better support to disabled people in the long term. I shall come to the crux of it, because it is important that the House hears the right hon. Gentleman’s peroration. He said:
“So there are the problems in the benefits system. It is too complex. It does not incentivise work sufficiently. And it relies too much on large government agencies…Our policy review is examining the option of a radical simplification of the benefits package for disabled people. I welcome the principle of Individual Budgets. But I’d like to go much further.”
It is unbelievable—he was giving exactly the same argument that we have been mounting, which underpins our Green Paper. [Interruption.] Hear me out, there is more. He went on to back us up even further, saying:
“Instead of the half-dozen different benefits a disabled person can receive—each with its different conditions and its own application form”—[Interruption.]
They are not listening now, are they? He said that
“we should be moving towards a single assessment process, and perhaps even a single benefit.”
There it is in black and white, in a speech, the same thing that we are talking about—the simplification of the support system, perhaps through a single benefit. Yet the Conservatives have brought the motion before the House today because, three years on from that, it suits their purposes to issue press releases and frighten disabled and older people up and down the country.
I am still utterly unable to reconcile what the Secretary of State is now saying about the Government’s change of policy with what is in the Green Paper. The use of disability benefits to pay for the national care service is intended to back what was clearly one of the preferred options, the partnership model. Page 109 of the Green Paper even has a helpful diagram showing how, under the current system, there is a big shift from people paying for themselves to people getting part of their care free. The Green Paper states that
“those who were on the lowest incomes would continue to get all their care for free.”
Is he really telling us that under the national care service as he proposes to introduce it, existing disability benefit recipients will continue to get the exact cash benefit that they currently get, plus their social care free? In that case, where is the money to come from to provide universal care for others?
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what part of “no cash losers” he does not understand? Interestingly, just as I was coming to a rather sensitive and difficult part of my speech for the Conservatives, he got up and raised a different point. He did not like hearing what I was saying, did he, but he was quick to come back with a red herring. The policy is “no cash losers” and it could not be more simple.
That brings me to the Personal Care at Home Bill. There are still huge challenges in the care and support system. The Green Paper sought people’s views on how we resolve those and create a sustainable system for the long term. In our view, those with the greatest needs cannot wait, and we cannot stand still in meeting the challenge of rising costs. Currently, an estimated 80,000 older people in the highest need receive free personal care, but 40,000 pay part of their costs, and 50,000 pay all their costs.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No—I am making progress. Among younger adults, an estimated 90,000 receive free care, while 20 per cent. pay all or part of their own costs, so we want to start now with reform, by helping people to live independently for longer in their own homes for free, which is something they tell us they really want. Our Bill will do just that. It will end the postcode lottery in care for those most vulnerable members of our society. Let us not forget that many have already paid significantly out of their own pockets to fund their own care—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire says, “Second Reading on Monday.” We are putting forward reforms that support people in their entirety—support for older and disabled people—and I am very sorry that he considers that unimportant.
Does my right hon. Friend remember the scaremongering that took place when our party was introducing the Care Standards Act 2000? We were told that we would drive agencies and care home owners out of business, and that we would not raise standards or improve the quality of care. Some companies went out of business, but they could not provide quality care. The Bill is the next step in the reform of care that will improve life for the elderly and disabled. As such, should not everyone welcome it?
My hon. Friend makes her point very well. The Conservatives have a track record on these issues—a track record of opposing any step forward that has given more dignity to older people, particularly those in residential or nursing care. I remember that on the day we launched the Green Paper in the House, a distinguished Member of the Opposition stood up to complain about the burden of the national minimum wage on care homes and asked whether more could be done to give more deregulation to care homes. Quite frankly, that is their true voice—that is what they have done in their past. When they come here with the pretence of speaking up for older people, I am afraid it just does not wash.
As the Secretary of State has changed the Government’s policy this afternoon, I think it would be helpful if the House could understand exactly what he is saying for those existing pensioner recipients of either attendance allowance or disability living allowance. Is he saying that under the Government’s proposals, those people will no longer receive attendance allowance or DLA, but instead receive a cash payment? Is he also saying that, as with attendance allowance and DLA, they will be free to spend the payment on whatever they choose, or will they be able to spend it only on the provision of social care?
I do not think the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has been listening this afternoon, nor do I think she listened yesterday at Work and Pensions questions, when the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), said quite clearly that an equivalent level of support meant no cash losers. She has not been listening to this debate nor indeed did she listen to the debate yesterday.
The right hon. Lady asks if our proposals mean that people can have the control to buy what they need. How many times have I said that this afternoon? The crux of what we are building is the power and control that people get in cash benefits—that is at the heart of the national care service. It could not be clearer and she clearly has not been listening to anything we have said.
We want to go further. In the Personal Care at Home Bill, we want to build a system that does all it can not just to pick up the pieces when people need help, but that has prevention at its heart. We want to invest resources in re-ablement—services to get people back on their feet and to give them intensive support after illness, an operation or a fall, so that they can live independently at home. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is only proposing to help people who end up in residential care. What kind of a vision of the future is that—giving people an incentive to go into residential care? Surely the best way forward for care is to invest in prevention, to give people support to live independently at home and, at all times, to support them to live in their home. That is what they tell us that they want.
Before the Secretary of State finally moves away from the clash of press releases, will he comment on the quote in the Health Service Journal today from a national health service source? Under the headline “NHS to take responsibility for social care”, the report outlines the Government’s plans to take more responsibility and states:
“Social care is currently provided by local authorities, the majority of which are now Conservative controlled. A move towards greater control of social care by the NHS has been described to HSJ by an NHS source as one way to ‘rip the guts out of’ Tory-controlled councils.”
Will he take the opportunity to condemn that quote and find the NHS source it came from?
Some 1.3 million people work in the NHS, and I cannot be responsible for what all of them say at all times. It is my judgment that, whatever happens, more money from the health budget will have to be spent closer to the line with social care. That is just the way things will have to go, and that is why I am talking about finding resources from within my Department to fund re-ablement services—intense support to get people back on their feet after a vulnerable or low moment in their lives. Because we do not provide such support at the moment, people end up at the door of the NHS or asking for support from local authorities. We want to expand the level of support. We should also be less precious about spending health resources on equipment and telecare to help people to live in their own homes. That is all part of my vision. We have to break down the approach of the past that has said, “The health service pays for this and councils pay for that”, and we argue about the bit in the middle. We can no longer sustain that—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is nodding in agreement. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire should listen to more distinguished voices on his Back Benches if he wants some good advice about policy. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has a long track record in these areas.
This is an ambitious vision and it will not happen overnight. It raises complex and difficult questions that this House needs to consider carefully before proceeding with any reform. It cannot be a debate that is reduced to crude electioneering, because that would block out and shout down the debate. That is what we have heard from the Conservatives this afternoon. We have raised the issue of social care and the response from them is to shout it down and frighten people. The Conservatives cannot open up the debate because they do not have the ideas to put into the debate. Let us have a few more ideas and constructive comments, rather than the low politics that we have heard from them this afternoon.
The Prime Minister has committed to making social care our top domestic priority in the next Parliament. That shows that we have the ideas, the courage and the confidence to tackle the big issues that the country faces. I believe that the national care service could be a major social reform that will stand alongside some of the major reforms of the last century. It would be easy to say that it is too difficult. We have been under pressure this afternoon to say that we will drop it all, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire invited me to do at the end of his comments. But we will not do that; we will see this through. If we fail to act, we will make the choices more difficult, the unfairnesses will grow year on year and this post-war generation—it includes people who own their own properties and who will live longer, which is a good thing—will face ever more unfairness than their parents did. These are big challenges. The Government believe that we have the right ideas to address them, and I urge my hon. Friend to oppose the motion.
As we have heard, we are effectively debating early-day motion 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) after a night spent in a sleeping bag to ensure that he was in the Table Office to table perhaps slightly more than one early-day motion. However, of all the issues that could be brought to the House’s attention, he chose this to be the first motion of the new Session, and rightly so. I congratulate him.
The subject of our debate is important, and I am delighted that the Conservatives have put the words in my hon. Friend’s motion on the Order Paper. He was quite surprised when I told him last night that they had done so—he was slightly surprised too that they did not tell him directly, but never mind. However, the debate gives us the chance to put to rest, I hope, something that has caused great anxiety among millions of disabled people in Britain.
We have all seen the press release being talked about, and as much as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) might pretend otherwise, it is transparent that the release that he is encouraging his party’s candidates to put out is designed to alarm current recipients of the allowances. All the statistics that his office—I assume that it is his office—has inserted into the press release relate to current recipients. It refers to 2.4 million pensioners who are current recipients. It reads: “In (constituency),”—fill in the gap—
“this would affect (x) pensioners—(y) who receive Attendance Allowance”—
note the present tense—
“and (z) who receive Disability Living Allowance”.
It is designed to frighten people.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
In a moment.
I hope that the Department will reflect on whether its language in the Green Paper should have been more unambiguous and should not have left the door open to such campaigning. It is helpful that the Secretary of State said clearly this afternoon that there would be no cash losers; that was not the phrase used in the Green Paper. For the avoidance of doubt, and for those 2.4 million people, I shall describe, as faithfully and as accurately as I can, on the strength of the conversations that we have had, what I understand the Government’s policy to be. If I get anything wrong, I hope that Ministers will correct me.
The hon. Gentleman has made the exact point that I was going to put to him. The Government have said that people will be guaranteed an equivalent level of support, but that could mean anything. We assumed, as did many vulnerable people, that it meant that people’s disability benefits were under threat. Does he agree that the Government themselves have been the main cause of the problem?
As I said, I think, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, that the wording in the Green paper could have been more unambiguous. The draft press release states:
“Conservatives will protect (area’s) pensioners and fight against Gordon Brown’s plan to scrap benefits for the disabled.”
That rather extends what the Green Paper might have been thought to mean. For the record, however, I shall describe what I think the Government are saying. Under the proposals, existing recipients over pension age of disability benefits—attendance allowance and DLA—will continue to get, first, the same amount of cash; secondly, they will be as free as they are now to spend it on what they like; and, thirdly, if, in addition to those cash benefits, they receive social care from a local authority, that will continue as well. Those are the three strands that I understand are present from what Ministers have said.
indicated assent.
indicated assent.
That is helpful.
The proposals therefore raise questions for future recipients—that is what I am now talking about—and I hope that Ministers will address some of those questions. For example, if DLA is to remain for under-65s but perhaps not for over-65s, there will be a question about the transition from under to over 65. It is clear from research evidence that DLA is not just a care cost benefit, but a disability cost benefit. Is it not therefore the case that, in the future, if people on DLA who became disabled before pension age go on to the new regime and receive support from a different package—I do not want to say “have it taken away from them”—that will presumably give them potentially less cash after the transition to spend on the other costs associated with their disability? I assume that that would be a consequence of the Government’s proposal. Is there not a danger, therefore, that although those individuals’ care needs might be fully met in the future, the compensation that society has given over generations for the additional costs of disability would thereby be undermined, because potentially all or a large part of that cash would be put into a bucket for care costs and their ability to meet other, extra disability costs might thereby be constrained? We need to understand the transition from under to over the pension age, compared with the position now. That is the first question that I hope the Minister responding will address.
The second question is about the current role of such benefits in passporting people on to other things. If a person receives attendance allowance, someone will be looking after them 35 hours a week and, in principle, will be passported on to carer’s allowance. Could the Minister who responds to the debate say something about how such passporting might work in a world where new recipients receive a care package, but do not necessarily receive the benefits that passport them on to other benefits? One imagines that there are ways around that, but there would be consequences.
We all agree on the importance of cash benefits for personal control, personalisation and dignity. We would all want the cash to make our own choices and not to have the state decide what pattern of services we want. One of my concerns about the Government’s proposal is that the new system will inevitably rely more heavily on means-testing than the current one. That is implicit in the Green Paper, which on page 102 describes attendance allowance thus:
“Attendance Allowance is not means-tested, so people get it regardless of how well-off they are.”
Of course, that is simply a statement of fact, but why does the Green Paper say that and, by implication, “And this might be thought to be a bad thing. This is not money well spent”? At that point we part company with the Government, because our argument is that attendance allowance and DLA are designed to meet the additional costs of disability and people have those additional costs whether they are rich or poor.
We are talking about a universal benefit for people with disabilities. They will all face a set of additional costs on average, so we as a society compensate them all. Reading between the lines of the Green Paper and suggesting that, although there are additional costs, people who are well off can meet them themselves would be a worrying undermining of that principle. In our view, therefore, a continuing role for a disability benefit that is specifically related to the additional costs of care, but separate from the process for assessment and meeting care needs, is an important part of the system.
I admit that I was rather puzzled by what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about a single assessment system; his comment struck me as rather odd. At the moment, we have a system in which attendance allowance goes to millions of people who do not get social care services provided by their local authority. In a single assessment system, however, there are only two possible outcomes. Either the outcome is as broad as attendance allowance, in which case we would bring all the people who get social care who do not currently receive the allowance into the system, which would presumably be hugely expensive; or it is as narrow as social care, in which case people would be knocked out of attendance allowance. If neither of those two things is done, the system is not a single system.
I suppose we could have a compromise, whereby a few fewer people receive attendance allowance and a few more people receive social care, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying. I am therefore slightly confused. We have come not to expect alternative proposals from the Conservative Opposition, but this time there is one on the table, only it seems not to make any sense. If we are talking about a single process of assessment that is different from what we have now, either it is universal and based on need, like attendance allowance, or it is means-tested, like social care, but it is rather hard to see how those can be one, single system.
There is an important question about what I call the non-overlap group—the people who are disabled enough to receive attendance allowance, but who do not get local authority social care. Again, my concern is that either that set of people loses out if attendance allowance goes, or the Government do not save any money, because those people use their attendance allowance to pay for care, and if the allowance was not there, they would rely on local authority provision. The only saving would be achieved be through means-testing, which is a worry. We all know why means-testing happens—we cannot be generous to everyone, so we pick some people—but there is a balance to be struck between universalism and means-testing.
One of my worries about the present Government is that the balance between universal and means-tested benefits in, for example, the pensions system has gone very much in the direction of means-testing. We have on the Front Bench today a former Pensions Minister, who will know that, when there was spare cash, it went into the means-tested areas. That was an understandable choice, but the Minister says that social care needs to look more like the NHS, and one of the hallmarks of the NHS is that we as a society say that people who are sick are entitled to help whether they are rich or poor. In my view, the Government’s model seems to be veering in the direction of means-testing, because if we roll attendance allowance into the local authority social care budgets, we will by definition be doing more means-testing. We all get letters from our constituents saying, “I’ve worked hard and saved hard, but what was the point, because I’m no better off?” If we make social care more means-tested, we will rightly get more of those letters, because needing social care is akin to needing health care; it is the same sort of thing. Our worry about the direction of Government policy is the greater emphasis on means-testing.
That brings us to take-up. We know that take-up, even of the universal disability benefits, is not brilliant. There are plenty of people out there who should be getting attendance allowance or disability living allowance but who are not doing so. If we were to impose a means-testing regime on all that to create a single system, the likelihood of people missing out on the whole lot would increase. In Work and Pensions questions yesterday, a question was asked about the length of the DLA form. The Minister quite properly said that it was a complicated business and that we have to ask a lot of questions if we want to capture everything. If we tried to combine that with a means-tested system of local authority care, I imagine that the barriers would be even greater and we would therefore risk excluding vulnerable people. Having a mixture of the universal system that includes attendance allowance and, ideally, a less means-tested local authority system would create a better balance than what the Government are proposing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester was right to table his early-day motion a few weeks ago. The motion before the House today accurately sets out our position, which is that attendance allowance and DLA for the over-65s have an important part to play in the system. We recognise that the Government have promised equivalent cash support for current recipients, but we believe that those benefits have a long-term future as well. That is where we part company with the Government.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the differences of opinion between Government and Opposition Front Benchers, the fact is that 105 hon. Members from all eight political parties represented in the House, plus independents, have signed the early-day motion? There is no reason why the 39 Labour Members who signed it should not sign up to the motion before the House today, especially as they outnumber the 21 Conservatives and 32 Liberal Democrats. There is no reason why the House should not be united on the motion.
I share my hon. Friend’s hope, but I am slightly torn. We are always glad when Members from other parties sign our early-day motions, and the last thing we want is to discourage them from doing so in the future. I take my hon. Friend’s point that there is nothing in the motion with which they should have a problem. I was not planning to make a partisan point, but this reminds me that, as of yesterday, when I realised what motion had been tabled for today, I checked to see how many Conservative Members had signed the early-day motion. At that stage, the number was 16. Given the primary importance of the subject, I was rather startled to find that the early-day motion had been signed by only 16 of them—including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who presumably knew that this debate was coming. That was rather a surprise. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that there is nothing in the motion that Labour Members should have any difficulty with.
The key points are that we, corporately—to put it generously—should cease as of now to cause alarm to 2.4 million disabled people, and that the message goes out that their benefits and their rights are protected and will remain intact. By all means, let us have a mature debate about the future, but in our judgment, attendance allowance and DLA will continue to have a specific role to play in the system, by meeting the additional costs that those of us who are fortunate enough not to be disabled do not have. Those costs are incurred regardless of means and those benefits should therefore have a long-term role in the system. Any attempt to make the system more means-tested discourages those who have worked hard and saved hard, and penalises those who have become disabled through no fault of their own. That is the wrong direction to go in.
I hope that this debate will be helpful in placing on the record the reasons why current recipients need not be alarmed, while also allowing us to encourage the Government to think again about the threats to those benefits whose purpose is to meet additional costs that are not met elsewhere in the system and should always be met in any future system.
I hope not to take up my full allocation of time. I have one or two points to raise, not least because I used to be the Minister with responsibility for disabled people and had to deal with some of the early policy issues and discussions about this development.
Perhaps we should be more optimistic about why we are all here today. The justification for the reform of social care is, as the Secretary of State indicated, that we are all living longer and, thanks to medical science, can be kept in our homes longer. That is the good news to start with. The bad news is that although the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who opened for the Conservative Opposition, said that there was a need for consensus, he then went on to scaremonger about the so-called attempt by a Labour Government to take away disability benefits from nearly 3 million people in Britain. Frankly, that is a disgraceful way to come at the subject, because the reform of social care is an important matter for all of us.
As the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) suggested, we should have a mature debate. [Interruption.] In some ways—I point this out to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is the current Minister with responsibility for disabled people—our approach to pension reform should provide a model. That was about consensus and moving forward on the basis of certain principles. Frankly, however—[Interruption.] I think some Opposition Members should take a degree in chuntering, because they are getting very good at it.
I will not take lessons from an Opposition who, in October this year, said that their solution to social care reform was a one-off payment of £8,000, which would give people no guarantee that they would not have to pay a top-up if their social care costs were more than approximately £26,000. There were no guarantees either to people with a pre-existing health condition that their social care costs would be covered. I declare a vested interest: I wonder whether insulin-dependent diabetics who may have complicated health needs will get the benefits that they require if they pay that £8,000. The Conservative proposal was taken apart by every expert in the field because it was drawn up on the back of an envelope to please a Conservative party conference. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health clarified that there was absolutely no contradiction between the reform of social care and independence, choice and control for disabled and elderly people.
I am listening to what the right hon. Lady is saying, but does she accept that the words “equivalent level of support” were, with hindsight, a little unfortunate?
I think that the Secretary of State has answered that question—today and previously—and we are now in the territory of working out how many semantic angels can dance on the head of a pin. The Secretary of State and the Government have been very clear throughout that there will be no cash changes for individuals.
To colleagues who are having difficulty dealing with the reform of social care or in engaging with a Green Paper consultation, let me explain that there is no independence for an elderly person living on attendance allowance in a local authority that does not see social care as one of its funding priorities. That is not about independence, it does not provide choice and it certainly does not give control. As for my friends in voluntary organisations such as Carers UK and the many others that have been mentioned, I have the utmost respect for them, but I think they know in their heart of hearts that we must have a genuine discussion about how to deal with the demographic time-bomb and the social care time-bomb that we all face. I understand exactly why they are advancing some of the arguments that we have heard today, but they need to become part of the ongoing discussion about how we can reform the system. Even the best of the voluntary organisations need to respond to the conundrum of how we should deal with a social care system in which two people are working for every one person over the age of 65.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Which one?
The handsome one at the front.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady. She began by rightly championing the idea of consensus, suggesting that it would be helpful and that the pension process might prove to be a precedent in that regard. Does she accept, however, that although we in the official Opposition have always indicated that we would be receptive, we have never received an invitation even to discuss the issue, let alone an invitation to a round table with Ministers?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on whether the Opposition have made any effort to contribute to the consultation over the past few weeks. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they made a formal response to the formal response to the consultation document? I am not sure whether the answer is yes or no.
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Very briefly. I did say that I would not take up all my allotted time.
Will the right hon. Lady briefly answer a very specific question? Why, in her view, did 41 of her colleagues sign the early-day motion which became the motion before the House today?
I think that colleagues sign early-day motions for all sorts of reasons and I do not wish to second-guess the motives of any of my colleagues. The purpose of signing early-day motions is to put on the agenda matters about which Members feel strongly. I do not intend to fall into any trap set by the hon. Gentleman.
As I have said, I believe that genuine discussions must take place with the organisations that represent the needs and ambitions of disabled people. Let me say this to the Government, and I say it with the utmost respect to my colleagues. I welcomed the Secretary of State’s comments about cash support, but the Government know that disability benefits, including attendance allowance, are valued and that any proposed changes should be seen in the context of improving the lives of disabled and older people in the future—I recognise that we are talking about the future.
Unusually, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason). Obviously, any discussions must take account of the impact in other parts of the United Kingdom. We must recognise that devolved Administrations will be involved if changes are made to what is currently a United Kingdom-wide benefit. The discussions must be meaningful and robust, and I hope that some of them have already begun.
This is probably the next great social agenda development, and I do not think any of us can run away from it. We cannot change the demography, certainly in the short term. The social care Green Paper sets out the questions, highlights some of the options, and gives people an opportunity to engage in the debate. What we cannot do is run away from that debate. We cannot simply pretend that it is not happening, or we shall have abrogated our responsibility to future generations whose social care needs will have to be met.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) on saying that she would sit down well within her allotted time, and then sticking to her promise. I shall try to emulate her in that regard.
The right hon. Lady began by saying that the occasion for the debate was good news—the news that more elderly people are living longer—and that we should all celebrate that good news. I entirely agree with her, but the other aspect of the background to the debate is less happy. Although it has been recognised from 1997 onwards, and indeed was recognised by the previous Government—in which, as Secretary of State for Health, I was responsible for these issues—the fact that people are living longer, and have higher expectations for their care in old age, creates a real policy challenge when it comes to paying for the care that, when we are younger, we all want for elderly people and that we want for ourselves as we grow older. The current Government came to office, and the then Prime Minister promised action on this subject, in autumn 1997, yet all we have had are repeated commissions that have, in truth, failed to address the issue.
The most accurate assessment of the issue was provided by the Wanless report, which said that merely to stand still—merely to deliver the same quality of care to elderly people as now—would require the proportion of gross domestic product committed to this area of care to rise from 1.1 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. over the next 15 years, and that that would represent an increase in the cash cost of providing that care of £14 billion. That is how much it would cost merely to stand still. A parallel report by the Commission for Social Care Inspection pointed out that to stand still is not to deliver on our aspirations. The background to our debate is, therefore the fact that for 12 years we have failed to address the question of how we as a society will fund our aspirations for elderly care.
Twelve years on, the Government produced a Green Paper this summer, which is the immediate background to the debate, because it tabled the suggestion that attendance allowance and disability living allowance should be put into the pot to square the circle of paying for this area of care. It also tabled the suggestion that “a National Care Service”—capital N, C and S—should be developed, but it set out almost no details of what such a service should look like, beyond saying that disablement benefits should be part of the funding solution for paying for reshaped care for elderly people.
Since that Green Paper was published, two fundamental conflicts have developed at the heart of policy in this area. They have now started to bubble to the surface, and I want to address those two conflicts this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has already discussed the first of them: should we develop a policy that is based on a preference for the payment of cash benefits, or one that allows greater flexibility for commissioners of service to provide a package of care that is, in their opinion, tailored to meet the needs of elderly people, but that does not necessarily reflect the wishes of the elderly people themselves?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that option could turn out to be more expensive as well? Often, a friend or family member will visit to care for a few hours and they will incur only the cost of the taxi fare, but if such visits were replaced by the local authority providing paid care for a few hours, that would be much more expensive.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and what he says is relevant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about the way in which a local authority-commissioned service relates to carers. A local authority-commissioned service runs the risk of being less accurate in meeting what elderly people want and demand of such services, and therefore of being not merely more expensive, but less good value for money. There are therefore many reasons for choosing to have a policy that prefers, accentuates and develops direct payments, rather than officially commissioned services. That is why we passed the direct payments legislation before 1997, and it is why we have supported the development of that concept since. I believe that any move to put disablement benefits into the pot to pay for the national care service would be a big step in the wrong direction.
The Ministers say, “Don’t worry about it. Local authorities will still have the same encouragement to pay direct cash payments.” Who do they think they are kidding? They are clearly not kidding the next generation of elderly people. I accept entirely that there will be no cash losers in the current generation of benefit recipients, but we are concerned here about the development of policy for the future. I simply do not believe that if we take a system that provides an entitlement to a cash benefit and give that cash to a local authority commissioning body, we will have entrenched or developed the policy of preferring cash payments to commissioned services. It flies in the face of common sense, and particularly so when we all know that we are going into a decade in which there will be severe resource pressure.
Of course, it is true that, against that background—even if the Department of Health does not prefer such an approach—the Treasury is encouraging this policy direction to create more flexibility to free up resources that, in its mind, are now being devoted to a demand-led programme so that it can put those resources at the disposal of a priority-led programme that will be subject to a cash limit in the way that the disablement benefit programme is not. All those reasons should, I believe, commit us to opposing a development of policy that takes an existing demand-led cash payments programme and puts it into a local authority cash-limited priority-led programme. That simply will not deliver the core policy objective that has been consistently developed since before 1997 and, to give them credit, by this Government since 1997 to build up a preference for cash payments over commissioned services. That is one fundamental conflict that I believe to be at the heart of the development of the policy for a national care service.
The other conflict that is equally at the heart of this policy has not yet been raised this afternoon. It is the unresolved conflict caused by the question of whether we are seeking to develop greater local flexibility, local choice and local management of these services or a single national blueprint, rolled out across the country. The Department of Health talks about putting the disablement benefits at the disposal of the national care service in order to fund and develop its vision of a national care service with national assessment, a national entitlement programme and the development, therefore, of a policy that moves social care for the elderly from being a local authority service to a national service on the model of the national health service. The Secretary of State made it entirely explicit that that was the agenda of the Department of Health.
At the same time, in this Chamber, only a few weeks ago, we were debating with the Department for Communities and Local Government the development of the Total Place programme, which embraces the idea that disablement allowances should be put into that programme in order to take funds that are currently determined by a national programme with a national entitlement prescription and to put them at the discretion of local authorities so that they can create a more flexible local model of service delivery that reflects more accurately the local circumstances of individual local authorities.
Which approach are the Government supporting? Are we putting attendance allowances and disablement allowances into the local pot in order to develop a national care service? There is something tautological about taking a national programme and putting it into local authorities in order to develop a national care service. That is a bit like listening to a Frenchman explaining the game of cricket. Are we developing the programme in order to develop a national care service or are we taking these benefits and putting them at the discretion of the local authority in order to develop local flexibility and Total Place? Again, this comes back to a point that I made earlier. Is this about putting those moneys into a cash-limited programme to create greater discretion, as would be the Treasury’s agenda, or is it about the national payment of cash benefits according to a national entitlement programme, which would be my preference?
My central point is that, against the background of the Government having failed for 12 years to address the resource challenges in the care of the elderly, they published a Green Paper this summer that said that the solution was the development of a national care service—three words with no policy behind them. That was a good headline, but behind it is an unresolved muddle of unresolved conflicts. All that is unresolved after 12 years of failing to rise to the challenge that was clearly there 12 years ago. Hon. Members need not take my word for that: in 1997, Tony Blair said that it would be a disgrace if this matter were not addressed. Those were his words, not mine.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who has raised two fundamental issues. I hope that the Government and others, in their response to the consultation exercise, will consider those issues carefully.
I start from the position of being one of those who signed the early-day motion—and not just yesterday—but I shall be supporting the Government amendment this evening.
Surprise, surprise!
The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I have voted against the Government on rare occasions when I felt that there was no alternative and I have not precluded entirely the possibility of my ever doing that again, but I hope that I do not have to. We have had a consultation exercise and the Government’s amendment makes it clear that they are considering the responses to that consultation. It is quite wrong for members of the Opposition to say that the Government have decided to stop disability benefits. That is untrue and misleading, and it scares vulnerable people. That is another reason why I shall not vote for the Opposition’s motion. We have heard some of the responses to the consultation, and most of us can guess what many of the responses from various organisations have been. Those responses should be treated seriously, and I am sure that they will be, but no decisions have yet been made.
The hon. Gentleman has been around this course several times. He knows this subject exceptionally well and he has a strong reputation in the House on this issue, so is he puzzled that, in dealing with some of the earlier responses to the consultation, the Minister and others have left hanging much of what has raised concerns outside? It appears that attempts are being made to deal with part of that today. If they had been as clear as he suggests, there would not have been the scares that currently involve certain organisations. Could Ministers have not done rather better?
I can answer that in one sentence. People are anxious because others have generated scares outside. Let me speak for myself. I agree with the Government that disability benefits should be seen in the context of a national care service. I, as much as anyone, want a national care service that is similar to the national health service. That is long overdue. As the Government say in their amendment, the national care service is about having a
“national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support”.
The only part of the system that is currently national, universal and entitlement-based is the benefit system—attendance allowance, disability living allowance and other related benefits. My point of departure is this: if our purpose is to create a national care service, I find it strange that the part of the package that we should start considering is the one part of the service that is national, universal and entitlement-based. It would be much more logical, in summary, for attendance allowance, DLA and related national entitlements to be the basis on which we build a national care service.
I welcome the publication of the Green Paper. It addresses a number of the shortcomings of the social care system that deny disabled and older people the right to decent care and support. That is why virtually every disability organisation—Age UK, Age Concern, Help the Aged and many others—has also welcomed it.
It is interesting that, within a few days, the same organisations expressed specific concerns about the future of disability benefits, so I think that we should regard their submissions as pretty sophisticated: they passionately want a national care system, but they have concerns about removing the national entitlements that currently exist through the benefits system.
We all know why things need to be done. As Members of Parliament, we all know that needs are being met insufficiently. Our constituents frequently have unmet needs, and perhaps the same is true for members of our families. At present, local authorities are addressing only the most serious needs, and there are charges. For instance, a constituent wrote to me this week claiming that her charging regime was unfair and unreasonable, and I think that she is correct. In addition, the 6 million carers in our country do not get the kind of support that they should get, and all that is despite the fact that the Government are putting more money than ever into the social care system. I do not think that the Government can be criticised for not providing extra resources. They have done that, but the system itself is not functioning as it should.
As the right hon. Member for Charnwood said, provision varies from local authority to local authority. People who get an assessment for care and support in one local authority but who have the temerity to want to work, or visit relatives, in the next-door local authority have to go through the process all over again. When will that cease? Entitlements are not portable. When are we going to get portable entitlements? A national care system, if it is national, will at least address that problem.
Finally, disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. In such circumstances, therefore, we should be very cautious indeed about considering changes to benefits in a downward direction. Let us not forget that people who receive attendance allowance and DLA are, sadly, some of the poorest in our society.
As I have said, I support the vision of a national care system and national entitlements. I welcome the emphasis in the Green Paper on preventive interventions and on promoting choice and control. As other hon. Members have said, it is the national entitlements that give choice and control at the moment, because people can choose how to spend that money.
I think that resources could be saved if we moved to a national care system, and away from multiple assessments of non-portable entitlements between local authorities. The existing bureaucracy could be reduced in size, and some resources could be saved that should be spent on front-line care and support. Nevertheless, we all know that that is not going to be enough to provide the resources that the social care system needs at present. It will certainly not be enough, given the well-known demographic changes, to ensure the resources that the social care system of the future will need, but I repeat that I do not think that it makes sense to fund the social care system by undermining that part of the benefits system that works most successfully at present.
As the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) has pointed out, many people who receive attendance allowance do not receive any social care support at all. Why should we consider any change to that entitlement, given the possible consequences for those people?
It must also be stated that, as we all know, many people’s experiences of local authority social services are not good. I am a former local councillor and I am passionate about local government, but we all know that there are local authorities, for faults that either are not their own—perhaps insufficient resources—or are their own that do not provide the quality service that is needed. When disabled people say to me, “For goodness sake, we must retain AA and DLA”, it is often because they cannot bear the possibility that the money would somehow end up under the control of local authorities with their current management of the social care system.
That is not a criticism of individuals who work for local authorities. Many struggle in very difficult circumstances indeed. Many local authorities are quite small, so there is often a real question about how they can provide a comprehensive social care service. I am not criticising individuals—I am simply relaying what we all know: many of our constituents who use local authority social care services are less than enthusiastic about their quality and are, therefore, all the more keen to hang on to national entitlements via the benefits system.
Attendance allowance and DLA are paid directly to individuals regardless of their personal circumstances, such as where they live, which makes the allowances an obviously desirable entitlement. As we have all said, recipients can spend the money as they wish. Those allowances have all the advantages of the individual budget—they are about empowerment, choice and control. The allowances have the important characteristics that we are saying the national care system should have in the future, so we should tamper with them only after we have come up with a very good reason for so doing. At the moment, it does not make much sense to move the part of the system that arguably works most successfully, given what disabled and older people expect from it, and that is why disability organisations, Age Concern and Help the Aged have expressed concerns.
Disability Alliance and the disability consortium—representing between 25 and 30 organisations—oppose the use of existing benefits to fund social care. Disability Alliance said:
“DLA and AA were intended to help with the higher costs of living disabled people and their families experience, and to help tackle the link between disability and poverty. We believe placing either or both of these funds in the pool for Local Authority distribution could cut support and restrict choice and control for many disabled people.”
We should listen to what Disability Allowance has to say.
Age Concern and Help the Aged said:
“If the idea to stop AA is taken forward, it will mean that many older people will be worse off than they are now.”
We should take that seriously—[Interruption.] Despite the provocation from those on the Opposition Front Bench, we should still take that comment extremely seriously indeed.
Finally, we all recognise that the Institute for Social and Economic Research is an organisation that has no political agenda; it produces reports and analyses by experts in the field. Its response was:
“Since the need for ‘care’…is the main criterion governing eligibility for the benefits, it is sometimes assumed that the money is intended to pay for care. On the other hand, the past governments that introduced these benefits made it clear they were intended to contribute to the general extra cost of living faced over the long haul by disabled people and their families—extra heating, special diets, the incidental costs of hospital visits and so on—not necessarily on caring services.”
Others have made that point this afternoon. The ISER continued:
“Standard of living indicators suggest that the current benefits do little more than compensate disabled people and their families for the extra costs associated with disability. A reduction in their cash incomes is likely to lead to an increase in deprivation.”
The significant additional resources needed for the national care system should come from general taxation. I do not believe that one group of disabled people should be required to pay disproportionately for care and support for another group of disabled people. It is a responsibility that all citizens should share. My concerns, therefore, are that we might end up damaging the most successful part of the current system, which is the national entitlements via the benefit system, and that the proposal may not be fair.
The truth is that we will not know the detail that might be in the White Paper until we see the White Paper. Indeed, a number of questions have been raised, not least by the right hon. Member for Charnwood, to which I suspect we will not get clear answers this afternoon, and I hope that that is for a good reason. I hope that it is because the Government are considering carefully the submissions that were made to the Green Paper as part of the consultation exercise.
Yes, I signed early-day motion 1, and I did so for the simple reason that I agree with it. However, I am afraid that I shall not support the Opposition motion before us, and I shall not do so for two reasons. Sixteen Opposition Members signed the motion, and a number of them did so yesterday. I have great respect for the views of many Opposition Members, and I make no personal comments, but it is not good enough for a political party to use the early-day motion as a bandwagon on which to jump and bash others when three handfuls of its Members actually put their names to the relevant motion. When they also go around making statements, as they have explicitly done, saying that the Government are taking away disability benefits, despite no such decisions having been made, I think that that is outrageous. That was not in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who was here earlier this afternoon, and I have it in front of me.
So, I shall not support an Opposition motion that has been presented in that way. The Government’s amendment explicitly states that no decisions have been made, and I welcome that. It states also that they will take into account the consultation exercise and the submissions that have been made. The Government are not setting out to frighten people, and for that reason I shall support their amendment. That is no guarantee, however, that they can always rely—on every conceivable occasion—on such unqualified support.
These are always good debates in which to take part, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who knows and cares about this subject very deeply. I agreed with many of his later remarks, but I shall avoid the difficulties of the politics for a while. It is always, however, a pleasure to listen to him, as it is to listen to the Front Benchers and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell).
I make two comments based on my time as Minister for Disabled People. Many distinguished colleagues, such as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench now, have followed me into that position. I remember someone asking me to do more as a Minister to ensure that people with disabilities could access polling stations. That happened early on in my time as Minister, and before the meeting I thought, “What’s this about? Everybody has the right to vote, you can vote by post, it doesn’t really matter if you can’t physically go down to the polling station. You’ve still got the same right to vote. What’s the point?” By the end of the meeting, I had got the point: there is a very early conversion for Ministers and Members who are involved with people with disabilities. They realise that, for those with disabilities, one of the most important things is to be able to do the things that everybody else does—without thinking about them, without it being a big deal—and to have the same access to things which everybody else takes for granted.
My second observation is to offer a memory of Nicholas Scott. I know that we are in the heat of battle and that the Secretary of State for Health gets well stuck into such encounters, but if he looks back at some of his previous press releases he may come to see that crass politicking—the phrase that he used—is reflected in them. No doubt it will feature in future press releases, too. Nevertheless, he gave an impression that Opposition Members either had an artificial interest in disability or did not care very much. Well, those who knew Nicholas Scott and worked with him in the House know how unfair that impression is. I remember talking to Nick about the independent living fund, the disability living allowance and other such issues. He said to me: “One of the great things about disability issues is that by and large there is a benevolent ratchet. It does not always proceed at the pace those in the disability lobby would like, but it moves inevitably to a position of greater individual choice and the opportunity to exercise more individual power. That is really important for people with disabilities. There is a process whereby we have moved from a position of giving things to people to their then being able to access them entirely of their own accord.” I begin my remarks about the motion on that basis.
I do not dispute with Ministers the difficulty of dealing with this matter, nor the issue of quantum. It will be extremely expensive and difficult to manage this for the future—there is no argument about that. It is of course partly about how much money goes in, but it is also about how that money is applied and who has control over it. Serious questions have been asked about precisely what a national care service might mean, how it might be handled locally, and what power there will be for the individual. Those issues are at the heart of our discussions here and the confusion outside that has led so many individuals, including those from disability organisations, to raise the concerns that they have. No matter what politicians may have added in trying to develop the policy in one way or another, those fears are genuine and worrying. I will turn in a moment to some of the things we have heard today as supposed clarifications of the policy.
Let me quote from a letter from one of my constituents. It was produced at the time when the policy had been announced in the Green Paper and people were not sure where it was going, and it reflects a concern that we now know is met because existing benefit holders will not be affected. Nevertheless, it might just as well have been written today by somebody anticipating what the future may hold. I suspect that most of us have similar letters. My constituent wrote:
“At the moment my husband of 82 who is blind and has other health needs, receives attendance allowance at the highest rate. Taking away this allowance would affect greatly his quality of life. He is a very independent gentleman, one who would find it very difficult to allow people he is not familiar with to provide personal care. Because of the allowance he is able to arrange his own help and feel in control of what needs he wants met and not assessed by what social services consider to be his needs. I feel for an older person who remembers pre war conditions. He is unlikely to access services through a local authority, he feels this is going back to the ‘State Control, and Work House mentality’. Going without these provisions would greatly affect his quality of life, and mine as I can pay for someone to sit with him for a break with caring.”
On one of the websites that discuss these matters, a gentleman called Mick Hall says:
“My own Dad who has now sadly died fell into this category. His reasoning was two fold: before he became ill and frail he had taken responsibility for his life since he was a young boy. He also feared if he let people in through the door he might be taken off without his consent and placed in what he called in a disparaging manner ‘a home.’”
When I spoke today to Yvonne Clark, the excellent chief executive of Carers in Bedfordshire, she reiterated that that fear about loss of control was of major concern to people. We have dealt with that a little bit today, or I think we have, in terms of what the policy is, but I am still not quite sure about that. It is important to know how we have got to where we are, and the Minister who winds up will have to clear up the confusion that appeared to exist before half-past 3 and about where we are now.
The Secretary of State almost used the words, “Read my lips—no cash losers.” However, that is not what he was saying on 20 November; the quote is included in the excellent pack prepared by the Library. On the same day, Martin Green, chief executive of the English Community Care Association, said this about the Green Paper:
“There seems to be no coherent back story about how it is going to be funded, what the criteria are, how it interfaces with other aspects of the health and social care system, whether the money allocated will be enough, and if it isn’t, what is going to be the price paid by other parts of the care budget”.
On the same day, the Secretary of State was quoted in The Independent:
“Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, accused the Tories of ‘disgraceful scaremongering’”—
that is his view, and he is good at saying so—
“in suggesting benefits could simply disappear. However, he admitted that the Attendance Allowance could be reformed to pay for broader changes in the future. He added that anyone who lost out would be compensated with an ‘equivalent level of support’.”
If the phrase “Read my lips—no cash losers” was on his mind then and always had been, and if it was never in any doubt, why did he not make it clear to The Independent that there would not be anyone who would be compensated with an “equivalent level of support”, because no one would actually lose out? I am not certain that The Independent was contacted to say, “You’ve got this wrong”.
Even if what the Secretary of State says today is now the Government’s position, it deals only with today’s benefit recipients. All the letters that my hon. Friend read out are a cogent argument about a policy that affects the next generation independently of today’s benefit recipients.
My right hon. Friend makes the obvious point, although until today I would maintain that there was still a reasonable element of confusion about exactly who would be affected. I suspect that there probably still is. If what the Secretary of State has announced today was so blindingly obvious, why was it not made clear when the policy was being discussed, just two or three weeks ago? Why have so many people been disturbed about it? It is not simply a question of politicians making something out of it; it could have been squashed at a very early stage, but it was not, and it was not squashed because the Secretary of State had not developed the policy far enough. I submit that what we have extracted from him today was not in his brief this morning.
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), had a similar opportunity to explain what the policy was in his interview with Disability Now. The magazine asked whether older people would be affected adversely if attendance allowance were abolished under a reformed social care system. The Under-Secretary rightly said:
“The amount would be put into a social budget of the local authority and people would receive care services in the way that they might use their Attendance Allowance to pay for that now.”
Again, when the concern was raised there was no suggestion whether that would apply now or in the future. It was left hanging. I suggest that there are real concerns about that matter, so my right hon. and hon. Friends are quite right to have tabled a motion that is widely supported and endorsed by agencies outside.
Does my hon. Friend feel that had the policy of “no cash losers” been in place this morning, the Government’s amendment would have been phrased differently and not included the words
“an equivalent level of support”?
I must admit that if I had been the Secretary of State this morning, I would have ensured that “no cash losers” was written in pretty clear terms, so that we would not have had these exchanges about what an equivalent amount of support means. The door was left wide open, and I suspect that it has been closed at a very late stage during the course of the day. However, we may get further information about that later.
There is concern about why the change is being made. We know about the difficulties in the amounts of money involved, but then we come to a point raised in the letter from my constituent and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood. It is how services are provided that matters. One reader of Disability Now wrote:
“The Government seems upset that it doesn’t know or control how we’re using the money, so it wants to give it to councils so everyone can see who gets what and for what.”
That concern about the personal element being taken away is widespread, and the fear is that if the Government do not control it, they do not like it.
Neil Bateman, a welfare rights specialist, has written about the discrepancy in the numbers of those who receive social care and those who receive allowances. That can be interpreted in different ways, but he asked:
“Then what about the numbers? In England, 1.26 million people receive social care services, but 3.82 million receive AA/DLA. Are the proponents of transferring”
those allowances
“really suggesting that over two and half million people would lose these benefits? Would care services be expanded threefold to provide services instead? Fat chance.”
He is picking up on that dilemma. It looks as though there is a gap somewhere, and even from what the Secretary has said today, we are not sure how it is going to be closed.
I shall conclude with one last point. The Minister and the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, asked whether we know where the benefit money is currently applied, which is very important. I maintain that the Department for Work and Pensions does not know, but it ought to before making changes. I say that because of an excellent DWP working paper—working paper 58 of this year—in which a researcher is given this task:
“A research plan is proposed at the end which looks towards a large-scale survey starting in about two years’ time…which will provide some answers to the questions at issue”.
The planned research programme will look at how disability benefits are spent and used, which is precisely the information people need before introducing a Green Paper, and certainly before a White Paper. The proposal is for three major studies, which is exactly what colleagues have been discussing today. It states:
“Understanding Society is a general purpose panel survey covering 40,000 households…The survey is likely to offer a crude scale of impairment, adequate income and deprivation data, and a wide range of social participation indicators, without focusing on issues of special relevance to disabled people.”
That will be supplemented by a
“longitudinal disability survey…a highly specialised disability survey based on screening of an initial sample of 50,000 individuals.”
The document goes on to state:
“The Policy Studies Institute has been commissioned by DWP to develop a methodology for measuring take-up of DLA and AA.”
It is intended that two of those surveys will start next year, but for the third, which looks at take-up of DLA and AA,
“There is no current timetable”.
If the Department acknowledges that it needs and wants information on how those allowances are spent, why do we not have it before working out a new way to subsume them into a benefit? I maintain that this is perhaps not the right time to do that. It is certainly not the right time to worry those who are going to come on to the benefit about its future. That may not be the right way to use it.
I return to how I started, and the letter from my constituent and what Nick Scott said. Giving individual people with disabilities the power to choose gives them the sense that they can do exactly what everyone else can do, without having to make major changes and without being supplicants and dependent on someone else. If a national care service in any way replaces that sense of individual power with the sense that something is being given to people with disabilities, however well intentioned that is, we will be missing something. We will be losing what Nick and the hon. Member for Kingswood have always fought for and what we care about. The Minister could begin to clarify the matter this evening, but I suspect that he will have to go some distance to convince those who are rightly concerned about a possible change for the worse in the way this ratchet has been working for so long.
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a reasoned argument. Of course, I accept none of it, but it was done beautifully.
Care of the elderly was my first love when I completed my nurse training and it has continued for many years, because I believe that a society is judged by the way it treats elderly people and by how we prepare for our lives as we grow older and more dependent. That is what this debate is all about, and I very much welcome it. I am relying not on briefing notes from the Library or from my party, nor am I reading out news releases prepared by the Conservative party for its candidates; rather, I relying on the great good sense of my constituents.
In the later part of the summer, I held a consultation with more than 40 individuals, including people from the caring professions, carers and those who are cared for. It was to their comments on disability that I listened. We came together to discuss the White Paper. It was clear in our conversation that those people were not going crazy about benefits or getting upset or anxious. We were having a conversation because the proposals were undergoing consultation. It was a reasonable, adult, mature conversation between a representative of the Government and those who would be most greatly affected by the proposals, and I very much welcomed it. Following our morning’s deliberations, we were able to prepare a submission in response to the Green Paper. I hope that our comments will be taken seriously. I am glad that a solution has not already been offered, apart from the assurances, which were given early on—weeks and weeks ago—about the safeguarding of those benefits.
I know that scaremongering is the reason for today’s debate, but I am absolutely delighted about it because it has given me the opportunity, as a Member of Parliament, to engage many more people than I thought I would at the beginning of the consultation. I wrote to many people. I have no interest in what happens to me—this is about the future of older people. Whatever happens at the next general election is of no importance compared with what the future may hold for older people. That is why it is important to have this debate without making silly, snidey remarks to each other.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), because the 60th anniversary of the NHS was a great opportunity to revisit the arguments that were had when the then Labour Government were determined to introduce it. In his very reasonable way, he tried to explain why many of the proposals are unaffordable—that was the gist of his contribution. I only hope that we do not listen to that argument. I believe we have a responsibility to step up to the plate and to tackle what I believe is one of the biggest omissions in care today—bringing together health and social care, and ensuring that we adequately help people as they become infirm and those with disabilities.
I welcome the debate, and I am now able to correspond with many more people. They made some quite interesting suggestions—they are not out of briefing notes or anything else. I have been assured that the benefits are certainly no longer under consideration, but people ask me why the Opposition, who have produced a news release for the next general election, say they are.
I take issue with that. We are talking about a matter of great concern, and our constituents rightly tell us to explain to the Government why we do not believe in wrapping up those benefits and why a national care service, which is a fantastic innovation, is a good idea, but the campaigning has gone on long beyond when those reassurances were made. That brings into question how that whole campaign has been conducted. That brings that campaign into disrepute, and I hope that none of my hon. Friends will support the Opposition motion tonight.
Two constituents of mine, who suffer from severe disabilities themselves, run two excellent groups in Crawley. First is Mrs. Carslake, who runs the Jackdaw club; last weekend the whole club went to Butlins at Bognor, where they had an excellent time—using their DLA to get out and about. The people in that club understand that it is this Government who are committed to their care in the future. The second is Mrs. Kay Turner, whom I visited at home following some concerns that she raised. She runs the GEMMS club, which looks after people with neurological conditions. The members have discussed the Green Paper and the national care service proposal.
Mrs. Turner made an excellent point to me. She said, “I’m not badly off. I was well before I became ill, and the level of care that I have been able to secure through the DLA has ensured that we have a decent life together. We enjoy each other’s company and we do not feel as though we are impoverished.” We need to protect such people too. Through the empowerment that the DLA has given that couple, she has managed to keep well in herself and to remain active and engaged with many other people.
This is an issue of trust. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members and the undeniable stoking up of anxiety to ensure—
The hon. Lady is making an interesting and well considered argument. Does she agree that the fear generated by the draft press release from the Conservative party makes life even tougher for constituents whose lives are already often difficult?
I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree that the press release will make life tougher for people who will be anxious and concerned by it. Those who blindly follow the party lead and stick their name into a press release and put it out without thought or consideration need to think very carefully. I am very much aware that I have the most marginal seat in the country and I am proud of my 37 majority—and I have the tattoo to prove it. If our opponents issue press releases just to stoke up some concern, that is an issue of trust, and those people should reflect on what they are doing.
It seems to me that this campaign began with a deeply held desire to engage with constituents on the future of social care, but it has been turned into a bandwagon campaign, and that may have something to do with the fact that the Opposition proposal—hastily put together at the party conference—for a one-off payment for those willing to go into residential care, has bombed. There is no question about that. None of my constituents is talking about that proposal—the only game in town is about how we can provide care at home for family members. It is not about people who are well at present signing up to go into a nursing home in the future. There is a connection between those two events that has caused the Conservatives to jump on this bandwagon.
I hope that when we have the Second Reading of the Bill that will be the first step towards the national care service, our constituents will understand that they can trust the proposals and their benefits will not be affected. We need to have a proper debate, as many hon. Members have said today. We cannot go on avoiding the issue of providing care for elderly people with dignity and decency. I hope that after this robust debate today we will be able to make progress and look in detail at how we ensure that everybody can be confident that they will be able to live in a decent, happy and secure home in the future.
The reason for today’s debate is the Government’s failure to be entirely clear about how they will fund their three proposed options for a national care service in their Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) pointed out that all of us—at least on this side of the House—have been victims of smear campaigns in elections that we have fought, whether in relation to TV licences, pensions or Sure Start, and now this issue. Our campaign is not a smear campaign and I agree with those hon. Members who have said that the subject is far more serious than that. We should treat it with the respect that it deserves.
If the Government think that they can achieve something in their last six months, let us take them at their word. Let us have that debate on behalf of our vulnerable constituents. Let us proceed with caution, but also with clarity. We need a debate that contains costs and decisions—I hate to break that news to Labour Members. I hope that when he sums up the Minister will answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about cash benefits. She asked whether, if there are to be no cash losers, the benefits will be available to be spent as people want to spend them.
indicated assent.
That is good to know. Earlier, the Secretary of State seemed to be having a Bill Clinton moment, in which we were not sure what the meaning of “is” was, or a Lewis Carroll moment in which the words were to mean what he said they were to mean. Perhaps instead it is one of those irregular verbs from a comedy programme that we all know and love, in which the Minister proposes a policy, we scrutinise it and the people outside think that the Government are in chaos. I would not want anybody to think that.
People receive attendance allowance or DLA because they need it. Many of us have pointed out that those benefits are based on need, not means, and that is an important point. Age Concern, which does great work in Norwich and Norfolk as a whole, as it does across the country, supports those benefits because they help older people to meet the daily living costs of disability. There is no question in anybody’s mind that these benefits are undeserved or that they should be tossed around as discretionary options. In fact, they are essential to anybody’s idea of social justice.
People in my constituency use those benefits for vital daily activities, such as assistance with washing, dressing or eating. They use them to carry on life in an enjoyable and meaningful way, and we all agree about that—the Minister nods again. A younger constituent came to my surgery on Saturday: he is totally blind, and he uses DLA to get around the city. He is another example of those who use it for enabling activities.
I recently met with carers and I hosted a web chat on Friday for a forum called Chill 4 Us. I spoke online with carers who, day in and day out, give up their time to care for others. Their passion on this issue was clear and powerful. None of them wants to lose DLA and AA because they need and appreciate them greatly as cash benefits. Sadly, however, I got the impression that the only chance they have to say that is through such virtual forums—we were there tapping away. That is one of the difficulties in this debate. It can be very constricting for people who need us to take the subject seriously and treat it with respect and maturity. Quite simply, living with the kind of care needs for which DLA and AA cater is hard and can be expensive. They are needs-based benefits. It is one small piece of help that society can give, so it should hardly be controversial to say, “Let’s not abolish something that the elderly, disabled or ill need and value.”
I want to highlight the vulnerability that comes with such need. Fooling around with such benefits carries a weighty risk. A younger constituent aged, say, 35 might be able to plan for the future if changes are made to the system now. Many today have mentioned the needs of the future cohort; from what Ministers have said, it seems that today’s cohort might be fine. However, the many people who receive DLA or AA after 65 might be less able to accommodate change. In many cases, they have made financial choices for their retirement that leave them and their families little room for manoeuvre. In other cases, people are already living on precarious means—we have heard plenty of figures today—and the abolition, if enacted, could represent a loss of up to £60 a week. That would be serious in many cases.
Some recipients of DLA and AA are physically ill or disabled, and their lives could become severely restricted without that assistance. People suffering from dementia or other mental illnesses, too, are particularly vulnerable to change. Making any changes that affect those social groups is difficult and complex. Getting the change right is paramount, and of course we are all taking that seriously today. However, debating the changes without causing immense anxiety is another thing entirely. The uncertainty generated by the Government’s proposals in July’s Green Paper has caused enormous concern and distress for people who are already vulnerable. Many Members have recounted what they have heard in their constituencies.
Forgive me for saying this, but it is incumbent on the Government to exercise caution and clarity in their approach. We also need flexibility and personal and local control at the end of whatever proposal emerges. I am sure that no one has an argument with a system that aims to be fair, simple and affordable. That is wonderful. However, we have serious concerns about a system that removes or reduces older people’s ability to choose what to do. Choice and control must shine through any reforms that we make to the care system.
By choice and control, we mean the support that people need to choose how they overcome their concerns in their own way. Abolishing AA and DLA is a serious risk to such individual control. I would like a Minister to explain the paradox clearly. If the wording that has rather tortuously been made available still leaves open the option of abolishing AA and DLA, we need to know why the Government think that that maintains choice and control for individuals. That question is still on the table.
I would also like Ministers to explain, even after today’s twists and turns, a policy that seeks to reallocate a cash benefit that grant money to people who need it and allows them spend it how they want, and to add it instead to a nationalised system that could simply eat it up through the weight of bureaucracy.
Quite right.
Quite right, as my hon. Friend says.
Let us turn to the ground on which the Government might like the debate to take place. If there are to be no cash losers, why are we talking about abolishing two benefits—or not abolishing them; I may have to grant the Minister that, although I do not think that he is guaranteeing not to abolish them—and replacing them with the same? If there will be no cash losers, and some cash winners or cash neutrals, at the end of the process, why are we having much of this debate at all? That key question, too, is still on the table.
The Green Paper appears to contain a further argument that the aim is to reduce complexity for older people by merging funding streams. The paper states:
“Having two different funding streams means that older people have to apply separately”,
which can be off-putting. The Green Paper states that there is a case for integrating those streams
“to improve the effectiveness of state funding.”
I would like the Minister to explain what kind of state funding can be more effective than meeting the rawest needs of people in a way that gives them power over their own solutions.
I would also like the Minister to acknowledge that, by his own argument for reducing complexity, there is so much more to do to help not only that group of people, but the millions in the UK who despair of ever getting what they deserve from the state. I am talking about the country we live in, where almost daily in the past 12 years, we have had application forms, means tests, quangos, queues and hoops added to every conceivable aspect of the public sector. It is no wonder that we are talking again about a group of people who are vulnerable to change and worried about more burdens being added as they simply try to get on with what they want to do.
To make a constructive point, it is essential to provide good information to people in any new care system. I shall mention one local example. Norwich has several day care centres provided by the local authority. I am sad that the Secretary of State is not here to hear this point, because judging by something he said earlier, I think he knows about it. He will also know that Norfolk county council is consulting on its options and he may know that I, as a local MP, will be standing up for my constituents on those options, rather than playing party politics.
The local authority is facing ever less funding in future, in a period of a staggering national deficit, and a move to personalised budgets. Under the pressure of at least two burdens from national Government, therefore, the council is seeking to focus its limited means on those who need its help the most. In particular, we are talking about dementia needs and so-called re-ablement requirements. Most people have no problem with that. The rub has come as the council has reviewed against its projected future requirements the usage of three day care centres that it runs. The elderly members of at least one of those facilities—the Silver Rooms—in my constituency are extremely anxious about their future. They are frail and some have physical and mental disabilities.
I raise that example not only because, if local facilities are to close, losing AA would in many cases be a double blow for those people, but because their plight illustrates particularly well why a national care service would do well to excel in the provision of good information. If the personalisation of care budgets moves from being a twinkle in a planner’s eye to a fully workable, local scheme, my constituents will need to know where they can spend their money. That remains true in a world with or without AA and DLA, and with or without any of the options provided in a national care service. My constituents will want the comfort of knowing that, with their personal budget in hand, their day centre, or whatever they choose to spend their future benefits on, will still be open for business. If a national care service can provide such information and support, that is wonderful. However, if it cannot and only succeeds in removing cash benefits that might be seen as an effective forerunner to personal budgets and gobbling them up in a monster of a scheme that provides no improvement, we really are in trouble.
I emphasise the gravity of getting this right. It is clear that reform of social care is greatly needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to the Wanless report. Others will be familiar with the statistics on exactly what we will be facing in 10, 20 or 40 years, when perhaps even I will be retiring. Perhaps more shocking, in a survey conducted by the Department of Health in July, I understand that more than half of those asked thought that the total cost of a residential care home for an elderly person would be £10,000 or less and that more than a quarter assumed that it would be free, so in addition to the demographic bomb going off, we are also battling a problem of public information. People need that information. Any proposals in the Green Paper will not be implemented until 2014, which should give us time to pin down the Secretary of State to some clear language. The Government must act now to alert people to that bomb.
Given that so many people rightly fear for the future of social care and are vulnerable to changes in the system, I want answers to some questions in addition to those put so ably by my hon. Friends. Why would the Government seek to remove an obvious area of stability, in the shape of AA and DLA, for vulnerable people? Why would we seek to abolish the only area of clarity for many people in the care system at present? Why would we do away with a cash benefit that goes where it is most needed? We need a clear definition of “no cash losers”. Why would we seek to reduce people’s independence and open the door to an unwieldy and ever larger bureaucracy? Finally, before they talk about the serpentine amendments that we have seen today—or afterwards, or indeed during that discussion—will the Government give the proposals in their Green Paper the gravity and maturity of decision that they deserve? Will they be able to emerge from all that and talk about social justice on the other side?
I want to concentrate on the proposal to abolish attendance allowance, apparently now only for new claimants, and disability living allowance for the over-65s. As we know, that would affect 2.4 million vulnerable pensioners, including 1.6 million who currently claim attendance allowance and 800,000 over-65s who are on disability living allowance. However, whatever happens to the current claimants, presumably we are talking about higher numbers in future, so those are the minimum numbers at least.
We have received various reassurances from Ministers in recent weeks and months. They have suggested that people will receive similar services, rather than money. Previously, we were told that
“people will be guaranteed an equivalent level of support”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 241.]
One of the problems in this debate is the lack of clarity about the phrase “equivalent level of support”, because frankly it can mean absolutely anything to absolutely anyone. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said that reassurances had been given, but the first reassurances that I heard were given yesterday, at Department for Work and Pensions questions. I am not sure when she thought she had heard reassurances before that.
Quite a lot of concerns have been expressed, not least today, about some of the statements that have been made and the phrases that have been used. The Secretary of State said that the present system was “not sustainable” and that the cost could rise by 50 per cent. A number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), have talked about a demographic time bomb, which the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith) also mentioned. I feel that those statements are slightly over the top, because the reality is that we, as a Parliament, and the Government need to set priorities. The question is: what priorities are they to be? If we are saying that the present pot of money that looks after the elderly and vulnerable will continue to be the same pot, despite an increasing number in those groups, I would very much question whether that is the right priority.
Yesterday we received clarification that those already receiving the benefits in question would get
“the same level of cash support.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 6.]
The Secretary of State said today that he had “said it all along” and that there would be no cash losers. However, to reiterate what other Members have said, we did not really hear that, and it might have been helpful if he had said it a bit earlier. Although that statement seems to be reassuring, it still leaves new folk looking ahead and wondering what will happen if they do not receive attendance allowance in future. That seems to go in the opposite direction from the Welfare Reform Act 2009, in which I was involved in the Public Bill Committee. Great play was made of the right to control and all parties agreed on that.
I would like to make a number of points. The first is that attendance allowance and DLA do a lot of good. I should like to quote again—I have quoted from this before—from a paper that I received from SAMH—the Scottish Association for Mental Health. What SAMH says is probably typical of what a lot of similar groups would say. SAMH refers to the 194,000 people of working age in Scotland and the 145,000 over-65s who receive attendance allowance and to the 110,000 older people who receive DLA. The advantages that SAMH quotes are similar to those that we have heard about already this evening:
“For example, people with mental health problems can experience much smaller social networks and can feel isolated and alone. Anxiety may mean that a person feels unable to leave their home by themselves. People can choose to use their DLA to use a taxi to access social activities and cover the costs of an informal carer to provide the additional support and assistance needed. Without this additional support the person could experience greater anxiety and social isolation, increasing the potential of a period of hospitalisation or more intensive and costly community support.”
SAMH also says:
“Disability benefits and free personal care enable older people in Scotland to remain independent in the community, providing older people with a personal budget to help with their care and support needs. This could include covering the costs of a friend or family member coming to the home in the morning to help the person get out of bed, prepare meals or do shopping and cleaning. Any changes to disability benefits could affect the provision of this care and support and result in an older person needing more costly forms of social care in the home, or lead to a person moving into residential care if they were not able to manage their household.”
It has been said before, but it is worth re-emphasising, that much of the present system involves unpaid carers, of whom we hear a lot, and that the danger of just transferring even the same money to local authority or to any other control is that we will get less of a service.
I enjoyed being involved in the Public Bill Committee on the Welfare Reform Act 2009, in which other Members who are present were also involved. It is worth quoting again from the then Bill and from a clause in the part dealing with the right to control. It said:
“The purpose of this Part is to enable disabled people aged 18 or over to exercise greater choice”—
not the present choice, but greater choice—
“in relation to, and greater control over, the way in which relevant services (as defined by section 31) are provided to or for them”
The Government seemed to be saying—and I agree with them—that they wanted to move in the direction of individuals having greater control over the services. However, what we are seeing now is a move towards less control. Nobody has explained to me—perhaps the Minister could explain this evening—exactly how those two things are meant to relate to each other.
Previously I asked—and would like to ask again—what would happen to the money in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will it be handed over as a lump sum? Will attendance allowance be based on need or will it be based on the Barnett formula? Will it be open to the devolved Governments to continue with attendance allowance in Scotland and Wales, even when it is eventually phased out in England? I did not quite hear the Secretary of State’s earlier answer, but if I understood him correctly, he said that he would brief the devolved Governments. I hope that he would go a little further than just briefing them and enter into a consultation with them on how the proposals might work out.
We have received the assurance that only new claimants will be affected, but that leaves a number of questions about the future. Who will be paying for the protection? Will the money go through the local authority or will it be transitionally protected under the social security system? Will it affect local authority budgets, and what happens if local authorities cannot or will not pay? Is the money inflation proof, or will it not be increased each year in line with inflation and thus gradually reduced in real terms? If that is good enough for existing recipients, why should other disabled elderly people not receive at least the same? We will end up with a two-tier system, and potentially for quite a long time.
What happens to people on the middle or high rate of DLA if they reach 65 after the new system is in place? Will they be protected or will they lose the benefit when they reach 65? The current protection appears to affect those on benefit at the time of change, not afterwards, but if so many people are to be protected, what is the point? Should we not continue with something much closer to the present system? What would the impact be on carer’s allowance? It is not particularly generous at the moment, at £53.10, but if it is abolished, what will happen to someone who looks after a person who receives attendance allowance or DLA at the higher or middle rate? Similarly, will there be an impact on pension credit?
Locally, the Labour campaign against me often refers to how often I might vote with the Conservatives, but sometimes it forgets to say that, very occasionally, the Conservatives are right and the Labour party is wrong. I must admit that, in this particular debate, I remain suspicious of the Conservatives’ motives. I am suspicious of what they might cut instead, if they are going to protect these benefits. However, it is hard to say that Labour has not moved further to the right of the Conservatives on this issue.
The Government have rightly given undertakings about DLA for the under-65s, and, yesterday, new reassurances that those receiving cash will continue to do so. I suggest, however, that it was cynical to get people this worried in the first place, and then apparently to give ground. In the longer term, how can it be right to change the system to give future claimants less control over their benefits?
I was enjoying the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), until that last bit. He can rest assured that he can vote with us; he does not have to convince himself that we are right, but he can be absolutely certain that the Government are wrong. It was also a delight almost to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith), who demonstrated in her thoughtful speech her clear understanding of and care for her constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) set out our case comprehensively and—despite what the Secretary of State said—in a measured, thoughtful way. He exposed the weakness of the Government’s case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), a former Health Secretary, made a thoughtful and typically well-informed speech that raised a number of important questions.
This debate has exposed a Government who are in disarray and running scared on this issue. The Secretary of State—wherever he happens to be—has today effectively holed his own Green Paper below the water line. We did not think that it held the answers anyway, so, from our point of view, that is welcome, but he has effectively destroyed it. He changed the language today. Up until this morning, when the Government’s amendment to the motion repeated the words
“would continue to receive an equivalent level of support”,
Ministers had stuck doggedly to that language—not that anyone knew what it meant. Many interpreted it to mean that benefits such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance for those over the age of 65 would be taken away and put into a social care system, leading to less control and independence.
Despite what the Secretary of State said, those concerns were not got up by the Opposition; 105 MPs of all parties have signed early-day motion 1, including 39 Labour Members. I think that I heard the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) correctly when he said that, despite having signed that early-day motion, he was going to vote against exactly the same wording on today’s Order Paper, purely because today’s motion had been tabled by us. He has a good reputation on these issues, and I think that he let himself down in making that argument.
That was not the reason that I gave. I was angry at the way in which the Opposition have scared a number of elderly and disabled people by making the untrue statement that the Government had already made their decision. They have not, and to say that they have is not worthy of support from anyone.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is inaccurate. He knows that, outside the House, every single organisation representing disabled people has opposed taking away these national disability benefits. He said that himself. These concerns were not got up by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire quoted the Disability Alliance’s survey, which had asked its members whether attendance allowance and other benefits should be taken away, and found that 93 per cent. said no. RADAR, a pan-disability organisation, said:
“RADAR is adamant no one is getting their mitts on vital extra-cost benefits. These benefits are to help meet a wide range of extra costs, not just care, but extra heating, laundry and so on. Take them away and people would lose choice, control and independence and more people would fall into poverty.”
There is an almost infinite list of quotes such as that, but I will read out just one more. Leonard Cheshire Disability says that its policy on this issue is that
“we have always opposed any move to take DLA care component and AA into broader social care funding and will continue to do so.”
Those concerns are shared not only by Members on both sides of the House but by all those organisations, so to pretend that they have somehow been got up by the Opposition as part of a scaremongering campaign—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not give way again. You got it wrong the first time.
What did we hear today from the Secretary of State? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, he effectively said “Read my lips—no cash losers”. Some might think that that was all well and good, but there is a problem for the Government. What the Secretary of State—who still has not turned up for the winding-up speeches—said today is not compatible with the amendment that his party tabled to our motion this morning. It is actually closer to our motion than to the amendment. It is also contradicted on a number of occasions by his own Green Paper.
There are three options on page 95 of the Green Paper, which the Government say are their favoured options. They are the partnership model, the insurance model and the comprehensive model. They all use disability benefits to extend care to those who do not get it now. The Secretary of State’s saying today that there would effectively be no cash losers rules out all the Government’s preferred options in the Green Paper.
On page 61, the Green Paper talks about extending the system so that everyone gets some help. It says that
“we want to consider the different ways in which this could be funded, including through integrating funding from the social care and benefits systems.”
That is incompatible with giving everyone who currently gets those benefits the same amount of cash as they are getting now, so that there would be no cash losers.
On page 98, the Green Paper states:
“We want to use the money that is in the system to make sure that everyone who qualifies for care and support will get some help with paying for their care.”
However, if care is to be extended to those who do not currently get it, the money will have to come from within the system, which means that it will have to come from those disability benefits. If the Secretary of State is now ruling out touching those benefits, he is ruling out this proposal in the Green Paper. Given that some people are not getting care at the moment, the costs will have to go up. If there are to be no cash losers, that will simply not add up.
On page 103, the Green Paper refers to the King’s Fund report, and says that
“if the social care system were able to mostly meet the care needs of people who may currently only be supported through the disability benefits system, there would be less need for some of these benefits, and there might be a case for integrating some disability benefits such as Attendance Allowance into the care and support system.”
That is exactly what the Government were proposing, but it is not what the Secretary of State said this afternoon.
On page 104, the Green Paper says:
“We can use the taxpayers’ money that is already in the system to provide everyone with some care.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, page 109 of the Green Paper makes it clear that there will be more people getting social care funding under the national care service than at present. According to the Green Paper, the only place that the money can come from is those disability benefits, as the Government have ruled out funding the increased spending from taxation, which I know is the favoured system of hon. Member for Kingswood.
So the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. If there are to be no cash losers, this Green Paper is not worth the paper it is printed on. Page 114—Members, especially Labour Members, will be pleased to know that this is the last quote—states:
“The state would put in existing funding from taxes which are used for social care and any disability benefits that were integrated, and would use this to support the costs of everyone’s care.”
That is not about ensuring that there are no cash losers, or that people could have the money and spend how they wanted to, on supporting their independence and choice; it is about using the money to support the cost of everyone’s care. That is clear. None of the preferred options can be reconciled with what the Secretary of State said this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, asked an important question. If it is true that there are to be no cash losers, and that people will be able to keep the money, will they be able to spend it as they choose—as they can now—on supporting their independence and choice and enabling them to live the life that they want to live? The Secretary of State, who still is not here, could not—or would not—answer that question. So will the Minister tell us whether people will be able to spend that money as freely as they can now?
The Secretary of State made a point of quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), and he was quite right. We support what the Government want to do on extending personalisation. Indeed, the Welfare Reform Bill allows social care funding to be integrated into the right to control only because we pressed for that in this House, although we were opposed by the Government—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has finally joined us. Conservatives in the other place, together with Liberal Democrats and Cross-Bench peers, put together a majority which meant that the Government were forced to table their own amendments, with cross-party support, to do the opposite of what they were going to do when the Bill was in Committee in this House. If anyone looks at the record, they can see that that is exactly right; it is very clear.
The question for the Minister to answer is why until today the Government were sticking to the line that people would be given “an equivalent level of support”, which is what it says in the Government amendment, and only now that the Secretary of State effectively said, “Read my lips—no cash losers.” As I have comprehensively demonstrated, what the Secretary of State said this afternoon cannot be reconciled with what is in his social care Green Paper; he has effectively holed it below the water line. The Minister needs to answer those questions. He may not wish to answer the Opposition, but he needs to answer his own colleagues, particularly those who signed early-day motion 1. He also needs to answer respected Members of all parties and all those organisations outside the House that are very concerned about the Government’s plans. Will he set out just what Government policy now is—what it was this morning, what it was at 4.06 pm when the Secretary of State appeared to change it from the Dispatch Box, which I would like the Minister to confirm, and what it is now? I commend the motion to the House; we look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s defence.
This has been an important debate about what many Members have described as a policy that affects every member of our community. It is one of the most difficult issues we need to grasp, not least because, as we all know, we are living longer. In the next 25 years, the number of 85-year-olds will double, the number of people reaching 100 years will quadruple and the ratio of people in work to people in retirement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) said, will become 2:1 rather than 4:1 as it is at present. We thus need a debate about how we shape a new national care service that will meet the demands within our communities and meet the higher expectations people quite rightly have in 2009.
People are rightly no longer willing to be just passive recipients of what they are told is good for them. They want to be involved, they want to be consulted and they want to help shape the future. That is why the Government have set out in the Green Paper the available options so that we can have the big care debate. We have had some 40 formal big care debates and I know that hon. Members have had them in their communities, and we thank them for the contributions they have sent to the Department. I have certainly spoken to a great many people as I have travelled around the country.
We have said clearly that no one currently in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance at the time of reform would be a cash loser. It is also important that alongside these reforms, as referred to by a number of hon. Members, we plan to provide greater power for people to control the public funds that we make available to them from the various funding streams. Within the “right to control” legislation in the Welfare Reform Act 2007, we made provision to cover access to work, the disabled facilities grant, the independent living fund, supported employment and, of course, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) mentioned, adult social care.
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman put forward amendments in the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill and that I opposed them. We then had a mature and wider debate in the House of Lords—[Interruption.] If I am to accept the point the hon. Gentleman made in good faith, I hope that we can think about how we should frame this discussion. We are all talking about having a mature debate, so I accept that I opposed that amendment and I accept that in the debate in the other place, the amendment was put forward by my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton and by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, who commands respect throughout Parliament. She said that the changes we made to accept adult social care were done through co-production and she welcomed the way in which all parties had worked together. That is how we need to approach this issue rather than in the disappointing way in which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean chose to present it on this occasion. He normally does a lot better than that.
In that spirit of reconciliation and unity of purpose, will the Minister explain why he hopes that the 39 signatories to early-day motion 1 will vote against exactly the same motion in a few minutes’ time?
I am sure that my colleagues will listen closely to my arguments. The hon. Gentleman mentions the early-day motion, and it is interesting to note that Conservative Members laid great store by it. They have followed the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) in that respect, yet despite that great store, only a paltry 16 of them could bring themselves to sign it until recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) quite rightly pointed out.
To return to the point I was making about the benefit streams and adult social care, what distinguishes them is that some are national and some are local; some are national means-tested and some local means-tested. It is our ambition to bring all of those within the ambit of allowing people to choose to spend how they want. A number of hon. Members characterised social care from the local authority as a very constrained way of allowing such flexibility, but I would say that they should find out what people are doing with direct payments from social care.
Let me give hon. Members an example. I recently attended a Mind event where a lady said that she had received direct payments as part of her individual budget. She had a mental health condition and she was using that resource to pay for dance classes, which were not organised by the local authority. By using that money, she found a new way of socialising, she learned to dance and it provided her a springboard on which to find her way back into work. She certainly will be able to continue to have such classes in the future, and I say that clearly—
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, if he will allow me. This is an important issue about the transitional arrangements, which several hon. Members raised. Existing claimants of AA and DLA will continue to have the flexibility to spend the resource as they wish. The other important point is that we are providing flexibility in terms of a number of different budget headings for the same reasons that a number of hon. Members put forward to explain why AA and DLA are a good thing. That is happening. Saying that the provision of those resources is “constrained” and characterising it as such is wrong.
May I also say that one of the—
No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the moment, because I want to address some important points that were put to me.
If he will sit down, I will proceed with my answer. I will come on to deal with other points—[Interruption.] I will give way to the shadow spokesman first and then to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell).
I am still not sure that the Minister has answered the question put earlier by my right hon. Friend. He knows that with individual budgets, people cannot spend the money entirely how they want because they have to agree that the spending will meet their care needs. At the moment, DLA and AA can be spent on anything they want, with a completely free choice, so will the Minister confirm that all the money people receive under the new system can be spent exactly how they choose to spend it?
During the transitional arrangements, people in receipt of AA and DLA will, when it comes from the local authority, have that cash sum as well as their flexibility protected—along the lines that hon. Ladies and Gentlemen are inquiring about. I hope that I have now satisfied them on that point.
A moment ago, the Minister appeared to argue that a cash-limited local authority social services budget was no more constrained than an entitlement-led White Paper budget. Is that really his position?
I did not say that at all. I was referring to the flexibility with which people could spend the resources available to them.
Let me respond to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) made a thoughtful speech exposing the cynicism with which the Conservative party has been scaremongering around the country with press releases. He also asked important questions about arrangements for the work force. We shall need to address ourselves to some of those details in the White Paper, especially the relationship between disability living allowance and attendance allowance and other benefits. Other Members also mentioned the work force. We have seen progress since the Care Standards Act 2000. At the time of its introduction, 80 per cent. of the 1 million or so work force had no qualifications. We have increased the number of people with qualifications by 20 per cent.
The hon. Member for Northavon referred to carer’s allowance in particular. We have been working with carers as well. Many want to work, but find the benefits system confusing. That is why organisations such as the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Carers UK have welcomed the work of our care partnership managers in Jobcentre Plus. About £20 million has been invested to ensure that they combine all the support mechanisms, ensuring that there is good information for carers so that they can join the labour market.
Will the Minister give way on that point?
I will give way briefly, but that will be it.
I am grateful to the Minister. Can he confirm that those whose full social care needs are met by local authorities will also continue to receive their attendance allowance and disability living allowance? Will those allowances be fully protected?
Yes, they will.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling rightly referred to the scaremongering of Conservative Members. She spoke of the need to secure for a consensus of the kind that we secured for pension reform, and I hope that that happens. We saw the beginnings of it in the debate. The right hon. Member for Charnwood spoke of the need for reform, but did not refer to the need to pay for it.
Along with a number of other Members, I set out the issues relating to a changing demography. We need to find the necessary resources. We have included in the Green Paper options that would provide far more support for care than is provided at present. The current system involves ever more constraint, and if we continue as we are, the constraint and means-testing will continue to increase. Our proposals provide some solutions that can be debated throughout the country.
Opposition Members asked about devolution. Of course it is right for us to have discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments. Any settlement under the new system will have to take account of social care and health, which are devolved matters.
I perceived a lack of support for local authorities. I think that they do a very good job, but it was only my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood who talked of the good work that they do. We often characterise all local authorities by highlighting poor performance. That is why we need a national care service. Disabled people’s organisations that support such a service speak of the difference in service from one town to another. They have drawn attention to the need for portability, which does not currently exist, and the struggle that they have to undertake to obtain services. They do not want to have to jump through such hoops again. Our proposals give them the opportunity that they want.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), a former Minister for disabled people, mentioned Nick Scott. I have heard kind words said about Nick Scott during my travels around the country. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the first legislation introduced to provide rights and services for disabled people not just in this country but anywhere in the world—and that that is thanks to the first Minister for disabled people, Lord Morris.
The hon. Gentleman was right to observe that as time has gone on, we have given people more choice and control so that they can be the architects of the support that they receive. Adult social care is an important component of people’s independence, which is why we need it to be more available rather than perpetuating the present constraint.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who brought her professional knowledge to the debate, had held consultations in her constituency. As I have found in my travels around the country, it is interesting to sit down and engage in a calm and clear debate, helping people to understand the demographic issues that the country faces and the need to find solutions.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith) made a measured contribution to the debate. She talked of the need for flexibility, and I agreed with what she said. She talked of meeting someone in her constituency who was blind. She will know that the Government have accepted an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) which will increase disability living allowance for totally blind people from 2011.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) said that he did not trust the Tories. In 1979, the Tories made no reference to the fact that they would cut pensions when they got into power. I think that buyers will need to be extremely wary. We have heard very little from those on the Tory Front Bench, or indeed from the Tories in general, about what they expect from a future social care system. We have heard nothing about domiciliary care. We have heard some half-baked ideas about residential care, which fell apart from one day to the next and did not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) smiles, but I think that even he acknowledges that.
What did the Tories give pensioners? They gave them 18 months in which to wait for an operation, whereas our party gave them a maximum of 18 weeks. They produced pensioner poverty, whereas our party produced pension credit. We provided bus passes, but all that we have seen from the Tory party is cynicism and scaremongering. They have focused—as they prefer to—on the 3,000 richest estates for which they want to provide tax cuts. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s proposals to create the National Care Service, the first national, universal, entitlement-based system for care and support in England; notes that the proposals will deliver real benefits to people including wider provision of prevention services, a single needs assessment across England and information, guidance and advice for all; recognises that in 20 years’ time, 1.5 million more people will have care and support needs, whilst the number of people aged over 85 will have doubled; further notes that around 400,000 people will benefit from enactment of the Personal Care at Home Bill, which contains no proposed changes to disability benefits; acknowledges that the Government is considering responses to the Big Care Debate consultation before any decisions are made between a range of options for the National Care Service; understands that changes to disability living allowance for under-65s as part of the introduction of a National Care Service have been ruled out; and welcomes the reassurance that, if disability benefits for older people were to be reformed as part of the National Care Service, those receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support.
Local Government Finances
I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that this year’s local government finance settlement will increase average Band D council tax to over £120 a month each year despite inflation being negative; cautions that this rise will mean that council tax has more than doubled since 1997 with a third of the increase in the basic state pension being negated by council tax rises; expresses concern at the effect of the Government’s social care plans on council budgets; urges the Government to help fund councils in delivering a council tax freeze in England, as is already in operation in Scotland; and asserts that this year’s settlement will increase the domestic tax burden at a time when households are already having to restrain their spending as a result of the prolonged recession.
This is an interesting opportunity for the House, it seems to me. For once, this year we were denied something of an annual ritual. Normally—on occasion, this does not happen, but it is normal practice—the local government finance settlement is announced to a waiting world by the Minister in an oral statement in the House, so that hon. Members can ask the Minister about it. It is usually quite a lively exchange. This year, for reasons that have not yet been made apparent although I hope that they will be, the Minister chose to announce the local government finance settlement in a written statement. I am at a loss to understand why.
It might be because of great shyness on the part of the Ministers, or because, as a consequence of the recent reshuffle, they have not quite worked out who is responsible. The Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination might have been engaged in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on that day; or perhaps—I hope not to be uncharitable—the Government did not want the local government finance settlement to be dissected and debated in this Chamber. Always anxious to be helpful, we have used our Opposition day debate to ensure that it can be. I think it is a shame that the Government have forced us to do that, because one would have thought that something of such significance would have been debated in Government time.
This is not a technical or inconsequential matter. The local government funding settlement affects every family and every community in the country. The sums involved amount to, at a modest estimate, about £47 billion in 2010-11. The fact that the allocation was slipped out, rather than announced as it has been in previous years, can only mean, it seems to us, that the Government have something to hide.
What the Government have to hide is apparent from a reading of the settlement document. I do not pretend that it is necessarily the most exciting document that right hon. and hon. Members will have read, but it is important. I was taken by the introductory note that is helpfully supplied with it, which sums up many of the problems from which local government finance suffers. Immediately under a statement that the document is the explanatory note for the local government finance settlement, it says:
“This guide replaces the ‘Plain English Guide to the Local Government Finance Settlement’”.
It might be simply for economy of printing that a word has disappeared, but it is, unfortunately, indicative of the layer upon layer of complexity that has accrued to the local government finance settlement in recent years. I am sure that that was genuinely inadvertent, but it is not a happy start.
When one gets through to the logarithms that take up the better part of several pages, one can understand why the Government might not want too much dissection of Government funding, but when one has ploughed through that, certain things become apparent. Despite the wording of the amendments, which I shall address in due course, there is no getting away from the fact that the Government do not want a debate on Labour’s record over the past 12 years on council tax, which is a key issue in relation to this local government finance settlement. If implemented, the settlement will mean that council tax bills have more than doubled on Labour’s watch—the percentage figure is 106 per cent. If anyone wants the exact figures, the average band D payment has gone up from £688 when Labour came to office to £1,414; it has more than doubled. The Government do not really want to have a debate about that.
Is it not also the case that, under this Government, there has been a huge switch in the grant, from the south to the north and from the rural to the urban? Might they wish to conceal that as well?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and I shall return to that point later. That switch has been commented on by a number of independent commentators who are respected academics. One has only to look at the tabulations that are set out in the report to see quite clearly that, for reasons that are not yet apparent but that I hope will be apparent after Ministers have attempted to justify the position, there has been exactly such a shift.
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who caught my eye first, and then to the hon. Lady.
Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that Ministers continually make announcements about moneys that have to be spent by local authorities out of the grants that are given, but that the Government never properly fund them?
The debate on additional unfunded burdens is a long-running one, particularly under this Government. It is something that I recall from when I was involved in local government as a councillor, and it has got worse, not better. I shall give an example relating to this year’s settlement that has been flagged up to me by the Local Government Association.
rose—
I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) next.
The hon. Gentleman has just been talking about the fact that council tax has doubled since 1997. Does he think that that is entirely down to central Government policy, or is it down to the structural failing of the council tax system?
That is an interesting point, but I doubt whether most people would agree with the hon. Lady. I note that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, whom Labour Members might remember, stated in 1997 that the council tax system worked well. Unfortunately, it has been broken—perhaps beyond repair—by the policies of the current Government. On the other hand, if the hon. Lady is going to say that the alternative is a local income tax, then, if she will forgive my saying so, she has certainly got the wrong solution to the problem.
Does my hon. Friend agree that constituencies such as mine—indeed, the whole of Suffolk, Norfolk and Devon—will now, in addition to the fact that they have all lost money in recent years, be faced with the cost of local government reorganisation that they did not ask for, do not want and know will be very expensive?
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall mention that in relation to another topic that I was going to deal with, and make it relevant to the debate.
If the hon. Gentlemen will give me a few moments, I shall finish this point.
The reorganisation is another example, albeit of a different kind, of an unfunded burden. It is a burden that was not sought and that will have an impact on local government finances. No provision has been made for it here, it is not desired, and it is quite extraordinary that it should be pushed through in the dying days of this Government. All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that we will try to protect the residents of those three counties. If there is a change of Government, the Conservatives will take all steps to reverse that decision, even if the present Government have had the temerity to pass it into law and even if such a change requires legislation. Anyone who has spent money on it will find that that is a guaranteed way of losing their money. I hope that the Government will not pursue that entirely ideologically driven and pointless agenda.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that there has been a shift of finance from rural to urban areas. Is the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) aware that when his right hon. Friend was the Secretary of State for Wales, he sent £120 million of the block grant from Cardiff to London?
I have always attempted to be a useful student of history, but there are limits to how far back one can go. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on this point: if, as has been demonstrated, there has been a shift away from the south-east of England, London and the midlands towards the north, and if his Government are right in saying that that shift is needs-driven, why have needs increased so much in those areas on this Government’s watch?
rose—
I shall give way again in due course, but I should like to make a little more progress first. I know that it is fairly normal for there to be a lot of interventions at the beginning of a debate, but if hon. Members will bear with me, I shall try to fit them in in an orderly fashion.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way regarding Suffolk, Coastal?
I shall give way purely on Suffolk, Coastal and the reorganisation. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I want to move on, and I think that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want us to prolong the discussion of local government reorganisation too much.
The point that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made about wasted money is entirely right. The impact of the reorganisation will be a severe burden on Devon’s taxpayers. That reorganisation has been driven partly by a second reorganisation by the boundary committee for England, which is driven by internal Labour party politics rather than anything to do with the electorate. [Interruption.]
Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst ought to take his own advice and get back on track.
I have heard what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) has said, and no doubt the House has. I shall move on to the next part of my speech.
I was just observing that there has been a shift not only of funding within England, but of burdens, particularly on to council tax payers. A marked trait under this Government has been a shift of the financial burden away from the Treasury on to the council tax payer. That has been demonstrated conclusively by the amount of local government revenue that has to be raised by council tax, as opposed to the amount that is provided by central Government. That is not just about numbers or bill amounts; it is about the real impact that that has on people and their lives. I have already observed that council tax has doubled on the Labour Government’s watch. This settlement means that band D bills will go up this year by a further £23, at a time when inflation is negative. The average bill at that level will come in at £120 a month.
It is sometimes forgotten that the poorest are usually the hardest hit by such changes. For example, the increase in council tax will eat up one third of the increase in the basic state pension. There is lots of evidence from many sources to demonstrate that the level of council tax is one of the key areas of concern for many families, because it has grown exponentially over the years.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love).
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it can be that all Labour councils in London are committed to freezing their council tax next year and protecting their public services? How are they able to achieve that?
Perhaps they have taken a lesson from the excellent Conservative Mayor, who has managed to do the same without the aid of grants skewed in his favour. I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).
I want to take the hon. Gentleman back one more time to the question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the alleged shift from rural areas to urban ones. When I talk to Conservatives in Birmingham who are doing something wrong, their normal answer is, “Well, we just don’t get enough money.” That is an urban area, so is he suggesting that its funding should be cut?
In due course, I shall deal with the question—[Interruption.] It is very interesting that Labour Members have become so used to the politics of the one-liner that they cannot follow an argument that requires more than two paragraphs to develop. In due course, I shall set out precisely how a sensible rebalancing of the local government financing system can be achieved. I am sorry that their crib sheet is not comprehensive enough to deal with the matter.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
With respect, I want to make a bit more progress before I give way again.
I think that the Government’s track record is a pretty good reason why they did not want a debate on this topic. Their amendment is full of all manner of telephone-number figures, but it bears no resemblance to the reality of the experience of local authorities or their residents. For example, I referred earlier to the amount of expenditure that has to be met from council tax. It has gone up by something like 3 per cent., from 22 per cent. to 25 per cent., on this Government’s watch. In money terms, that means that council tax payers are having to raise an extra £14.3 billion. That is a measure of how the burden has shifted away from the Treasury and on to council tax payers, and it makes the figure in the Government’s amendment, which boasts about giving an extra £8.6 billion over the period, look pretty sick. It is nowhere enough to compensate for the burden that has been shifted away from the Treasury by the Macavity approach of this Government.
I give way to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin).
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Mayor of London. Is he aware that the Mayor has placed the biggest financial increase in fares on the poorest people in London? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Bromley, the council for the area that he represents, was the one that took the Greater London Council to court over the “Fares Fair” campaign to challenge the idea of a fair fare policy for London?
I well remember what Bromley did. It was absolutely right to do so, and I make no apology for that because that previous regime did not have a proper approach to fares—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is showing us his freedom pass, and we have made it abundantly clear that that will continue to be protected. It is funded by Conservative-controlled London councils, I might add, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the party whose previous Minister with responsibility for local government complained that local authorities were not charging enough and were not charging up to the maximum potential. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on very safe ground to make any more interventions of that kind, if I might respectfully say so.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been trying to get in for some time.
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous. He is pinning an awful lot on the band D council tax level, but that is not a good measure of the impact of council tax in the UK. In my constituency of North-West Leicestershire 75 per cent. of properties are below band D, whereas 60 per cent. of the properties in Bromley, which he partly represents, are band D or above. That must alter the argument that he is making.
On inflation, council tax may have doubled since 1997, but it increased at a greater annual rate in the period when the Conservatives were in government before 1997.
At least the hon. Gentleman makes a considered intervention, unlike some others, and I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge of local government, but I must beg to differ with him. First, the band D measure is universally accepted as the intellectually and academically approved average. One only has to look at the work of Tony Travers, the well-known independent commentator, who has said that on a number of occasions. Secondly, the use of the band follows common sense, as the other bands are set as percentages in relation to band D, so band D gives the average. It is well established by all respectable public bodies—apart from those who may want to make a point of their own—that that is the best means of comparing like with like. I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is wrong on this one.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall make a little more progress, if I may, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
We have seen the burden that has been placed on the council tax payer. We have seen a transfer of burdens to council tax payers within local authorities, but we have also seen a shift of regulatory burdens and costs on to local authorities. The doctrine of the “unfully funded obligation” is the reality, if not the wording, of Government policy. Many local authorities will have experienced that in relation to concessionary fares, for example, for which the burden was not picked up in full. Free swimming is another example: superficially attractive on the surface but, on further examination, not fully funded.
The problem is particularly evident in this year’s local government funding settlement, which refers specifically to the availability of free personal care for adults. Free personal care is another concept worthy of debate, but the funding figures are as follows. The estimation is that it will cost £670 million in a full year: £420 million is covered by the area base grant, as set out in the funding settlement, which assumes that the remaining £250 million will be found from local government efficiencies.
What it does not say, however, is that the Government have already increased to 4 per cent. the target for the efficiencies required of local authorities. The Local Government Association has pointed that out to Ministers, so I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will say clearly whether that £250 million is part of the 4 per cent. in efficiency savings being demanded. If it is in addition to those savings, how is that to be achieved?
The document before us is silent on that. If the £250 million is in addition to the 4 per cent. savings, how do the Government reconcile that with their policy on new burdens, which suggests that there should be funding for those new burdens? We need absolute clarity on that. Despite requests since the LGA issued its statement, that clarity has not yet been received.
So, we have seen transfers of burdens across a raft of areas, but that is not the end of the problem with the settlement. I referred half in jest to the nature of the document, and the complication of it. I am glad to say that it is generally accepted that the one person in the country who understands it is in the Chamber, but he is in the Box and cannot talk to us about it. However, it really is that complex and difficult to follow and that creates the real difficulty that there is a growing lack of trust in the local government world and among ordinary residents about the reliability of the criteria on which distribution takes place. One has only to look at some of the figures in the document for individual authorities to see differences that on the face of it are not readily recognisable, or attributable to an evidence base.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
I will give way on that point.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very generous with his time.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about trust in the Government’s figures. Does he agree that part of the problem is that the Government are not delivering to local authorities what their own funding formula indicates that they should? He is quite right to say that anger is building up around the country, and a large part of that is because authorities such as my own in Stockport are being consistently short changed, and are consistently not receiving what the Government’s own formula says that they are entitled to. Is it any wonder that there is a complete lack of confidence in the system?
The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point. I have only to look at the circumstances of my outer-London borough, which has many pockets of deprivation but is on the floor again for the seventh or eighth year running. When we see that fully two thirds of all London boroughs—of any kind—have ended up on the floor, we wonder about the reliability of the calculations that gave rise to that situation.
Although the floor system worked in the past, it has stretched many local authorities to such an extent that the gearing, particularly in shire districts, places very high burdens on them. The floor for a shire district is set at 0.5 per cent. Such districts are far more dependent than most local authorities on investment income, which has now fallen to about 0.5 per cent. so as their floor funding is limited to the same figure, the gearing effect means that their council tax rise is much more significant than in any other part of the country. Shire areas are significantly disadvantaged by the operation of the formula system.
The hon. Gentleman has been talking about floors and ceilings. He will be aware that many councils near the ceiling are a long way from their targets and are already experiencing massive pressures on the provision of services. Does he have proposals to get rid of floors and ceilings, or to replace them with something entirely different? Some information would be helpful.
Actually we do. I shall come to our proposals if the hon. Lady will bear with me. I was about to turn to missed opportunities and the things that a sensible settlement could and should be doing to deal with those issues.
Having set out the inadequacies of the system and put them in a broader context, I want to make a final point before I move to the next stage of the argument—what should be in the settlement but is not. The problem is that there are deficiencies not only in the settlement but in the methodology for formula distribution, as has been mentioned. The inadequacy of the population data—a point raised frequently by Members on both sides of the House—has perverse impacts, but the system is also wrapped up in the policy of micro-management and bureaucratic control that has become characteristic of the Government. All recent attempts to suggest otherwise are belied by the facts.
Table 2, attached to the settlement document, sets out no fewer than 39 separate ring-fenced grants. The number of national indicator sets in the comprehensive area assessment regime was originally badged up as a mere 196, but the Government were forced to accept that when the sets are split—which they are obliged to do—between heads and blocks, the number is about 290. Is there any serious attempt to deal with that? No, sadly there is not.
I hoped that the settlement would take a leaf from the good work of the Local Government Association—an all-party body. Its document, “Delivering more for less”, demonstrates practical and worked-through means of saving £4.5 billion. Efficiencies could be achieved without damaging front-line activity, and the document sets out specific examples. It goes further. The LGA has come up with 13 local authorities that are prepared to act as pilots. Do I see recognition of that in the Government’s settlement? No. Do I see any movement to reflect the fact that, for example, in Leicestershire and Leicester, in a Total Place arrangement involving the city and the county—exactly the collaborative model that should be encouraged—more than 3,000 performance data sets, reports or evaluations have to be processed? Is there any reflection of the fact that the average number of documents that has to be passed through by most local area agreements runs into thousands?
The hon. Gentleman talks about efficiencies without damage to front-line services. May I refer him to Conservative-controlled Warwickshire county council, which is currently advocating the closure of seven fire stations and the sacking of 100 firefighters? Does he see that as an example of Conservative efficiency without damaging front-line services?
Warwickshire county council is consulting on those measures as options following the serving of an improvement notice from the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that it is impossible ever to find efficiency savings. If he believed that, he could not support his Government’s document, “Smarter Government”, which was published only a few days ago. The test is always to try to find sensible efficiency savings, and I point out to him that the Government have a very good example in front of them. The National Audit Office—generally recognised as an independent and reliable body—cited £2 billion in 2006 prices as the cost of administering the inspection and control regime imposed by central Government. PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is a little more conservative, put the upward reporting costs for councils—not even the administration of the regime, just upward reporting—at £1.8 million per authority. That is precisely one of the things that can and should be stripped out. Not only is it a waste of money, but it also skews the behaviour of local authorities, as we have all seen. They are sometimes almost forced to play tick the box to meet the formula requirements, reporting upwards to the Government rather than downwards to their electors, who ought to be driving priorities.
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the reporting burden immense and over-cumbersome, but so too is the inspection regime? I am informed that Devonshire county council has to devote almost permanent employee time solely to the inspection regime under which it labours.
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I saw that system in its early days when I was still in local government. I still talk to colleagues in local government. Inspection has become an industry in itself, and the complexity of the regime and the burden it imposes, in terms of direct costs, officer time and the shifting of priorities, is wholly disproportionate to the level of risk involved. It breaches the fundamental rule that any inspection regime should be simple, sensible and rational.
There is nothing in the settlement to deal with issues that could sensibly have been dealt with, which is a major disappointment. The Government seek to get around things by quoting figures, but as I demonstrated, the impact of their figures is not borne out or supported by experience on the ground.
Before my hon. Friend moves away from the “more for less” report, does he agree that one of the great difficulties faced at present by upper-tier authorities in particular is that they have already calculated how they can make efficiency savings and have made the hard decisions, so the imposition of further efficiency savings—for example, for social care costs—are a particularly unwelcome burden because they come out of cycle?
My hon. Friend is completely right. That is why it is a serious dereliction on the part of the Government not to have given the explanations that the LGA has been asking for. Given that the announcement came out on 26 November, it would not have been too difficult to produce the figures. Not to do so is a serious breach of the Government’s own rule on new burdens and I fear that it indicates where their heart lies—to shift the burden on to local authorities for the sake of convenience.
I shall now consider what could and should be done in the local settlement. We are all agreed about one thing—that the three-year settlement regime is sensible and one that we hope continues for the future—but it is the only thing the Government got right. The rest does not stack up.
Lack of clarity undermines the credibility of the document. It does not deal with proper reform of the local government system, which is what is actually needed. Proper reform should take a number of steps. The first, most important step that the Government should take at a time when the country is in recession is to assist council tax payers—the hard-pressed families who are already suffering. A sensible local government settlement would have put in place mechanisms to support local authorities in freezing council tax, so that council tax payers did not suffer the burden that they are suffering as the country comes out of recession. The Government are not doing that. Another one, I hope, will be in a position before long to do so.
Secondly, longer-term reform of the methodology is necessary. In this day and age, it is quite inexcusable to use population data that are so out of date, and there should be a swift move to the use of updated data. Several local authorities have made a compelling case for having been significantly disadvantaged by the situation.
Thirdly, it is necessary to bring back a measure of independence to the evidence base for the distribution criteria, and that is why my party has always proposed an independent body. I hope that others will support us. We suggested the Audit Commission, but the body could be the National Audit Office. In any case, the body should be independent and tasked with evaluating on an evidential basis—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but it works perfectly well in Australia. It seems to work very effectively. [Interruption.] I shall come back to him and his quangos in a moment if he wants to go down that route. That system works in Australia, and it provides an evidence base. The body would be tasked with reporting to Parliament, so that this House could properly debate the distribution criteria. There would be a debate about the criteria, and it would be separate from the political decision that Ministers make about the size of the pot that will be distributed. That long-term institutional change would, if properly dealt with, restore some credibility to an unbalanced system.
I have referred to Australia being able to perform that task and this Government not being able to. I should have made the point that the council tax freeze is perfectly practical and deliverable, because it happens in Scotland. If it is good enough for Scotland, it should be good enough for England; if it is deliverable in Scotland, it should be deliverable in England. What is lacking is not the methodology, but simply the political will to do that.
There should also be significant long-term reform to encourage local authorities to grow their tax base, because that has been completely lacking. That is why the Opposition have proposed that local authorities be able to keep the proceeds of growth by keeping the council tax that new development in their area generates. It is why we have proposed that they also be able to keep the growth in national non-domestic rates—business rates—that is generated by new commercial development. That would give them a stake once more in growing their tax base. Not only have the Government failed to take up any of those ideas, they strangled at birth the local authority business growth incentives—LABGI—scheme, which although small was at least a step in the right direction. They killed off any attempt to provide an incentive. In fact, the real argument, as all the evidence makes out, is that we should go much further and allow local authorities to keep all proceeds.
The Government have failed to give local authorities the freedom to raise funding by going to the market for, for example, bond finance. The Government have failed to give them the opportunity to set their own targets, and instead imposed them from above.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that broadening the revenue base has several risks? My local authority, Westminster, has been heavily dependent on parking income; indeed, it has the largest parking income of any authority in the country. As soon as difficulties hit the authority and parking income started to fall, we found a £20 million hole, and that has led to a large number of redundancies and cuts in services. Does he understand that such reliance on other sources of money is fraught with risk?
I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the concept, because broadening the base by enabling local authorities to retain the additional national business rate would spread the risk, rather than increase their reliance on it. If we were to broaden the tax base, we would be less dependent on any individual income stream. That is the reverse of her proposition.
The hon. Gentleman started to talk about allowing local authorities to borrow. Does he agree with the prudential borrowing rules that the Government introduced? They enabled local authorities to purchase capital assets from which they are receiving income streams through rent and other uses.
I want to be helpful to the hon. Lady, and, like LABGI, that scheme was a small step in the right direction, but, unlike LABGI, it has not been killed at birth. However, the scheme to which she refers is too limited. Why do we not go down the route that most other advanced democracies have taken and introduce a proper arrangement that enables local authorities to go for bonds? If I were to follow through the logic of her argument, I should hope that she might support us.
At the end of the day, the local government finance document is less than satisfactory. It is less than satisfactory in its presentation—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am sorry, but I have done my best. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get the chance to speak in the debate in due course.
The document is unsatisfactory. It reflects an unsatisfactory settlement; it reflects, therefore, a Government who lack the will to tackle the serious issues of local government finance; and, above all, it reflects a Government who do not recognise the burden that that unsatisfactory arrangement places upon ordinary families and ordinary council tax payers. I do not know which is the greater indictment: the inability to recognise the harm that is being done, or the lack of will to do something about it. If we put it together, we find, as I would have said in my previous life, that the Government are bang to rights on all counts.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
‘congratulates the Government on introducing the first ever three year settlement for local government which will have provided an additional £8.6 billion for local government over three years, and continues to build upon the 39 per cent. real terms increase in funding provided to local government over the first 10 years of this Government; welcomes the four per cent. increase proposed for next year which, given the current level of inflation, would be the 13th straight year of above inflation increases; recognises the immense help this will give to local authorities throughout the country in dealing with difficult economic circumstances resulting from the global downturn; anticipates the lowest council tax increase for 16 years; rejects the calls from Her Majesty’s Opposition to cut the Department for Communities and Local Government’s budget by over £1 billion, which would lead either to cuts in local services or an increase in council tax bills of one per cent. to pay for the missing millions; and further welcomes the Government’s Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, which sets out its vision to reform the adult care and support system in England.”
That was a very long speech. There is not a lot else to be said about it, but it was a very long speech. As my hon. Friends will have noticed, I am no Denis Healey and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is no Geoffrey Howe, but I have a sense of how Denis Healey felt when he thought he had been savaged by a dead sheep.
I am grateful for the chance to reply to this debate. I have my notes that I prepared earlier, and they say:
“Sorry to see the Hon Member for Meriden not here to lead the debate.”
I have now to say that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is here but is not leading the debate, and that is a surprise because the hon. Lady has, after all, been complaining that Parliament has not debated these issues.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the convention, through the usual channels, that each party is notified about who will speak in the debate. We understood that the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination would do so for the Government. That is what our Whips Office was notified of, and therefore, in keeping with the convention, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), in whom I have the utmost confidence, to lead the debate.
I assure the hon. Lady that it was always my intention to lead for the Government, because she complained that Parliament has not been debating these issues. She twice applied for urgent questions, and, although it is not for me to comment, in my humble opinion I think Mr. Speaker was right to decline. Now she has had the chance to lead the debate and she has not done so.
I shall turn to the background to the debate, on which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst spent 10 minutes at the beginning of his speech. Following the low level of participation in last year’s debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), wrote on 12 November to the hon. Member for Meriden, who speaks for the Opposition, and to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, saying that we intended to lay a written ministerial statement. The hon. Member for Meriden did not reply, but had she answered the letter and said, “I think there should be a statement,” we would have made an oral statement. However, she did not.
The hon. Lady is not that good at correspondence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), my predecessor as Secretary of State, wrote to her on 21 January, asking her to explain the proposals by the Leader of the Opposition to cut the Department’s budget, when he said that he would restrict the budget to a 1 per cent. increase in real terms. Strangely, the hon. Lady did not reply to that letter, either.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must set the record straight, as I really do object to the House’s being misled. The Leader of the House said during business questions that there had been “discussions” between those on the Front Benches about not having a written ministerial statement. I said in response that I had not seen a letter from the Department regarding having only a written ministerial statement. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) had not seen a letter either. However, a letter does not constitute “discussions”.
It is clearly the case that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Meriden on 12 November—
Order. May I say to those on both Front Benches that I think we have now dealt at sufficient length with how we have arrived at where we are this evening; perhaps we could get on with the topic before the House.
I am delighted to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, noting that we still do not know how the hon. Member for Meriden thinks that cuts should be applied to my Department’s budget this year.
The reason the settlement was not controversial last year—nor indeed, in practice, this year—is that it was a good settlement. For the first time in this spending review period, the Government set out to give local authorities the certainty of a three-year settlement. Indeed, having spent most of his speech talking about changes that should have been made to the coming year, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst ended up saying that a three-year settlement was a good idea. One cannot have a three-year settlement and then change it in the second or third year. The three-year settlement involves an £8.6 billion increase over three years—an average annual increase of 4 per cent. This Labour Government have delivered on that commitment year after year so that local government has had increased funding, reduced targets, less ring-fencing, and more influence over more resources, including for 16-to-19 education, English for speakers of other languages, and informal adult learning.
Moreover, this has not been happening just over the past few years. Over the first 10 years of this Labour Government, local government funding has increased by 39 per cent. in real terms.
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt explain why in the last four years of the previous Conservative Government real-terms funding was cut by 7 per cent.
Will the Secretary of State tell us why the Government will not use up-to-date population figures, which would be much fairer for areas with fast growth?
Indeed I will. I notice, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not explain why there is a such a sharp contrast between the 7 per cent. real-terms cut last time the Conservatives had their fingers on power over local government and the 39 per cent. increase in real-terms funding under this Labour Government. That difference is important.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Let me first deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about population, as I was going to come to that aspect.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst welcomed a three-year settlement. Part and parcel of having a three-year settlement was not to chop and change underlying data in the course of the three years. But of course the Government have recognised the importance of population issues, particularly at times of rapid population change. That is why, just a few days ago, at the request of Ministers, the Office for National Statistics produced a consultation document suggesting how population changes could be taken into account in future. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman apparently had no knowledge of that taking place, as it is very important. It stems directly from the fact that Ministers recognised the issue and set in train the right processes, but, quite properly, stuck to the three-year settlement as local government wanted us to do. Although some councils would gain from a change and others would lose, they wanted a three-year settlement. We have produced the evidence—or rather, the ONS has, because that is its job—and that means that in future the council tax system can be more flexible and responsive.
We believe that this settlement means that in the coming year band D council tax increases will be the lowest for 16 years. The increase at band D was 3 per cent. this year, and I see no reason why it should not be lower in the coming year. In fact, measured by average household bills, last year’s council tax increase was already the lowest ever.
Let me address some of the points made in the debate so far. The Opposition have focused on the claimed cost of band D council tax. We ourselves use band D in announcements, as I just did, but perhaps the Opposition should have recognised more publicly that most people—two thirds, in fact—pay not at band D but at bands A, B and C; only 9 per cent. of properties are in the top three bands. However, even if we do focus on band D rates, we find that Conservative councils increased council tax for this year by more than Labour councils. The average increase for band D under the Conservatives was 3.3 per cent., whereas Labour councils kept rises to 2.8 per cent. on average. I would say that to grab a headline, the Opposition have at the very least deliberately overstated their case and not presented the arguments in the way that would be true for the great majority of people.
Let us look into this further. The official Opposition recently published data that they claimed showed the council tax burden doubling, but which were the councils pushing up council tax take? Why, out of the top 50, according to the information revealed by the official Opposition, 30 were Conservative-controlled and only five were controlled by the Labour party. On average, council tax in Labour areas is lower than in Conservative areas, and we can all see why. That is why Labour Hackney has frozen council tax for four years while improving and protecting front-line services, and it is why all eight London Labour councils have promised a council tax freeze for the coming year.
Under Labour, with active support from the Government, local government has become more efficient. Today I confirmed that local councils are on track to have made more than £3 billion in savings by March 2010—savings that they have been able to put back into front-line services. It is because local government has demonstrated its ability to save and reinvest that I am confident that local government can meet its share of providing free adult social care for those in greatest need. We should not forget that in a full year, local government will receive more than £400 million in new resources—the largest transfer of resources from the NHS to local government since the NHS was formed in 1948. I think local government knows that this is an opportunity and a challenge—the challenge of showing that local government can deliver consistently good services across the country.
Will the Secretary of State now answer the specific point that I raised with him in this context: is the £250 million in efficiency savings that is assumed to come from local government part of the 4 per cent. target demanded, or in addition to it?
We believe that in the coming year local government can make the additional savings that are needed, which total less than £250 million. Obviously for future years there has not yet been a comprehensive spending review, so we do not know the overall settlement for those years. However, I believe that local government can meet that target. I also believe that local government welcomes the commitment that has been made in the current proposals to the development of adult social care in its areas.
If local government is to save and reinvest in the way that my right hon. Friend says, is it not important that at a local authority level there is absolute transparency and straightness with local populations about what is going on? Does he share my concern about Birmingham city council, where apparently thousands of pounds are being taken from local budgets, including in my own constituency—£55,000 in 2007-08, £69,000 in 2008-09 and £241,000 in 2009-10? That is apparently in order to make efficiency savings that will be reinvested, but it is the devil’s own job to find out exactly where they are being reinvested other than to finance rather dubious city council reorganisation. Does he agree that authorities such as Birmingham need to be a lot more transparent with the people they are meant to serve?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities need to be absolutely transparent in their budgeting and in the way that they use resources. As he will know, a few weeks ago we had occasion to raise some concerns with Birmingham city council about the use of working neighbourhoods fund money. That came to light because a local strategic partnership had published minutes showing concerns that the money was not being used. In that particular case, we had no desire to punish the people of Birmingham for their council’s actions, so when we recently announced additional working neighbourhoods fund money we included Birmingham in that. It is important that this money is used effectively on behalf of the people of that city. Similarly, if local authorities are making changes to their budgeting arrangements, they should be open and people should know exactly what is happening.
On that point about transparency, what does my right hon. Friend think about a council that made a commitment before the last local elections that there would be absolutely no increase in council tax over the coming period—one of the parties in the coalition said that it would reduce it—and yet has increased it year on year for the past three years? That is Brent council. Does he not think it a disgrace that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is not in the Chamber to defend her party?
I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s concern about promises made and broken, which nobody likes to see.
I wish to say a little about the Opposition’s figures. I believe the House will agree that every word from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested or implied that councils should have had more funding from this Government. He certainly made many references to councils that he felt were not getting enough, and he made no proposals that councils should have their funding reduced, so the only conclusion I can draw is that he thinks councils should have had more money. However, as we pointed out earlier this year, the Opposition’s official policy is that my Department should have had its funding cut by £1 billion this year.
indicated dissent.
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but if she cares to dig out the letter from my predecessor—I can send her another copy—I will be pleased to receive her reply explaining what the Leader of the Opposition meant when he said that growth in my Department’s budget would be limited to 1 per cent. We have never received a reply. The implication of the Leader of the Opposition’s policy is that my Department’s funding would have been cut, not next year, not the year after but this year, by £1 billion. Compared with the current funding, including our housing pledge, Conservative policy would mean a £1.8 billion cut in its funding. We have never had an explanation of where those cuts would come or of by how much council tax would have to go up.
On the subject of budgets being cut and promises broken, can the Secretary of State explain why, despite the Government’s claim to have made a fair settlement for local government this year, many local authorities, including Stockport, which covers my constituency, are receiving less in central Government grant than the amounts indicated in the Government’s own funding formula? How can that be fair, and why are people such as my constituents still being short-changed by this Government?
The hon. Gentleman knows enough about the system to recognise that under a funding formula, at any one time some authorities are above the strict position in the formula and others below it. Because convergence is difficult and cannot be achieved overnight, there is always a process of floors and transitional arrangements. In any system that is ever devised, some people will be able to say, “This year in my authority we are away from the funding floor,” but that does not mean we should not set up the system to make progress in the right direction every year. If one looks at the variations in the formula grant for different local authorities this year, last year and the year before, one can see progress in the right direction.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No, I must make some progress, or I will speak for as long as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and then I will be embarrassed having made comments about the length of his remarks.
The Opposition have said that they would pay councils to have a council tax freeze, but that adds another £1.3 billion a year to promises that they cannot possibly afford to carry through. No one can really believe that there is any credibility in what they are saying. The truth is that Conservative councillors and MPs up and down the country are saying that they want more money for their area, while they are all campaigning for a Conservative Government who promise to give them less. It is time that the Opposition were open and straightforward about their plans, which are pretty bad.
On that point, I have here a publication from the Bexley Conservatives. In claiming the credits of their council, it points to two new academies built, four schools rebuilt and nine new children’s centres, all achieved by the wonderful Bexley Conservative council. How does the Secretary of State contrast that with their spending plans if we were to have the misfortune of a Conservative Government?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Material of that sort, financed from Belize or wherever else, is dropping through letterboxes all over the country. There is a serious point at issue, because the 39 per cent. increase in real funding for local government achieved under the Labour party has made a huge difference to the quality of local services and the development of services such as Sure Start and Building Schools for the Future. That is jeopardised by the promises of the Conservatives.
Not only have the Opposition made clear that they would cut council spending now, but they would scrap house building, because they could not match our housing pledge just when that money is helping the country through the recession. They would impose top-down cuts on front-line services, as their shadow Chief Secretary has said in two interviews, and they would abolish regional development agencies and regional economic support, a policy opposed by the CBI. Fears on that front were not lessened when the hon. Member for Meriden personally intervened last summer to try to halt economic recovery by instructing Tory councils not to co-operate with making land available for growth, housing and jobs. They would do away with all entitlements to decent public services and make the postcode lottery the defining principle of a Tory Government.
In Southampton, Conservatives say that they will privatise, not for the good of the public but for ideological reasons. In Hammersmith, they say that tenants should lose security of tenure so that they can be evicted when the council no longer thinks they need a home and says they are hard to get rid of. In Barnet, we are promised a Ryanair council—presumably one that offers only the most basic standard of service, full of extra costs and hidden charges, and which everyone has to pay twice, once in council tax and once in charges just to get a decent service. The truth is that the future of local services is bleak under the Conservatives. They say that Conservative councils show what a Conservative Government would be like, and I agree. It is a fair warning.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What would the Secretary of State say to a council that is a net gainer from concessionary travel and pockets the difference, depriving pensioners, refuses to give free swimming to under-16s and closes cash offices? Its deputy leader, when asked whether it had consulted, said, “Why consult when the answer would be no?” That is how much it cares. It has cut sports development officers, all the while having £22 million or £23 million in the bank—
Order. I think the Secretary of State has got the message from the hon. Lady.
I get the gist, but I must tell my hon. Friend that there was a streak of honesty from the Conservative leader of the council who said that it was not worth consulting if nothing was to be agreed. That is refreshing compared with what we have heard this evening, but I agree with her.
On concessionary fares, which I was going to come to later, this Government have introduced free bus travel for pensioners, which is a great breakthrough. There are two truths behind that. First, all the evidence is that the funding nationally is the right amount for the concessionary fare scheme. Secondly, it is also the case—this was acknowledged by the Department for Transport just a few weeks ago—that we needed to make some changes to the distribution of funding, because as the system came in, we could see that some areas were gainers and some were losers. That was the right thing to do. I do not believe that there would be free bus travel for pensioners under the Conservatives. Even if adjustments in the formula have been proposed for the future, that reallocation was the right thing to do.
As for a local authority that takes the benefit of that and does not plough it back in—that is a real shame. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that free swimming was not fully funded, but there was a deal for local authorities. Labour councils thought, “That is a good deal for our people, so we’ll have free swimming,” and Conservatives councils turned round and said, “We’re not going to do it.” There is a difference between the parties. The offer was the same to both: the Conservatives said no in place after place, and the Labour councils said yes. That is the difference.
What would the Secretary of State say to the 92-year-old lady who knocked on the door of No. 10 Downing street yesterday in tears because her wardens had been removed from her sheltered housing, and the hundreds who walked from Trafalgar square to Downing street who are also finding, in all councils around the country, a relentless cut in the social services for the disabled and the elderly, presided over by this Government, because of an unfair funding system?
I would never make light of the position of a 92-year-old woman who was worried about her personal circumstances, but my understanding is that that demonstration was from Conservative-controlled Barnet council.
Wrong! They came from all round the country.
Perhaps it was not, but those I saw were from Barnet. It is right that local authorities make the best use of support. Some have chosen to remove warden support and others have found other ways of providing appropriate support for local people. I would expect any local authority to make the right decisions to provide the appropriate levels of support for the elderly people whose care they have assumed.
Does the Secretary of State think that local authorities would do better to spend some of their funds on the services that have just been mentioned, rather than on unjustified and excessive salaries for many of their senior officers, who do not even treat the public with civility?
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have been very pleased by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, which echoed and added to what I said at my party’s conference. The people at the top of local government often have a lifetime of public service behind them—they are not bad people—but things have got out of hand, and we need to deal with that.
The Secretary of State mentioned a moment ago the key role of RDA’s and the threat that they are under from the Conservatives. What would be the effect on Blackpool if the Northwest Regional Development Agency were scrapped? The RDA has identified the needs of Blackpool and the need for regeneration, and it has invested in the town.
The reality is that if RDA funding and RDAs were removed, the remaining funding—funding that was not simply cut to fund inheritance tax for wealthy families—would just be distributed on a formula basis. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has worked so hard for her constituency. Blackpool is coping with huge economic and social changes, and changes in the tourist market, which needs concentrated, focused effort, on behalf not just of the town, but of the whole region. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for providing that without RDAs. The money would either have to come from central Government, or it would be completely dissipated. That would be a disaster, which is why so many people, including house builders, and those in the CBI and chambers of commerce, are so alarmed by the Conservatives’ irresponsible proposals.
On grant distribution, we are told that money is being taken from the south and the midlands to go somewhere else. The fact is that the two largest gainers from grant distribution were the east midlands and the south-west, hard though that is to fit with the idea that money is being taken away from the midlands or rural areas. Two of the largest increases in the formula grant of any authorities in the country were in Dorset, at 7.1 per cent., and Somerset, at 5.5 per cent. That is hardly evidence that resources are being shifted from the south or from rural areas.
The truth is that the Government work as hard as we can to produce an objective basis for formula grant. It is widely discussed and widely debatable, and I do not see why the debate should not continue, but the argument that the system has been in some way manipulated just does not stand up to the fact of where the increases in the allocations that we are discussing are going in the coming year.
I have criticised the Conservatives, but I do not rest my case on that criticism or on our record of investment and support for local government. The truth is that we place local government at the heart of meeting the challenges that face this country. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked of Total Place as though it was something that would come as a surprise to Government, rather than being an initiative that was launched in the Budget last year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Exchequer. The 13 pilot projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred were set up with local authorities and other public services by the Government, and they report to a ministerial Committee that I chair.
I am pleased that there are 70 or more places doing the same thing as Total Place, because it shows that we are going in the right direction and that the public services can be further improved and made more efficient if we can look at all the public service spending in one area. Yesterday’s “Smarter Government” paper set out a series of new flexibilities for local government to support that role—easier pooling of budgets, fewer targets, better organised inspections, a reduction of £100 million in the compliance costs for local authorities, single capital budgets and reducing the number of funding streams. These are developments for the future—
It won’t be your Government who do it!
The hon. Gentleman may come unstuck with his cockiness about that. On this issue and on many others, the values and policies of my party are much closer to what the people of this country want. Before he gets carried away with himself, I remind him that the election is yet to be held and we are determined that what we think are the right policies for this country will win out—and my right hon. and hon. Friends agree.
Yesterday’s paper promised a transformation in the amount of data about local services, costs and quality available on the web in a form that enables the public to scrutinise, to compare and to propose better ways of running services. Money will be tight, so we back a rebirth of municipal enterprise and the expansion of trading to generate new streams of income. All this is backed up by our commitment to give councils the powers that they need to scrutinise effectively public service spending in their area.
I am pleased that we have had this debate, because it has enabled us to set out clearly that we have had another good settlement for local government. It is a settlement that will lead to the lowest council tax increases for 16 years at least, and to the protection and improvement of public services. The debate has shown the Conservatives as having no policies and no views on how to protect public services for local people, whereas the Government believe in local government, work with it and support it.
It is useful to have this debate in the absence of the Government providing us with time to discuss this year’s local government settlement. Although I was not expecting it to be so bad-tempered on the part of the Secretary of State, I did know that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is always good value on this subject.
I am not sure that the Secretary of State’s remarks can be squared with the fact that we were not to debate this subject. He has just said that local government is at the heart of government, but his Department did not deem a debate necessary. In the debate on the settlement last year, some important points were raised. We talked about the expected average council tax increases and the delivery of efficiency savings. We still have questions outstanding about resources invested in Icelandic banks, as councils still do not know when they will get those back. We also debated the impact on councils of falling incomes from charges. All those issues are still relevant today, as are the issues that hon. Members have raised about the impact of the current formula on their local authority. I cannot see any reason why a debate this year would not have been as valid as the one a year ago. If the Government really do have local government at the heart of everything that they believe in, why did we not have this debate in Government time and why was local government not mentioned at all in the Queen’s Speech?
The hon. Lady mentions charges. Can she explain why her Liberal Democrat colleagues on Brent council raised charges for elderly care by 300 per cent. at the same time as they broke their promise not to increase the council tax? Those are the issues about charges that concern my constituents in Brent.
And they are exactly the kind of issues raised in last year’s debate about the funding formula, so I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution on how he thinks the current funding arrangements are impacting on Brent. Hon. Members would be grateful to hear about that.
I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech.
The Secretary of State said that we do not need to have a debate every year because we have had a three-year funding settlement. There is a consensus that long-term funding settlements are a good thing because they allow for better planning. However, the fact that we have a spending review every three years does not mean that we do not have a Budget every year. I cannot understand the logic.
To be fair, the Conservatives’ motion contains several valid observations about matters such as the increasing unaffordability of council tax and the extent of the above-inflation rises that we have seen every year for the past 10 years. The comparison with the increases in the state pension is also valid, although it was the Conservatives who removed the link with earnings, which has made the problem 10 times worse. There are also valid observations about some of the spending pressures on councils, and the motion refers to one of them—the recent announcement on social care.
Other policies, however, such as concessionary bus fares, have already impacted on local councils. Regardless of what the Secretary of State says, as one who represents an area that gets a large number of visitors every year, I know that the costs for local government are not equivalent to the amount of money received. The cost pressures within Cornwall are different as well. If he says that the policy is fully funded, he should take another look at the evidence, because, as far as I can see, that policy represents a massive additional cost for several councils, which they struggle to meet.
The same can be said of the cost of meeting swimming targets, which are a difficult burden to manage, particularly in areas that are popular tourist destinations. Many of those areas are rural areas and a long way from their targets. The Secretary of State said that some of the biggest increases are in the south-west, but I would imagine that that is because those areas are the furthest from their targets and have the greatest distance to travel to reach them. That means that they are scraping along the bottom trying to reach the per-head funding that the Government say they should receive.
I, too, represent a popular tourist destination. Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government negotiated the original formula for distributing the money for the pensioners pass with the Local Government Association? All the councils deemed it to be fair. Particular pressures have been identified in areas such as hers and mine, so the Government have produced a consultation document on redirecting money from councils making a profit to those making a loss. Does she welcome that?
I will welcome it if I hear from my council that all its additional costs will be covered, but previous experience makes its cynicism understandable.
It is not clear to me from the Conservative motion and the comments of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst what the causes of the problems are. Are they simply a consequence of Government policy, or are they fundamental problems inherent in the structure of the local government finance system created under the Conservative Administration?
Is it the hon. Lady’s party’s intention to introduce the 1 per cent. levy on higher priced homes every year? Who would be responsible for the valuation of the properties and who would pay that bill?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has made clear, we are talking about a national tax of 1 per cent. of the value of properties over £2 million, which will be put in place until measures can be fully implemented to replace the system of council tax with a local income tax.
Every year?
Yes, it would be an annual tax. We are quite clear that the current taxation system is unfair, but rather than simply making observations about the fact that it is unfair, we have sat down and tried to come up with a package of policies to make the whole tax system fairer, not just locally but nationally.
Essentially, what we see in the Conservative motion is some interesting observations, albeit ones that are self-evident. However, I am not sure that we have had any analysis of what the problems are or what the alternative is. We have heard a lot about Total Place and the “Deliverying more for less” document and the savings that they can deliver. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, “More for Less” is a document produced with cross-party agreement, but some of the conclusions that can be drawn from it are interesting. The implications of the report are that ring-fencing needs to be reduced to help delivery and that all local public service delivery agents need to sit round the table and to have the money at that table. However, the implication of that is un-ring-fencing things that are not just part of local government finance, and I have heard nothing, either from the Conservatives or from the Government, about whether they are prepared to go that far.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about growing the tax base. Putting that proposal in the context of my constituency, as far as I can see it means that councils will receive more money for building more expensive houses in the areas affected. However, given the current gap between income and house prices in Cornwall, all I can see is that instead of central Government targets driving probably inappropriate development in some communities, financial pressures on councils will drive forward such development. Instead of responding to housing need, we will have centrally driven targets replaced by developers’ greed. I am slightly concerned about that.
I wonder whether the hon. Lady missed the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who speaks for our party on such matters, which was that, precisely to deal with the issue of affordability, our scheme would fund affordable homes at 125 per cent. of council tax to give an incentive for such homes.
If the hon. Gentleman does the sums, he will find that the more lucrative properties will still be the very large ones, not the smaller affordable homes—even the incentivised ones.
In anticipating what my hon. Friend might say in response to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said about how the money raised by the incentivised scheme would go towards developing affordable housing, I thought that he had already argued that it would go to the council to be used to provide services generally, so that money will be spent twice.
I am not entirely clear what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was saying, which further underlines the point that I am trying to make. I am not exactly clear what the Conservatives are proposing. I asked him what his plans were for floors and ceilings, given how unfair he felt the current formula was, but I am not entirely sure that I got an answer on what he would do. The implication of his comments was that councils are getting a raw deal because they are not being funded better by central Government, so presumably he is suggesting that we need better funding from central Government. That means centralising more of what local government spends, whereas I would have imagined that a genuinely localist party would be coming forward with proposals for more to be raised and spent locally.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Government introducing needs-based formula funding, too many authorities—I have mentioned Stockport already, but it is only one of many—continue to lose out in an unreasonable and unfair way? Does she further agree that the Government are now quite deliberately planning to overpay some councils and underfund others? Does she agree that that is nothing less than a monumental fiddle by the Treasury? After 12 years in government, it is about time Labour stopped cooking the books and instead put them in order.
Where I agree with my hon. Friend, and with the Conservatives, is on the need for a fundamental rethink about how the funding formula works, although that in itself will not be sufficient. If I refer to the motion to try to determine what the Conservative policy on council tax is, the only relevant thing that I can see is the part where it
“urges the Government to help fund councils in delivering a council tax freeze in England, as is already in operation in Scotland”.
That is not a policy. It looks like a tactic for a year, but it would not be sustainable year on year.
I love how the Conservatives pray in aid the council tax freeze in Scotland. I am glad to hear that they support that policy, but I wonder whether they would follow the Scottish National party minority Administration’s proposals to follow that up with a local income tax. Do the Conservatives agree with half that argument or with all of it?
I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Lady has been saying about local income tax, which her party supports. I understand that her party wishes to increase the threshold for the payment of income tax generally. Does that also apply to local income tax, and how does she propose to plug the shortfall arising from that?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing such an interest in Liberal Democrat policy. Perhaps he is doing that because of the absence of any policy in his own party on this issue.
When I look at how the Conservatives propose to pay for that council tax freeze, I find that it would be paid for by reducing advertising and consultancy, which would involve about £700 million in year 2. I have already said that I have doubts about whether that measure would be genuinely localist, because it would increase the proportion of central Government spend in local government. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not say how many Conservative-controlled councils were planning to take him up on his offer. I wonder, too, whether there would be any perverse incentives for councils that wanted to benefit from additional resources. Might they have to make up the additional income that they needed to deliver services by increasing charges?
I have been listening to what the hon. Lady has said, but I have also been listening for what she has not said. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) asked her a pertinent question about her party’s policy on a local income tax. He asked whether certain people would be taken out of it. I am fairly sure that she has not yet been able to give him an answer, and I think that the House would be interested to know what her party’s policy is on that.
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient, because I will come to that point all in good time. I have been on my feet for only 10 minutes, which is about a third of the time taken by the Secretary of State and only about a fifth of the time taken by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I will respond to that question when I turn to the alternatives that we think should be put forward, but at the moment I am dealing with the Conservatives’ motion, and their policy—or tactic, depending on which way we want to look at it. As I have said, it seems unlikely that it would provide a permanent solution, so I do not understand how it could form a programme for government.
I am also unsure about whether the Conservatives’ approach to revaluation has been made clear. Given that we have not had a revaluation for 20 years, and that the Government and the Opposition think that the council tax system is the right way to fund local government, it is logical that that system should be based on a realistic valuation of people’s properties, and that we therefore need to revalue. Unfortunately, neither party can have it both ways. They need to make it clear that a revaluation would be a consequence of staying with the existing system of taxation.
In the absence of any clear statement of Conservative policy on local government finance, either in the motion or in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I have been forced to turn to other areas for evidence. Barnet council has already been mentioned, and I shall come to that later, but I have decided to start my investigation in the other place.
The most recent contribution to the debate seems to have come from Lord Hanningfield, who is also the leader of Essex county council. In an interview in The Observer—which was reported in the Western Morning News on 15 September—he talked about a policy of localising welfare benefits. He said:
“The cost of living is far higher in Essex, say, than it is in Cornwall, so people do not need the same level of benefit”.
Are we therefore going to see another tactic from the Conservatives? Are they going to use policy proposals such as these to make further cuts in services and penalise poor areas through the benefit system? They completely misunderstand that a low cost of living is not the same thing as a low-income area. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst chose not to clarify that particular point.
I had a further look at some of the policies being pushed forward by Conservative-controlled councils. Perhaps the most eye-catching direction of travel seems to be from “easy Barnet”, although I am not sure whether it is best to draw the parallel with easyJet or Ryanair. At first sight, the service looks fairly cheap, but the more one delves into it, the more one finds that services that should be core to what is being purchased are suddenly defined as extras. I understand that if people want to use the toilet on Ryanair flights, they will have to pay to do so. In Barnet, it appears that some services are heading the same way. I understand that even refuse collection may no longer be viewed as a core service. What it boils down to is that people will have to pay more for a worse service, with additional charges being made through the back door. I am not entirely sure that council tax payers will welcome a council tax freeze if the money is being taken away from their other hand.
If there is a key theme running through all these Conservative ideas—I would not say that they have any policies—it is the need to cut spending. That should not be seen as an end in itself, even though we are clearly in a difficult financial situation and there is a need for spending restraint. The Conservative approach has the effect of encouraging top-slicing—shaving off all budgets across the board, which means that it is more likely to impact on front-line jobs. For most councils, the largest element of spending is wages. It is easier to cut staff numbers than to cut entire programmes, but what the Conservative Front-Bench team should be doing is clearly to identify the programmes of spending that it considers to be high and low priority.
The leader in today’s edition of The Times best summed all this up in pointing out that all the evidence points to the fact that the Conservatives want
“power rather more than”
they know
“what to do with it”
and that
“we still await a clear, unambiguous and compelling case for a Conservative government.”
That point could not be better summed up than by the lack of any policy content whatever in today’s Opposition day motion.
It is disappointing that there is a similar poverty of ambition in the Government’s approach, as once again it seems that talking the talk is more important than walking the walk. If we go back a few years, the Lyons report was commissioned by the Government to look at the problem of structural difficulties in our local government taxation system. What happened there was that some very limited recommendations were made, but they were then hoofed as far as possible into the long grass. We have also seen an incremental approach towards local government finance, which makes things more complicated and even less transparent than they already are.
I am drawn to reflect on the debates we had on the business rate supplement scheme. Although technically a better debate at a local level is possible, it takes place around the margins, which makes it even more difficult for businesses to understand what their business rates and any supplements are paying for, and there is little democratic engagement in what the increases will provide.
The Government’s latest offering is “Putting the Frontline First: smarter government”. Having read it, I have to say that one would never have guessed that it was written by a former management consultant—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The language provides some warm words, but there are also some words that send a chill down my spine. For example, some bullet points talk about letting local areas set priorities and giving them more control over resources, but if we look at the detail, we discover that letting local areas set priorities apparently means
“streamlining the national-local performance framework”.
That is obviously going to have a wonderful impact on allowing local people to determine priorities. Similarly, when it comes to local area control of resources, we suddenly find that this means:
“Enable local areas to guide the use of resources”.
I am concerned that some key powers are being reserved. It all sounds very intangible and it seems that national targets are going to be aligned with local ones rather than granting genuine control to the local level.
The fundamental point that this report and the Government’s approach miss is that we have an opportunity to re-engage people. The Government will be able to take advantage of that opportunity only if they offer—or at least talk about offering—options such as entering people who vote in a raffle for which the prize is an iPod. They think that that is what is necessary to engage people in voting.
On the question of localism, could the hon. Lady help us by clarifying one point? Who would levy the income tax proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Would it be levied by local district councils or—as was required by Liberal Democrat policy in the past—by regional assemblies?
As the hon. Gentleman would know if he were paying any attention at all, it would be levied by local government.
The key point about the time of fiscal constraint that we are entering is that it provides an opportunity. All too often, politicians assume the lowest of intentions among members of the public. They assume that no one wants to participate, and that that is due not to a lack of opportunity but to their refusal to engage. My experience has shown that people are more than willing to give up large amounts of their time to become involved in something that they think is important to their communities if it can be demonstrated that their involvement will have an impact on the outcome.
The aim of the Total Place pilots and the work achieved by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007—I was disappointed to note that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister was able to attend the meeting that was held about that earlier this evening—is not just to provide more transparency, to make more information available online, and to allow councils to scrutinise more public spending in local areas. It is not just about a process; it is about engaging people.
What the “Smarter Government” report does not make clear, and what the Government have failed to understand, is that if tough decisions are to be made about what should be the priorities at local level, those decisions should be made, engaged with and accountable for at local level. The Total Place pilots provide a real opportunity not just to ensure that bureaucrats from a number of different areas of public service sit around a table with their cheque books, but to allow people to engage in a debate. We have not heard enough from Government about that, but it is critical, which is why I was so disappointed that there was nothing about it in the Queen’s Speech.
The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 represents another missed opportunity. Once again we were told that legislation would be all about engaging people in participation, but it ended up being about the architectural structures to which I believe the former Secretary of State has referred.
And about how to respond to a petition.
Indeed. It is entirely about turning people off politics, rather than showing them how their contribution can make a difference to the outcome.
All this makes clear to me that there are fundamental problems with the current system of local government finance, and that simply ignoring them will not make them go away. It is inherent in the current structure of local government finance that, on average, council tax will rise above the rate of inflation. It is also inherent in the system that we have a regressive council tax, because by definition it will hit hardest those on low and fixed incomes. People will feel the impact more because they are paying from net income rather than at source.
The position is made worse by the broadly 75:25 split between central Government’s contribution to local services and the amount that is raised through council tax. That gearing makes it difficult for councils to prioritise services that they consider important, and also makes it difficult for people to understand exactly what the money is being spent on. On top of all that, we have a council tax benefit system under which an incredibly high proportion of people who are entitled to benefit are still failing to claim.
All those things add up not to a need for a freeze or a pilot, but to a need for more fundamental change. I simply cannot understand why neither of the main parties is willing to face up to that. We need a change that goes beyond local government taxation. We need a whole package of reform. Yes, there is a need to replace council tax with a progressive form of taxation based on ability to pay, but that is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is part of a process of ensuring that more is raised locally and less is raised nationally.
There are fair steps that can be taken to achieve that end. For instance, business rates could be localised, which would immediately ensure that councils raised more of what they spent at local level. We need a link with the national taxation system, which is why we have proposed a levy of 1 per cent. on each property with a value of over £2 million. We think that the priority should be making the whole tax system fairer, and that the best way to do that is to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000, which would make every person, on average, at least £700 better off. That would be a first step towards making the taxation system fairer, and it would be introduced alongside a whole series of other reforms designed to ensure that more money was raised and spent locally.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Liberal Democrat proposals for a local income tax. Can she briefly explain how it would work in respect of equalisation? More affluent areas where more people are working would obviously raise more local income tax to be able to invest in their services, but how would this work for more deprived areas with more people on benefits and lower value houses? Does the hon. Lady propose to have a central cap of some kind, or to have councils paying money into a central pot that is then redistributed?
I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady is taking such a great interest in Liberal Democrat policy. Perhaps her party is studying it because it has yet to come up with any proposal of its own. Our position is clear: we are currently saying that the 25:75 split between local and central Government is the wrong way around. We have at no point said that 100 per cent. of all local government spending should be raised locally. Of course there will be a need for some kind of equalisation measure.
What kind?
In the same way that we have an equalisation measure now. Of course, one of the biggest problems with the council tax system is that we have a benefit system whose take-up is very low. A local income tax removes the need for that at a stroke.
The hon. Lady refers to more deprived areas. One of the things that Total Place has exposed is that the more deprived an area is, the more likely it is that there will be lots of different agencies intervening to try to assist people. That results in a duplication of the administration that goes into supporting these areas and people. We need not only to look at local government spend and to tackle the problems of deprived areas, but to open up the whole area of spending that goes into supporting these groups of people.
Is the hon. Lady’s party proposing a regional income tax levied by the regional assembly, as well as a local income tax?
No. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that. We have never said that.
To conclude, we have a Government who fail to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. As far as they are concerned, there is no problem that cannot be sorted out by some kind of incrementalism that moves so slowly that I could almost watch my fingernails grow as the Government progress. The Conservatives may be able to identify the problem, but they do not propose any solution. Basically, the Conservative proposal is to put a different coloured label on the same tin, which has the net effect of changing a red label to a blue label. Whatever colour that label is, the product is the same, and, as far as I can see, it is certainly not a localist one, or one that will get anybody excited or engaged.
rose—
So far in this debate, we have had contributions from those on the Front Bench. May I remind colleagues that the winding-up speeches will commence at 9.40 pm and that five Back Benchers hope to catch my eye? I want to try to accommodate everybody. I am afraid that I shall have to leave Members to do the maths for themselves.
I shall try to be brief—although my heart always sinks when I hear a politician say that, because we always end up saying far more, and taking far longer, than we intended.
I rise to welcome the debate and the amount of money that Blackpool has had from this Government. We have had above-inflation increases year after year after year. I also want to talk about the additional sums of money the town has received, because of course local government gets support from central Government through other Departments, and that also needs to be taken into account in this calculation.
Let me first say a little about the changes that have taken place. I served for 12 years as a member of Lancashire county council, and I can remember the days when we had annual allocations, and, as a local authority, we could not plan. We lurched from one year to the next, not knowing what the budget would be. There was therefore no forward planning. At the end of some years we were desperately trying to spend money, whereas in other years we had totally run out. I have to say that, more often than not, we did not have the money. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) talked about social care. For seven of these years, I chaired the social services committee of Lancashire county council, and we never had enough money to deliver services.
Through the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the last Conservative Government transferred responsibility for supporting people in residential care from the social security system to the social services departments of local authorities. They introduced us as gatekeepers but, at the same time, they cut back on the money. I have been in local government when, year after year we had cuts, and year after year we could not plan. Under this Labour Government, we have had year after year of above-inflation increases but, above all, we have also been given the ability to plan. We must never underestimate that and I welcome the fact that the Opposition parties acknowledge it.
Another thing that the Government have done is introduce new planning regimes—new opportunities to look regionally at the needs of an area and also to look at a micro-level in local authorities. Sadly, in years past central Government gave funding according to travel-to-work areas, and Blackpool was then in the travel-to-work area that included Wyre and parts of Fylde, two adjoining district councils that are affluent. Blackpool got precious little direct investment because it did not qualify. Now, as a local authority, Blackpool can access specific funding for the wards in the town centre where special need is identified, but it can also access funding from a regional perspective because the Northwest Regional Development Agency looks at all the areas of the north-west and targets special support on those areas. We have benefited from that re-examination of how best to target taxpayers’ money in those areas of special need.
We also get money from other sources. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination will remember that when she was a Transport Minister, we had long debates about the Blackpool tramline. We have the money to upgrade the tramline and for new sea defences in both Blackpool and Cleveleys, where the money has come not only for sea defence but for beautiful new promenades that are improving the visitor attraction as well as the lives of our residents. We have had money spent on the schools and hospitals, but we have also recently had an allocation of £415,000 from the working neighbourhoods fund, which is helping the people of Blackpool who are unemployed and helping the local authority to get more people into work. We have had money from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the Sea Change programme, so Blackpool has had £4 million to help to do up our wonderful new promenade. Cleveleys has had the same, as has Fleetwood, in the top end of my constituency. Lots of money has been going into local government and we have had investment in our play areas.
I want to echo a point that was made in an intervention. My local Conservative councillors are not backwards in coming forwards to claim credit for that spending and to be photographed in new playgrounds, new schools and our Sure Start children’s centres. All this money comes from central Government and we here need to ensure that people understand that. It is that investment that has so improved the lives of my constituents. It goes into local government and is spent on their behalf and it comes from a variety of different Departments. I am hugely proud of the changes that have taken place. In my constituency and in that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who is here in the Chamber, we have seen those improvements.
Finally, let me make a brief point about prudential borrowing. When I was a councillor, not only was that not available but we could not pool budgets. We could not work with other local authorities, with health authorities or with anybody. Now, local authorities have a chance—especially through prudential borrowing—to come up with exciting initiatives.
Blackpool council wants to buy back, to buy and to bring into local control Blackpool tower, the Winter gardens, which last night hosted the royal variety performance—and an excellent show it was—the golden mile and Tussauds. It can do that only if it gets support from central Government, if it is allowed to carry out prudential borrowing to raise money and if it gets European funding. Local government works best if it works in partnership with central Government and if central Government acknowledges areas of need and delivers. That is what this Government have been doing with local authorities of different persuasions. Long may this Government continue in power so that we do not go back to days such as those when I was in local government, when we never had the money to deliver the services that people need.
I rise to defend myself against the strange charge from the Labour Benches that some years ago, when I was the Secretary of State for Wales, I sent back £120 million from the Treasury. I do not understand why, a few days after Labour issued the “Smarter Government” document, it should so strongly object to a Minister having practised smarter government some years ago. If only Labour had practised it in the past 12 years, we would not be facing the financial Armageddon that we currently face. That £120 million was not money that local government authorities needed, because they had had a full settlement. It was savings from changes regarding inefficiency, over-management and too much bureaucracy in the Wales Office.
Those savings were made by putting a freeze on staff and by stripping out back-office and overhead operations that we did not need. Of course, that money should have gone back to the Treasury because it was not money that we held. Even that Government were borrowing a bit, although we did not need to borrow as much. Surely Labour Members should welcome the fact that there was a pioneer of their smarter government. If only we had had their smarter government for the past 12 years, and if only we had had more for less, our economy would now be stronger and we would be in a better position. Instead, we have had 12 years of waste, incompetence, intervention, overriding local decision making, too much bureaucracy and inspection, and too many circulars. We have had ordeal by circular and ordeal by command and billions down the drain, and we have not been given better services.
Would the right hon. Gentleman describe his actions, when he was the Secretary of State for Wales, as the “Smarter Government” document would, by saying that he was aligning the
“different sector-specific performance management frameworks across key local agencies”?
No; I always try to speak in English. I think that that was another criticism of me at the time, but it is a good tip for politicians: they should not speak in jargon. In this place, they should always speak in English, which I believe is the preferred language of the Hansard reporters.
We meet today to debate, at last, an important settlement at a time of financial crisis. It seems that we are never allowed time to debate really big sums of money. We have had no debate on the £280 billion of guarantees of bad and toxic debts that have recently been announced, £170 billion of which was lent overseas in relation to things that make no difference to the jobs and prosperity of our country. The Government were trying to get away with a £47 billion expenditure block here with absolutely no debate, so I am grateful that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench think that this issue is worth debating. The Government’s excuse, apart from lost letters, was that we do not need to debate the settlement every year because it is a three-year settlement. Of course we need to review the budget every year and consider the detail of the settlement every year, because it is fixed every year. It is a cop-out for the Government to say that we do not need to scrutinise such spending.
I agree that this issue is worth debating. Given that the Conservatives have secured the debate, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it strange that there are as many Members on the Labour Benches as on the combined Opposition Benches?
No, I do not find that strange, as there are many more Labour MPs because of the unfortunate decisions of the electorate at the last election, but we hope that they might think again in the light of what has happened in the past few years.
I have very little time left. The important question to ask is why, given that the Government have put a lot more money into local government, everyone is so unhappy. Councils are unhappy because they do not feel they have the money they need for all the requirements and inspections placed on them. The electors clearly are not happy because, as we have heard from Conservative Front Benchers, despite all that money going in, council tax has more than doubled during the Labour years.
I am not one who thinks that more money in total ought to be voted for this block of expenditure. I think that local government has to do more for less, just as central Government have to, but there is a simple solution that the Government ought to adopt. They ought to get out of the way. They should stop making all those demands on local government for information and inspection, and they should understand that we want local government delivered by local councillors and a limited number of offices. We do not want local councils to have to employ a very large number of very expensive people to fill in the forms, answer the inspections, deal with central Government or interpret all the information. We do not need 39 different special grants for local government: we want to get back to having a single block grant, over which councils have discretion. We do not wish to have this mighty inspection system, with its stars and black marks, that preoccupies so many very senior officers at enormous expense. We could probably halve the number of senior officers in a well run local authority if we stripped out all the demands from central and regional government.
We do not want regional government at all. We should trust local government, give it more power and take the powers away from the regions, which are unelected, unaccountable and much disliked in most parts of England. The Government have spent 12 years trying to get people to love their regions, but they do not and will not. The regions in England are artificial, and we do not want them. They are the layer of government that we wish to strip away.
That would save us billions and start to solve the conundrum of why, although the Government have tipped so much money in, we are getting so little out, why so many voters do not think that the services are good enough, and why the councillors do not think that there is enough money to make the services better.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should strip out any form of regional government, but is he saying that all regional planning should therefore be done by central Government?
No, I am saying that most planning should be done by the local community, with their representatives. The big items should be national items. If the aim was to drive a motorway across the country—and I do not think people want that at the moment—it should be a decision for national Government, defended and sorted out in the normal democratic way. If the wish was to build a new housing estate, that should be determined by the local council.
I think that my Front-Bench team are working on some very good ideas in this regard. A lot of councils do not want development in their area, sometimes for good reasons. If they were allowed to keep some of the benefits of a new development, and if there were a pot of money to provide compensation for people in the local area who would otherwise be adversely affected by the development, we might have the answer to the problem of achieving localism in action. There would still be development in the country, but it would be development that local communities and neighbours approved of or supported. People would not feel that developments were being rained down on them from the centre.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I would love to, but the time constraints on us all mean that I have to sit down very shortly.
I want to mention briefly the extraordinary position that the Liberal Democrats have got themselves into yet again in this very short debate. We learn that they want to place a 1 per cent. tax on houses, although there seemed to be a row between their Front-Bench spokesmen about the value of the houses involved.
The more vehement the denials, the bigger we know the row to be. I am sure that the problem relates to certain constituencies and the discovery, perhaps by the spokesman who came up with the lower value, that an awful lot of the houses would be in his constituency. We have learned tonight that the Liberal Democrats have no idea what they are going to do about the fact that, under the scheme, a few places in the country would have lots of money, but quite a lot of others would have no money at all. They do not know how they would redistribute it, but they said that the money would be raised in the ratio 75 local to 25 national, so most of the places without any expensive houses clearly would not get any money.
Then we heard that the Liberal Democrats want to introduce a local income tax. However, they have no idea what its threshold is, and we do not know whether there would be a higher rate and a lower rate. We do not know how progressive it would be. We have no idea how much money would be taken off the City of London and Westminster, where incomes tend to be quite high, and how much of it would be sent around the country.
The proposal is absolutely clueless but of course completely irrelevant, because parties that think they might win the election know that the public will never fall for a local income tax. National income tax is already quite high enough and there is no scope for doing what the Liberal Democrats propose.
When I was given the job of putting the council tax in place—which I did not want—I made only two claims for it. One was that it would be a little less unpopular than the community charge, and the other was that it would last a bit longer than the community charge. I am delighted to say that both things came true. I never thought it was very good. All taxes are unpopular and they all have their defects, but the fact that council tax is still around after 12 years of Labour Government shows that both main parties have come to the conclusion that it is the least bad option.
It is now up to us and local government to live within the amount the tax provides, which can be done only by smarter government, although that will need a change of Government. I like the phrase “smarter government”. We need to do more for less and the sooner we have a Government who can help councils do that by stripping away the on-costs and bureaucracy, the better it will be.
I have come to regard it as a painful duty to speak in debates such as this and to bring a report from the front line of Conservative local government in Hammersmith and Fulham—the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite council. We now hear from the Conservative party chairman that Conservative councils demonstrate how the Conservatives will run the country. After seeing how the financial settlement was treated in Hammersmith and Fulham, I feel that we need a post-watershed warning about violent and disturbing images. Three principles govern what happens in that authority: increasing charges, cutting services and disposing of assets.
In the last three years, charges for meals on wheels have been increased by 60 per cent. There is now a £15 million surplus in the parking account. Adult education fees, particularly for people of pension age, have shot up, because the council falsely claims that it is age discrimination to give concessions to the over-60s, despite the fact that many other London councils do so. The council even charged for recycling, and then claimed that the service was unpopular and cut it altogether.
Most significant, having given a clear, one-line promise in their manifesto not to introduce charges for home care, within six months of election the Conservatives introduced charges of £12.40 an hour for home helps. They have substantially cut the home care and resident warden services. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who was complaining about resident warden services, is no longer in the Chamber, because such decisions are for local government. The Opposition cannot say that local government should have the power to make local decisions and then blame central Government for decisions taken locally. The proudest boast of the leader of my Conservative council is that he has cut 1,000 jobs in three years—1,000 jobs in the middle of a recession—not bureaucrats, but home helps, wardens and other people who provide front-line public services.
The voluntary sector has been cut massively, particularly advice services and services for black and minority ethnic groups. The schools budget has been cut to the bare minimum, while schools have been loaded with additional central costs. So far, so typical.
The next phase of development is asset sales, including youth clubs, community buildings and 13 hostels for the homeless—65 self-contained units of accommodation sold off at public auction, which means that the price received by the council is about 20 per cent. below market value. Sixty-five families who were living in council hostels at a cost to the taxpayer of between £100 and £200 a week will now be in private rented accommodation at a cost of between £500 and £600 a week, but that does not matter to a Conservative council because the income tax payer rather than the council tax payer will pick up the increased bill.
Schools have been told specifically to sell their sites to private education institutions. One has to ask where it is all leading. I shall hold that thought for a moment while I fill in one or two other parts of the canvas in the little time I have for my speech.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) in relation to the chutzpah of Conservative councils in claiming credit for central Government initiatives. If Members drive around Hammersmith Broadway, they will see banners hanging from the lamp posts that North Korea would have been ashamed to put up, with claims about the £200 million the council has invested in secondary schools, the £200 million it has invested in decent homes or the 13 Sure Start centres it has opened. The council has taken over a local primary care trust and now even claims credit for investment in the NHS as well.
Would the hon. Gentleman like to praise that council for cutting its council tax by 3 per cent. every year for four years and delivering better services? Is that not smarter government?
I am so pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. If he had been listening, he would have heard that about £63 million has been raised through increased charges for services and cuts in services. The service user and the taxpayer get a bad deal out of the average 50p a week saving, every year, on council tax. I shall put the question back to the right hon. Gentleman. If he is such a fan of the Conservative council and its leader, who is head of the Tory party’s innovation unit, he will agree, I am sure, with the comment that the leader made at a public seminar 10 days ago, when he said:
“My mates are all in the Shadow Cabinet, waiting to get those”—
ministerial—
“boxes, being terribly excited. I went to university with them—they haven’t run a piss up in a brewery.”
Actually, the right hon. Gentleman may agree with the comment about—
Order. Can I just remind the hon. Member that moderation in language would be much more acceptable in the Chamber?
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should have said, “an occasion when a lot of alcohol is drunk in a brewery.” However, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) had that argument with a Deputy Speaker, and I believe that excretory terms are permissible, provided that they are in context, as I think the council leader intended that comment to be. It is one that I am sure we all echo.
I do not think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made a good point, but one would not know that if one lived in Hammersmith. I wonder what he thinks of this: more than £1 million of taxpayers’ money is spent simply on propaganda, and that ranges from poster vans driving around the borough, advertising how good the council is, to advertising on stations, in phone boxes and on lamp post banners, and a fortnightly newspaper that costs about £750,000 to run.
I seem to remember that one of the cuts, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, that the council has made is to include advertising in that newspaper so that it has a nil cost to the taxpayer—unlike its predecessor publication, which was very expensive for the Labour council.
Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman is partially informed again. There is advertising, and that is principally from the public sector—from the council and other public institutions. However, in addition to that cost, which covers printing, there are on-costs and the cost of staffing, premises and so forth. The total cost before advertising is about £750,000; the net cost is still about £350,000. Again, I put the question to him. Is that particularly good value?
Is it particularly good value that both chief executives of the local authorities in my constituency are paid more than the Prime Minister? Is it particularly good value that, while boasting of a pay freeze for senior officers this year, those chief executives gave themselves up to a 9 per cent. increase last year? Is it particularly good value that the leader of one council attempted to give himself a 14 per cent. pay rise for doing the job that he was already doing? We in Hammersmith do not yet, however, have what Kensington and Chelsea has, which is the first £100,000 a year councillor, topping up his salary with money from London councils and, with great irony, the Audit Commission, too.
In the moment or so that I have left, I shall return to the question that I posed earlier. Where does a local authority go when it has raised charges for vulnerable people, in particular, cut services for people in straitened circumstances and sold off the assets—the schools and the community centres that people use? The answer, particularly in an area of deprivation such as Shepherd’s Bush, is quite simple: the local authority gets rid of the people themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested earlier, that is exactly what is intended when 3,500 social homes are due for demolition in the borough and there is no guarantee that the residents will receive like-for-like or replacement homes.
The tenants of the first of those estates earmarked for demolition, West Kensington and Gibbs Green, had been told that they live in “not decent neighbourhoods”. However, I am very proud to say that yesterday evening they served on the council leader a notice to quit, requiring him under the Labour Government’s legislation to transfer ownership of their estate to them. They are going nowhere; they are staying in the place that has been their home for many years; and they hope for the return of a Labour council, which will restore to them some of the services that have been cut.
In the meantime, the council’s plans range at one extreme, from the simple slash-and-burn cuts in services that we see from many other Tory councils, to the other extreme, which we have not seen in west London for 20 years, since the days of Shirley Porter, of gerrymandering and of social engineering. They are examples of exactly what the Conservative party says when it states, “This demonstrates how we will run the country.” I welcome any hon. Member from any party to come to Hammersmith and see exactly how that would be done.
It is a pleasure to be able to take part in tonight’s debate on local government funding. Several hon. Members have made clear the pressures that are placed on many local authorities in delivering value for their areas and ensuring that council tax increases are kept to the absolute minimum. That is why I support the policies that have been put forward by Conservative Members to try to ensure that there is a council tax freeze in relation to our own councils.
I want to deal with some general matters as regards funding for local authorities and, in particular, to localise the issue in relation to my own local authority—the London borough of Havering. There has been some debate about population data and methodology. I want to highlight the issue of the elderly populations contained within many local authority areas and the impact that that has on projections. That applies particularly to my area, which has the largest number of older residents of any London borough. In the years between now and 2023, we expect there to be an increase of some 9,300 in the number of people aged over 65, with a particularly marked rise in the number of those aged over 85. We need to think about what that will mean in terms of the pressures on social care and the ability of council budgets to cope with those demands.
Havering, as a nice leafy green borough, is seen as having lots of owner-occupied homes and historically low levels of unemployment, diversity and deprivation, although pockets of deprivation do exist. That apparent prosperity masks the increasing pressures of dealing with a settled and ageing population. Several residents live in mortgage-free homes—the asset-rich, cash-poor population—but their apparent comfort masks an increasing need for social care support. With an ageing population and dwindling resources, the pressures on services will grow, and there does not appear to be within the local government finance formula a proper recognition and acknowledgement of that issue and how it will increase in importance over time as the demand for social services and support services for the elderly continues to increase.
Talking about the pressures on local councils is not simply about the methodology arguments on how the funding is allocated, but about how the Government have changed their mind on certain key issues and the impact that that is having on local councils in dealing with it. We have had the discussion about how this is all about three-year funding settlements, which implies that councils should be given greater certainty and an ability to plan their budgets and to know what they can do for the benefit of their local residents. Yet two recent examples have thrown a very big spanner in the works for London councils, in particular, in being able to ensure that they can plan their budgets effectively.
The first example concerns the Government’s change of approach on the decent homes standard. It was said that if an arm’s length management organisation achieved two-star status, funding would flow through to it and the benefits would accrue to local residents, who would get the new windows, bathrooms and kitchens that many of them had been patiently waiting for. However, in Havering, when our ALMO, Homes in Havering, attained two-star status, that funding did not come with it because the Government had changed the rules and requirements and decided to reallocate the money under their Building Britain’s Future programme. Our ALMO had been waiting patiently to deliver the important changes whereby local residents could see the significant improvements that they had been promised, but it got a slap in the face instead of the funding that it had been expecting. That means that Havering council, in seeking to meet those aspirations and demands, is having to try to identify funding in order to deliver sooner the benefits that were expected to accrue. It is having to deal with the problems imposed on it by being promised that money and then finding out that it had been reallocated even though the planning and budgeting had been done on the basis that it would be available.
Councillor Michael Armstrong of Havering council recently said
“we will fight tooth and nail to reverse the Government’s U-turn and secure the funding we were promised. Homes in Havering has achieved the standard that the Government set and ministers must now honour their side of the deal.”
I hope that the Minister will provide some assurance about what is happening to the decent homes money, because my residents in Havering were promised something that has now been taken away from them.
The second example is the change in funding for the freedom pass. London was set to receive about £58 million in 2010-11 and councils had planned on that basis, but we now discover that they have not got that money, and the Department for Transport consultation proposes that about £30 million should be clawed back.
My hon. Friend from my neighbouring constituency will know that the increase in cash for Havering council this year is about £750,000, but £500,000 of that will be used up on the extra costs of safeguarding children, and the council now has to find another £1 million to pay for the change in special grant for the freedom pass, which all our elderly residents value so highly.
I agree entirely. I regard the freedom pass as extremely important for the over-60s, and the Government tinker with it at their peril. My hon. Friend is right that Havering is having to find an extra £1 million, and we may hear from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) that Croydon has a black hole in its budget. I know that Bexley will have to find another £1 million as a consequence of the very late change that has taken place. It is all very well telling councils to find efficiency savings and plan on a certain basis, but if they suddenly have to find an extra £1 million from their coffers at the last moment, it places them in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
It is telling that we have been told tonight that there is a consultation taking place and the Government are consulting us on whether they should press ahead with the changes. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and it struck me that he had a closed mind, that no consultation is taking place and that the Government have decided that that funding will not now be put in place. They want councils to take the lead and the responsibility for their residents, but the Government have responsibilities as well. Saying to councils at the last moment, “We promised you the money, it’s not there, you’ve got to deal with that now”, hardly makes it easy for councils to ensure that they deliver the value for money and council tax freezes that we want. The Government are reneging on the deal at the last minute and placing those councils in that extremely difficult situation.
We had a fairly acerbic start to the debate, with discussions about exchanges of correspondence or otherwise, which I felt was beneath the dignity of such a good Cabinet Minister as the Secretary of State. I would prefer to emphasise the importance of Front Benchers regarding themselves as accountable to the whole House, not to each other.
I start with some thanks, first to Her Majesty’s Opposition for securing the debate so that we have the opportunity to represent our constituents’ concerns, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) said. I also thank the Government for the significant support that they have given Croydon in capital spending, promises of extra spending on schools, local enterprise growth initiative money and funding for extra social housing. I particularly wish to mention Councillor Dudley Mead of Croydon council, who takes a positive view of the importance of providing extra social housing, working in conjunction with the Greater London authority and the Government. I thank the Government also for the letter that I recently received about the money to support town centres that has come to Croydon, although the £50,000 provided may well be too little, bearing in mind that just in George street 17 properties are out to let.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was challenged on the relative bandings of the properties in his constituency and how highly they are rated. The key question would have been how much residents in south London pay in council tax. In many ways, the existence of London government inevitably means that a great deal of money is transferred away from south London to other priorities in both central and east London. There is very great deal of concern within the Croydon business community that the supplementary rate that was previously passed will mean that money will be taken away from businesses at a difficult time to support major schemes elsewhere in the capital.
I apologise for wanting to put Croydon first in this debate, but I should like to draw some issues to the attention of those on both Front Benches in looking forward to what will happen in next year’s review of local government expenditure, which will perhaps cover a three-year period. The London borough of Croydon has long suffered from how the area cost adjustment is calculated within London. Croydon is regarded as an east London authority, whereas neighbouring areas such as Sutton are regarded as being in west London, where costs are presumed to be higher. That is not entirely logical. When Croydon works on a strategic partnership basis on contracts with, say, Lambeth, it will pay the same rate for work done on its highways, but it will nevertheless be rewarded, in terms of grant, at a lower rate than Lambeth.
Croydon is facing particular challenges because of the number of individuals who, because of their migration status, have no recourse to public funds. The local authority quite rightly estimates that that costs £2.5 million a year, and that a further £2.5 million will fall upon council tax payers as a result of the closure of the walk-in asylum centre in Liverpool and the transfer of some of those applicants to Croydon. I warn the Government that that is very unpopular with the residents of Croydon. When the Home Secretary came to his home town to speak to the local Labour party, he was interviewed by the Croydon Advertiser and said that no money would be provided in compensation. That had a very deleterious effect on support for the Labour party in Croydon.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the important matter of the freedom pass. The cost in his borough will be £1 million, but in Croydon the cost will be £1.5 million. I am sure we are all determined to ensure that such financial issues do not stop us defending the provision of the freedom pass within London.
It is not as though Croydon has been slow in trying to be efficient. Sixty million pounds of efficiency savings have been found in recent years. The local council outperforms the 4 per cent. target for efficiency savings that the Government expect and seeks savings of 5 per cent., partly by working through strategic partnerships. However, with further legislation such as the Personal Care at Home Bill before the House, the reality is that the council will struggle to find such efficiency savings. It may well be difficult for Croydon to deal with the prospect of the introduction of a cap at 3 per cent. Unlike London Labour authorities, Croydon has been unable to match those zero per cent. approaches towards setting budgets. Indeed, it has been disappointing that it has had to set increases at 4 per cent. a year.
There are ways in which Croydon can make savings. It is more difficult to make the case for Croydon when a very significant loan of £145 million has been secured to build a new town hall. That cannot be a priority when the town has other important and pressing needs. I would have thought it better for Croydon to consider becoming a tenant in a development at east Croydon, on the Croydon Gateway site. That approach would have a multiplier effect in terms of getting that development going and giving others the confidence to invest in Croydon’s property market. It also needs to be borne in mind that councillors receive £6 million in allowances over the four-year period that they are in office. Some transfer of that money to improve policing, for example, would be more effective.
Finally, please remember that Croydon is facing dynamic population change, partly because we are the headquarters for the migration service in this country. Please also remember that many of the jobs that Croydon people enjoyed were in the City, and not necessarily at the high rates of pay talked about in the media. Croydon is dependent on public sector jobs—29 per cent. of our jobs are in the public sector. The prospect of jobs being transferred outside the south-east could prove a particular challenge for Croydon and increase the need for effective local government financial support in the future.
This has been an interesting and important debate. The announcement of the local government finance settlement is an opportunity for Ministers to outline their plans for the future of local government funding. How much council tax people have to pay and, critically, how much money their council will get to enable it to provide local facilities and services are of huge relevance to many people’s everyday lives. The debate has never been more important, given the current economic situation, but in spite of that the only reason we have had this debate today is that the Opposition have made time for it. We have used an Opposition day to force the Government to debate a fundamentally important topic for local communities across the country. Parliament is moving—we hope—towards more accountability and transparency. Ministers’ attempts to stifle debate on the local government finance settlement fly in the face of that progress.
Today’s debate showed starkly the choice that the British electorate face. They can have either councils that are accountable to them or councils that are accountable to Ministers in Whitehall, who think that local communities need to be spoon-fed with central Government diktat and priorities. We have heard that repeatedly in some interesting contributions to today’s debate. I do not have time to mention all of them, but the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) talked about how her council is making the most of the powers that it has. I note that it is a Conservative council, but I am sure that she is working with it to help it to make the most of its opportunities.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I have little time, so I will not give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who talked about how his drive for efficiencies when he was in office has, in many respects, set the tone for what can be achieved. He expressed real concern about the waste and incompetence that we have seen in recent years.
We never fail on these occasions to hear from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter). I nearly renamed him the hon. Member for Shepherd’s Bush, because Ealing and Acton never seem to get a look in. Residents in that area have an MP who does not talk about their council much. He did talk about residents getting a bad deal from Hammersmith and Fulham council, but it must have been 10 times worse when his party was running the council.
We also heard an important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) who sensitively and carefully pointed out the pressures on care budgets for the elderly, many arising from demographic changes that will be hard to deal with, however hard we try. He was right to raise his concerns about the cuts to the freedom pass, which enables many elderly people across London to remain independent in their day-to-day lives, which is critical.
In the speech we just heard, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) rightly made the case for his constituents. That is an example of why having an oral statement rather than a written one is so important to Members’ ability to do their job and represent their communities.
The bottom line is that, however Ministers dress it up, council tax has doubled under this Government and is set to rise further—way above the current rate of inflation. As we have heard, next year, residents in many parts of the country can expect rises of 3 per cent.—well above inflation—which will push up many people’s council tax to £1,500 a year. In a recession on the scale of the present one, that is unaffordable for many people.
Why are councils under so much pressure? It is partly because they have extra burdens. A raft of initiatives has been pushed down on them by Ministers. So many initiatives have been inflicted on them that the proportion of individual, area and specific grants that are ring-fenced has risen from about 4 per cent. of the grant in 1997 to 15 per cent. now. Councils are less and less able to deliver flexible services for their residents. In fact, the Local Government Association worked out that if councils had more flexibility, they could save £900 million a year. That is surely worth having to reinvest in better local services. The bottom line is that we need our councils to set their priorities locally and deliver them locally, but they cannot do that under the current Government.
What incentive does my hon. Friend believe there is for extremely efficient councils—for instance, West Sussex county council—that run their affairs extremely well, given that they get the lowest possible grant settlement?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We did not get much chance to discuss today the fact that debate on local government financing in this Chamber often focuses on how to divide up the pie, when it should be more about how we can help and encourage local councils to increase the amount of investment available to them locally. That is precisely why we have talked not only about our council tax freeze policy, under which we will work in partnership with local councils to help them to keep council tax down, but about how we will help councils willing to develop their communities through a council tax matching policy, which will help to alleviate residents’ concerns about pressures on infrastructure when they develop housing in their areas, for example.
We will also encourage councils to develop local economies, jobs, businesses and extra facilities in their communities through business improvement grants. That means that we will incentivise councils’ growing their business rates by allowing them to keep any increases above the inflationary rise set in Whitehall.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I am not going to take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can your advise the House on whether “Erskine May” has anything to say about Opposition spokespeople who refuse to take anything other than friendly interventions from their own side?
That is certainly not a point of order for the Chair and is simply wasting time at this point in the evening.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was about to say that the other big cost pressure that many councils have had to put up with has been the huge cost and waste involved in inspections. The Lyons inquiry estimated that about £2 billion is spent on the monitoring process. We have to reduce that. That money should be going into improving local services and cutting council tax bills for residents. Instead, it is spent on exactly the wrong things: it is spent on councils reporting upwards and being accountable to Ministers, when the focus should be on being accountable to their own electorate.
The worst thing is that such burdens, ring-fencing and top-down scrutiny from Ministers in Whitehall who do not know the communities that they are dealing with are only set to grow. We have had a similar Opposition day debate before, and now we are talking about further financial pressures on local councils resulting from some of the Government’s plans for taking care of the elderly. The situation is not tenable, which is why we want to set out a different vision for local government finance.
As I have said, we want to introduce incentives and to ensure that the formula is developed sensitively and that the Audit Commission can look at it to ensure that it is transparent and fair. We need to move on to a new chapter in local government finance where councils get the powers, flexibility and resources necessary to deliver what local communities, not just Ministers, want; where there are real incentives; and where councils and the communities that they represent can truly share the benefits. It is a clear choice, and the sooner the public get to make it at a general election, the better.
I wish that I could say that this had been an interesting and wide-ranging examination—[Hon. Members: “It says here.”] No, it does not say that here. I wish that I could say that this had been an interesting and wide-ranging examination of the local government finance settlement, but it has not. With one or two honourable exceptions, on both sides of the House, this has been just the sort of blustering, grandstanding, smug, “We know better than you and just wait until our side gets in” kind of exchange that puts most normal people off politics and, frankly, puts me off listening to you all.
When I wrote to the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy)—I did write to them, on 12 November—I pointed out that there was going to be an oral statement. The last time there were very few Members in the Chamber, and we regretted that there were so few. We would have liked to debate it, and you do get a chance to debate it in January, when you debate the financial settlement, so you have not lost the chance—
Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but she must use the correct parliamentary language.
Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have known better.
Yes, you should.
Order. There are rules for manners all round in the House. Hon. Members should now listen to what the Minister has to say.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We in the Chamber should have known better, because we have wasted an opportunity this time. In his opening remarks, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), conceded that the three-year settlement was a good thing. On that, if very little else, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with him. He pointed out that this year, the last year of that three-year settlement, councils will get a 4 per cent. increase in funding, bringing the investment in local government to £76.3 billion in 2010-11.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, at least managed to get off the subject of who did or did not initiate this debate and why. For the record, let me point out again that the House will have a chance to debate the settlement for 2010-11 when it approves the finance report in January. I will certainly try to find out what happened to the letters. I have a copy here and will give everyone one later. I was sorry that the hon. Lady did not develop her party’s ideas a little more clearly. She spent most of her time telling the other parties what they were doing wrong and hinting at what she might do right if the Liberal Democrats got into power.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) was quite a change: she was positive and proud. I really understood her pleasure in seeing her constituency develop in the way that it has. Like her, I have seen changes in my constituency, Stevenage. I am glad that she has found the prudential borrowing regime so helpful.
Despite remarks from the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) has been a doughty campaigner for his constituency, including against the injustices that have come in under the Conservative council.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made some thoughtful comments about the high proportion of elderly residents in Havering and the growing number of older people, with whom Governments of all types will most certainly have to deal in future, and deal with seriously. I hope that he will welcome the Government’s engagement with the issue of future funding for adult social care, and also that he will get involved when his local authority makes representations to the consultation on the distribution of concessionary fares that is now being held by the Department for Transport.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) made some telling points about highways maintenance in Croydon. This is a problem across the country, and he will no doubt welcome the fact that we are keeping the formula under review, including the area cost adjustment, to which he referred, in relation to highways costs. Of course, Croydon and other London boroughs are welcome to put their evidence into the review being held by the Department for Transport, and I hope that they will do so.
I realise that I might have been impatient and immoderate at the beginning of my speech, but, as someone who cares deeply about this place and its reputation, I do not think that any of us did it any good today with the kind of debate that we indulged in. Local government finance is a highly technical and complex area that would benefit from a much more in-depth debate than the one we had here today. I regret that we have wasted our time in this way.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that we should fill the time allocated for the debate. That statement from the Minister was a disgrace. If she is so critical of all the rest of us, she could at least have done the House the courtesy of giving us some information and offering a defence of a badly thought-through settlement that has been inadequately debated. Instead, she comes to the House, insults those of us who did participate in the debate, and gives us absolutely nothing in the way of argument, fact or consideration in the light of the many powerful points that have been made today. I hope that she will reflect on that and apologise—
Order. I am now going put the question.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31 (2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on introducing the first ever three year settlement for local government which will have provided an additional £8.6 billion for local government over three years, and continues to build upon the 39 per cent. real terms increase in funding provided to local government over the first 10 years of this Government; welcomes the four per cent. increase proposed for next year which, given the current level of inflation, would be the 13th straight year of above inflation increases; recognises the immense help this will give to local authorities throughout the country in dealing with difficult economic circumstances resulting from the global downturn; anticipates the lowest council tax increase for 16 years; rejects the calls from Her Majesty’s Opposition to cut the Department for Communities and Local Government’s budget by over £1 billion, which would lead either to cuts in local services or an increase in council tax bills of one per cent. to pay for the missing millions; and further welcomes the Government’s Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, which sets out its vision to reform the adult care and support system in England.
Business without Debate
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
We shall take motions 2 and 3 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Corporation Tax
That the draft Real Estate Investment Trusts (Prescribed Arrangements) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 5 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
Social Security
That the draft Social Security (Contributions Credits for Parents and Carers) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 12 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr. Mudie.)
Question agreed to.
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(1)),
Fisheries Catch Quotas for 2010
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14738/09 and Addendum 1, draft Council Regulation fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; supports the Government’s approach, which is in line with the principles enshrined in the Common Fisheries Policy, to seek adoption of measures which provide for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources, based on sound scientific advice and on the precautionary approach; and further accepts the Government’s overarching objective of seeking a balanced and fair settlement across all the negotiations which promotes the long-term sustainable exploitation of fish stocks in European waters, the economic viability of the UK fishing industry and the protection of vulnerable species.—(Mr. Mudie.)
Question agreed to.
Regional Select Committees (London)
Motion made,
That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr Andy Slaughter and Mr Andrew Pelling be members of the London Regional Select Committee.—(Mr. Mudie.)
Object.
Sittings of the House
Motion made,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
In paragraph (4) the word ‘eight’ shall be substituted for the word ‘thirteen’ in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word ‘fifth’ shall be substituted for the word ‘eighth’ in line 44;
(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
In paragraph (2) the word ‘fifth’ shall be substituted for the word ‘eighth’ in line 21; and
(3) Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.—(Mr. Mudie.)
Object.
We now come to petitions—
rose—
Order. I advise the House that time is crucial and I would like to explain how we plan to do this.
There are a large number of petitions to be presented and I hope that it will be of assistance to the House if I set out how we shall proceed.
Once the first petition relating to the Badman report has been read to the House, with its prayer, subsequent petitions on the same topic should not be read out in full. Members should give a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners, and state that the petition is “in the same terms”.
When a Member has presented a petition, she or he should proceed directly to the petitions bag at the back of the Chair. I will call the next Member immediately their predecessor has finished speaking.
In addition to petitions relating to the Badman report, I understand that there are two Members who wish to present petitions relating to Equitable Life. I trust that these will also be presented expeditiously.
At the expiry of half an hour no further petitions may be presented orally, but they may be placed in the petition bag and will be recorded as formally presented.
I call Mr. Graham Stuart.
Petitions
Badman Report (Beverley and Holderness)
This is an historic night. More than 70 right hon. and hon. Members will present petitions from more than 120 different constituencies opposing the compulsory registration and monitoring of home-educated children. The previous record for petitions presented in one day is 44 in March 2006.
If enacted, the Government’s proposals will, for the first time in our history, tear away from parents and give to the state the responsibility for a child’s education. I should like to thank the thousands of people who have signed the petitions, the co-ordinators and organisers, and those outside in candle-lit vigil earlier this evening.
I am grateful to the Speaker for allowing us half an hour to present the petitions. As has already been said, although I shall read out the full text, he has asked that others do not do so.
I wish to present a petition on behalf of those in the Beverley and Holderness constituency opposed to proposals to register and monitor home-educated children.
The petition states:
The Petition of persons resident in the Beverley and Holderness parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000490]
I also wish to present petitions in the same terms on behalf of the my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the hon. Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), and for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), the right hon. Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the hon. Members for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), for Battersea (Martin Linton), for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter), the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. Members for Eccles (Ian Stewart), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter).
Badman Report (North East Hertfordshire)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the parliamentary constituency of North East Hertfordshire and others,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000621]
Badman Report (Stratford-on-Avon)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Stratford-on-Avon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000594]
Badman Report (Winchester)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Winchester parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000489]
Badman Report (Daventry)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Daventry parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000588]
Badman Report (Spelthorne)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Spelthorne parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000488]
Badman Report (Skipton and Ripon)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Skipton and Ripon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000590]
Badman Report (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Ellesmere Port and Neston parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000598]
Badman Report (Norwich South)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Norwich South parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000494]
Badman Report (Newport West)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Newport West parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000555]
Badman Report (Colne Valley)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Colne Valley parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000591]
Badman Report (Finchley and Golders Green)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Finchley and Golders Green parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000620]
Badman Report (Hereford)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hereford parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000491]
Badman Report (Dudley North)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Dudley North parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000595]
Badman Report (Leeds North West)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Leeds North West parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000546]
Badman Report (Salisbury)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Salisbury parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000609]
Badman Report (Mid Sussex)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Mid Sussex parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000584]
Badman Report (Brighton Kemptown)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Brighton Kemptown parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000556]
Badman Report (South East Cambridgeshire)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the South East Cambridgeshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000557]
Badman Report (The Wrekin)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in The Wrekin parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000596]
Badman Report (Redcar)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Redcar parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000593]
Badman Report (Basildon)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Basildon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000592]
Badman Report (Mole Valley)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Mole Valley parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000600]
Badman Report (Torridge and West Devon)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Torridge and West Devon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000574]
Badman Report (Conwy)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Conwy parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000589]
Badman Report (Welwyn Hatfield)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000607]
Badman Report (Hartlepool)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hartlepool constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000611]
Badman Report (Beckenham)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Beckenham constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000610]
Badman Report (Dudley South)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Dudley South constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000605]
Badman Report (Wrexham)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wrexham constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000606]
Badman Report (Montgomeryshire)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Montgomeryshire constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000572]
Badman Report (Battersea)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Battersea constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000578]
Badman Report (Poplar and Canning Town)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Poplar and Canning Town constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000577]
Badman Report (City of Durham)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the City of Durham constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000573]
Badman Report (Stretford and Urmston)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Stretford and Urmston constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000585]
Badman Report (Crawley)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Crawley constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000582]
Badman Report (Reading West)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Reading West constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000608]
Badman Report (Torfaen)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Torfaen constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000604]
Badman Report (Eccles)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Eccles constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000597]
Badman Report (Stoke-on-Trent)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Stoke-on-Trent constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000575]
Badman Report (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000602]
Mr. Graham Stuart also presented petitions in the same terms on behalf of his hon. Friends the member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) [P000576]; for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) [P000619]; for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) [P000601]; for St. Albans (Anne Main) [P000496]; and the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean)[P000603].
Equitable Life (Ware)
I wish to present two petitions. The first is on behalf of constituents living in Ware regarding the Government’s response to the parliamentary ombudsman’s reports on Equitable Life.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the constituency of Hertford and Stortford in England regarding the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s reports on Equitable Life,
Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000450]
Badman Report (Hertford and Stortford)
My second petition is on behalf of my constituents across Hertford and Stortford concerning the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hertford and Stortford parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000451]
Badman Report (Hexham)
I present a petition on behalf of 29 constituents in the Hexham constituency on home education.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hexham parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000460]
Badman Report (Hemel Hempstead)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hemel Hempstead parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000439]
Badman Report (Ashford)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Ashford parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000464]
Badman Report (Brighton Pavilion)
I am proud to present a petition on behalf of 49 constituents in Brighton, Pavilion.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Brighton Pavilion parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000462]
Badman Report (Eddisbury)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of Eddisbury constituents. Five are numbered on the petition.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Eddisbury parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000471]
Badman Report (Guildford)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of approximately 70 residents of Guildford who are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Guildford parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000469]
Badman Report (Preseli Pembrokeshire)
I, too, should like to present a petition on behalf of 37 of my constituents on the subject of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents in the Preseli Pembrokeshire parliamentary constituency and others,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000468]
Badman Report (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000461]
Badman Report (Orpington)
My petition is on behalf of residents of Orpington and Bromley.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Orpington parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000473]
Badman Report (South West Bedfordshire)
I present a petition on behalf of 16 of my constituents in respect of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the South West Bedfordshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000477]
Badman Report (Wimbledon)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Wimbledon.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wimbledon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000475]
Badman Report (East Surrey)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of some 90 my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the East Surrey parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000478]
Equitable Life (Carshalton and Wallington)
I should like to present two petitions on behalf of residents of Carshalton and Wallington. The first is on Equitable Life.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of residents of the constituency of Carshalton and Wallington in the Surrey region of England regarding the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s reports on Equitable Life,
Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000482]
Badman Report (Carshalton and Wallington)
My second petition is on behalf of home educators in Carshalton and Wallington, on their concerns about the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Carshalton and Wallington parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc].
[P000481]
Badman Report (Huntingdon)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of eight constituents of the Huntingdon constituency regarding the recommendations made in the report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Huntingdon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000463]
Badman Report (Wellingborough)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Wellingborough.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wellingborough parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000484]
Badman Report (Woking)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of 75 residents of the Woking constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Woking parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000487]
Badman Report (Macclesfield)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the Macclesfield constituency, strongly opposed to the ill-judged recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000495]
Badman Report (Chipping Barnet)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of home educators in the Chipping Barnet constituency, expressing their concerns about the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Chipping Barnet parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000485]
Badman Report (Manchester, Withington)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 29 of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Manchester, Withington parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000492]
Badman Report (Cotswold)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 45 of my constituents, protesting at the proposals in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Cotswold parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000497]
Badman Report (North East Milton Keynes)
I would like to present two petitions. The first is on behalf of 25 of my own constituents. The second petition is on behalf of six constituents of Mr. Speaker.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the North East Milton Keynes parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000501]
Badman Report (Buckingham)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Buckingham parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000500]
Badman Report (Bromsgrove)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 35 home educators in the Bromsgrove constituency, opposed to the proposals in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Bromsgrove parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000503]
Badman Report (High Peak)
I have been asked to present a petition of 22 names on behalf of the constituents from High Peak.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the High Peak parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000506]
Badman Report (Walthamstow)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 70 constituents of Walthamstow on the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Walthamstow parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000505]
Badman Report (Fareham)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 23 of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Fareham parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000474]
Badman Report (South West Hertfordshire)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 53 of my constituents on the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the South West Hertfordshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000508]
Badman Report (Congleton)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of 29 residents of Congleton, opposing the proposals in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Congleton parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000507]
Badman Report (North East Hampshire)
This is a petition on behalf of 39 residents of North-East Hampshire.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the North East Hampshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000509]
Badman Report (Chesham and Amersham)
I would like to present a petition from Chesham and Amersham on behalf of approximately 100 constituents objecting to the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000504]
Badman Report (North Wiltshire)
I beg to present a petition on behalf of the people of North Wiltshire, a modest but important 15 of them, who are equally against the proposals in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the North Wiltshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000512]
Badman Report (Hazel Grove)
I am pleased to submit a petition on behalf of seven of my constituents in the same terms.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Hazel Grove parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000510]
Badman Report (Vauxhall)
I am very happy to present a petition on behalf of 39 of my constituents expressing their views on the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Vauxhall parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000528]
Badman Report (Enfield Southgate)
I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of 30 residents in Enfield, Southgate against the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Enfield Southgate parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000525]
Badman Report (Croydon Central)
In presenting a petition on behalf of 32 residents of Croydon, Central, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) on co-ordinating this mass presentation of petitions.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Croydon Central parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000519]
Badman Report (Regent’s Park and Kensington North)
I would like to present a petition of 17 home educators in Regent’s Park and Kensington, North.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Regents Park and Kensington North parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000527]
Badman Report (Wokingham)
I would like to present a petition against the Badman report on behalf of 41 names, presented to me by the constituents of Wokingham.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wokingham parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000521]
Badman Report (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
I am very happy to present a petition on behalf of 42 residents of the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, expressing their concerns about the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Berwick-upon-Tweed parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000522]
Badman Report (Bristol North-West)
As others have this evening, I would like to present a petition of 53 persons resident in the Bristol, North-West parliamentary constituency who are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Bristol North West parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000523]
Badman Report (Stroud)
I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of 147 of my constituents in the same vein as those of other Members.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Stroud parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000524]
Badman Report (North East Bedfordshire)
I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of a dozen good and true people of the glorious constituency of North-East Bedfordshire.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the North East Bedfordshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000541]
Badman Report (Crewe and Nantwich)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of 33 of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Crewe and Nantwich parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000540]
Badman Report (Tewkesbury)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 25 of my Tewkesbury constituents, who are concerned about recommendations in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Tewkesbury parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000542]
Badman Report (Torbay)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of 22 constituents and others from Torbay and south Devon.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Torbay parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000543]
Badman Report (Henley on Thames)
I would like to present a petition for 21 residents of Henley.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Henley on Thames parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000480]
Badman Report (Cities of London and Westminster)
I should like to present this petition on behalf of 55 people from the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Cities of London and Westminster parliamentary constituency and others,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000544]
Badman Report (Broxbourne)
I should like to present my petition on behalf of 29 people from the constituency of Broxbourne expressing their concerns about the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Broxbourne parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000545]
Badman Report (Witney)
I should like—[Interruption.]
Order. If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is not going to present a petition, perhaps he could either leave the Chamber or contain himself.
I should like to present a petition on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I associate myself with the terms of the petition.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Witney parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000547]
Badman Report (North Shropshire)
I would like to present a petition from a large number of constituents across North Shropshire, led by Mr. and Mrs. Hardy from Market Drayton, who are deeply concerned about the iniquitous recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the North Shropshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000538]
Badman Report (Newbury)
I should like to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of 18 constituents of the Newbury constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Newbury parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000472]
Badman Report (Wantage)
It is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of 36 constituents of mine—that is just the tip of the iceberg—objecting to the Badman report in the terms already put forward.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wantage parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000536]
Badman Report (Kettering)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of 22 residents of the Kettering constituency objecting in the same terms to the recommendations in the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Kettering parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000535]
Badman Report (Staffordshire Moorlands)
I am delighted to present a petition of 121 names from the constituency of Staffordshire, Moorlands protesting about the recommendations of the Badman report. I am delighted to have met several of the children involved when they presented the petition to me.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Staffordshire Moorlands parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000534]
Badman Report (Wycombe)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of five of my constituents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wycombe parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000533]
Badman Report (East Devon)
It is my honour to present a petition on behalf of 69 constituents of voicing their concerns about the contents of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the East Devon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000531]
Badman Report (Barnsley Central)
I should like to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of five of my constituents from Barnsley, Central.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Barnsley Central parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000550]
Badman Report (Richmond Park)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of eight of the constituents of Richmond Park.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Richmond Park parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000549]
Badman Report (Selly Oak)
I am presenting a petition on behalf of 37 households in the constituency of Birmingham, Selly Oak who are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Selly Oak parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000548]
Badman Report (Brent East)
I should like to present two petitions on behalf of 40 residents of Brent, East and Brent, South about the Badman report in the same terms as the previous petitioners.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Brent East parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000553]
Badman Report (Brent South)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Brent South parliamentary constituency and others,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000552]
Badman Report (Tunbridge Wells)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of 26 residents of the Tunbridge Wells constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Tunbridge Wells parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000551]
Badman Report (South Norfolk)
I should like to present in the same terms a petition on behalf of 87 constituents who are concerned about the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the South Norfolk parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000554]
Badman Report (Wealden)
I am delighted to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of 68 of my constituents who are similarly concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Wealden parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000499]
Badman Report (Leominster)
I should like to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the home educators of the Leominster constituency.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Leominster parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000569]
Badman Report (South Cambridgeshire)
I wish to present a petition on the Badman report from eight constituents in the same terms.
I would also like to present a petition relating to Equitable Life from four constituents, also in like terms to other Members.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the South Cambridgeshire parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000564]
Equitable Life (South Cambridgeshire)
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000563]
Badman Report (Southend West)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of concerned residents in Southend, West in the same terms as everyone else.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Southend West parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000571]
Badman Report (Havant)
I should like to present a petition on behalf of 15 home educators in Havant who are very concerned about the Government’s proposals in the Badman report on home education.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Havant parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000565]
Badman Report (Epping Forest)
I present a petition on behalf of 62 of the people who live in the Epping Forest constituency who are furious about the implications of the Badman report.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Epping Forest Parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000562]
Badman Report (Windsor)
I enthusiastically present a petition from 56 residents of the Windsor constituency concerning the Badman review.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Windsor parliamentary constituency and others,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000539]
Badman Report (Arundel)
I would like to present a petition on behalf of the home educators of Arundel and South Downs, who are as furious about this as those of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members in all parts of the House. I believe that the Government should take notice of the strength of feeling on this issue and the numbers of hon. Members who have presented petitions this evening.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in Arundel,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000599]
Flooding (West Cumbria)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Mudie.)
I begin by paying my own tribute to PC Bill Barker, who lost his life in the recent floods that affected west Cumbria. Few of us, if any, can know what the Barker family are going through right now. It is a difficult subject to talk about, but following PC Barker’s ultimate sacrifice and the incredibly moving farewell given to him by his family, Cumbria constabulary and the people of Egremont recently, he still occupies the thoughts of our whole community. He gave his life in saving the lives of others, and he did instinctively something that many of us either would not or could not do. His sacrifice provides a definition of heroism for all of us.
After all the tributes, given by people from the Prime Minister to the heir to the throne, it is the tributes of PC Barker’s wife, children and colleagues that dominate all others in our memory. He was a devoted father and husband and extraordinary friend, a supremely committed police officer and a man who elicited a rare combination of love and respect from those who knew him. He gave all that he had for the people he served and he will for ever be remembered by our community, and I should like to give him a simple thank you.
The Minister will know that the towns of Workington, Keswick and Cockermouth and the areas around them were most seriously affected by the recent flooding. In Workington and Cockermouth, we have seen devastation that is uncommon in west Cumbria, with streets swept away, homes ruined, businesses badly affected and lives placed on hold. As Alan Irving of the Whitehaven News observed, the whole community of west Cumbria came together in the wake of the floods. Rivalries were abandoned and the principles of community were reaffirmed across the whole of our county, with people in Whitehaven, Egremont and elsewhere showing incredible solidarity with their flooded neighbours.
On the Friday night after the floods hit, I stood in the Cockermouth sheep and wool centre helping as best I could, as deputy Regional Minister. I was moved to see my constituents fetching what food, clothing, toiletries and blankets they could to help the people of Cockermouth and Workington who were stationed there. They saw that as their job and duty, and it is typical of the people of west Cumbria that they should have done so.
There are many thank yous and stories from the days when the floods hit, and we will tell them for a long time, but I should like to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). As a Government Whip, he cannot take part in these debates, but his constituents know what he did on the Thursday night as the rain kept coming in, the work that he threw himself into on the Friday morning when the devastation became apparent, and up to this very day. I am proud to have him as a neighbour and to work alongside him on so many issues, and I am grateful that many of my friends and family who live in his constituency have him as their MP. We were in constant contact as the disaster unfolded, and I know what he did in the midst of that chaos. No one could have done more, from ensuring that some of his constituents had the rubbish skips that they needed to going himself to buy nappies for the child of a young mother who was in desperate need and did not know where else to turn.
The rapid attendance and full attention of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was incredibly important. Their solidarity with us in our time of crisis was unprompted and genuine, and I am grateful for the unprecedented suspension of the Bellwin scheme and the Government’s commitment to meeting 100 per cent. of the costs. The Government have confirmed that the rate of payment under the scheme, which provides financial support to local authorities in the event of an emergency, will be set at 100 per cent. in Cumbria rather than the standard 85 per cent. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that the costs of building the temporary bridge in Workington, the Barker crossing, will be met in full by the Department for Transport. I am told that the Department will also contribute other short-term resources to help the county implement the highways recovery plan, to ensure that all affected parts of the county are back in working order as soon as possible.
It must be said that Cumbria police, Cumbria county council, Cumbria fire and rescue service, the local NHS, the Environment Agency, animal welfare charities, BT, utility companies, our magnificent armed forces and many others acted in superb concert as the floods hit. Radio Cumbria became an irreplaceable service, almost immediately demonstrating the value and strength of public service broadcasting, which no other organisation could provide. Border Television was also very impressive.
As I went around the flooded areas, it became clear to me after a number of conversations, particularly in Keswick, just how vital the mountain rescue teams had been. They undoubtedly made the difference between life and death for many, and those incredible volunteers deserve our support and public money. In areas such as Cumbria, they are a vital emergency service. I have made the case before, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Workington, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—he is a passionate advocate for the mountain rescue teams in our county and it is a pleasure to see him here—for removing the taxes on mountain rescue teams in England. That case is irrefutable, and I urge the Government to do that in addition to reimbursing the cost of the damage and destroyed equipment that was caused by the floods.
Away from the heavily hit areas, many other towns and villages in west Cumbria were affected by the flooding. In some quarters, they have been referred to as the forgotten flooded—places such as Parton, Cleator, Holmrook, Bootle, Egremont, Lorton and elsewhere. Those areas thankfully did not witness the same devastation as Workington and Cockermouth, but they continue to endure real suffering that is equally deserving of Government resources and support, which must be forthcoming. I have seen the effects of the flooding on those communities for myself. None must be left behind. Ultimately, the costs of recovery are not yet fully known, and it is going to take more and not less public money to put things right.
At this point, I pay a special tribute to a Copeland borough councillor, David Banks. When the banks of the River Ehen burst and houses were being flooded, he went to the aid of some elderly people in his patch. He actually rebuilt—or tried to rebuild—a river bank with stones with his bare hands as the rain kept coming. That is the kind of people we are in west Cumbria, and the kind of public servants we need.
As the people of Parton taught me four years ago, it takes only a little bit of water to cause a flood and to have a huge impact on the life of a family. A foot of water can ruin a home and destroy treasured and irreplaceable possessions such as invaluable photographs and mementos of children and loved ones. Floods take away so much that can never be replaced.
Flooding is one of the most difficult issues facing the nation. It is likely to happen more, not less—we saw flooding in Carlisle in 2005—and we need to be able to meet the practical and policy challenges it poses, and I shall come soon to what those solutions may be very soon. After the media circus has moved on, as it now has, and when the drama has passed, we are left dealing with the reconstruction, and I seek assurance tonight that the solidarity and support of the Government will remain with the people of west Cumbria and the communities I have spoken about for as long as we need it. To put it bluntly, first, we must win the peace as well as the war.
Secondly, we need to look hard at the insurance industry in this country and the practices it deploys in such events. Tonight is not a night to point the finger of blame, but it is an opportunity to seek to further our understanding of what happens in the event of flooding. In particular, I hope the Government will help local businesses to derive at least some benefit from natural disasters such as those we have witnessed recently in west Cumbria.
I endorse everything the hon. Gentleman says, including his support for the emergency services and his call for infrastructure support for the county. Will he comment briefly on the need for Government support for the tourism industry across Cumbria? Quite understandably, the message was put out that Cumbria was closed for business and off limits. Many parts of the tourism industry have seen a drop in their income in the past two or three weeks of up to 70 per cent., but were not flooded. Does he agree that some Government money needs to go into promoting the tourism industry across Cumbria, so that it too can recover quickly?
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I must say that one reason why we brought him very quickly into the Regional Minister’s council was that he is such a passionate and effective advocate for the people he represents in this place. He made his point as effectively in the council as he makes it tonight, and I agree with him. I understand the Secretary of State from the relevant Department will be visiting Cumbria on Thursday. Like the hon. Gentleman, I will be putting that case to the Secretary of State, and I thank him for making it tonight.
We must look at the insurance industry and the practices involved, and ensure that local businesses can benefit from natural disasters such as those we have seen and experienced. That means we must pressurise insurance companies to prioritise local businesses and trades when insurance-funded reconstruction work is necessary. A move such as this would not only mean that businesses could start work quickly—delay is often a critical factor—but would help to boost local economies that have been badly harmed by the flooding. We need to look at changing the current system. Experience in Carlisle has shown us—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle for sharing his experience with us—that there was a real appetite for local, accountable, contactable building companies, rather than ones that appear out of nowhere overnight and then disappear without a trace. Some specialist work will need to be undertaken by specialist companies, but most of it can be undertaken by local providers. In areas of flood recovery, the local economy is often badly hit, and this is one way in which the economy can be helped to recover quickly. If insurers will not change their arrangements, the Government should look at changing those arrangements for them.
Thirdly, we need to examine our local coastal and river flood defences and improve them where necessary, as quickly as possible. West Cumbria clearly requires new flood defence measures similar to those in place in Carlisle, which worked so well as the rains hit. We need to make sure that the necessary measures are in place in waterways, roads and rivers such as the Ehen, the Irt and the Greta so that the chances of the structural chaos caused by such rainfall ever happening again are reduced significantly. Sadly, they can never be eliminated completely.
Fourthly, our road network requires serious attention, particularly the A66 and the A595. The A595 south of Calderbridge should never have been de-trunked. My community has never accepted this decision and the assumptions upon which this decision was made are now redundant given the worsening weather conditions and the fact that west Cumbria is set to once again become an international centre of excellence for the nuclear industry. Fifthly, our farmers need real help, not just now, but in the future, and I cannot stress that enough. Sixthly, we must assess what has happened to our water drainage systems since privatisation. We must determine accountability and responsibility and we must allocate resources where necessary to ensure that the network in place is sufficient to cope with events such as this, insofar as that is possible.
None of these things will happen overnight, but I know that they are necessary, I trust that the Government share our understanding of these needs and I trust that we can now begin the reconstruction effort apace. As a proud west Cumbrian, I know that we will come through this stronger and better equipped for the future. I stress that Cumbria is well and truly open for business—our hotels, hostelries and tourist attractions—and there is no finer place to be in the winter, summer, spring or autumn than Cumbria and west Cumbria in particular. I urge people to come and spend their Christmas holidays there.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing this timely debate on an important subject. I thank him for the role that he played as deputy Regional Minister for the North West. I am also grateful to other hon. Members representing the area for their work in supporting the families, businesses and communities that were and still are affected so deeply. I endorse the remarks that he made about our hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and other MPs and their tireless work during that time, and I join him in the tribute that he paid to PC Bill Barker. I extend my sympathy—and, I am sure, that of the whole House—to PC Barker’s family and friends.
It is worth recalling the sheer scale of the traumatic weather incident that befell the people of Cumbria in those few days. The Met Office tells us that, in Cumbria, 372.4 mm of rain fell at Seathwaite and 361.4 mm of rain fell at Honister between 8 am on Wednesday 18 November and 4 am on Friday 20 November. Provisionally, the 24-hour total at Seathwaite of 314.4 mm is a UK record for a single location in any given 24-hour period.
Thanks to the expertise of the Met Office, we could see that severe weather was coming that week. On Monday 16 November, the Met Office issued an advisory notice of severe weather in western Britain for Thursday 19 November. That was upgraded on Tuesday 17 November to an early warning of severe weather for parts of north-west England and south-west Scotland. That too was upgraded on Wednesday 18 November to an early warning of extreme weather in Cumbria and south-west Scotland.
In addition to good forecasting, we had for the first time during a major flooding incident the expertise and experience of the new flood forecasting centre, which was established by the Government in April. The centre provides a unique service, with Met Office forecasters and Environment Agency hydrologists working side-by-side and giving emergency responders a longer lead-time to prepare for and respond to flooding. Their work was quite staggering. I was there in advance of the extreme weather that hit and saw the collaborative work done and the value that it added to accurate and timely forecasting, enabling the centre to send out advance flood warnings and to respond on the ground well in advance. It played a significant role.
The centre also played an important role in providing emergency responders with early guidance on the rainfall forecast, as well as expert advice on the flood risk impacts. Indeed, 36 hours before the flooding occurred, the flood forecasting centre indicated a high risk of significant property flooding and extreme danger to life in Cumbria via its flood guidance statement and through rolling telephone conferences.
Of course, we recognise that, despite good preparation by government, the many agencies involved and the responders on the ground, such severe weather brings tragedy. As we have said, we all mourn the loss of PC Bill Barker, whom the Prime Minister rightly described as a very heroic and brave man. It is fitting that the new footbridge in Workington has PC Barker’s name forever attached to it.
I know that we have done so before in the House, but it would be wrong not to say again how indebted we are to the many individuals and organisations—too many to go through again—that showed such heroism, bravery, care and consideration for those whose lives, homes and businesses were threatened by the floods. All who were involved in the emergency response deserve the highest praise. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland rightly highlighting the role of the mountain rescue teams. I am sure that his words will have been heard and noted by other Ministers.
Attention is now rightly focused on helping the affected communities to return to normal as quickly as possible. That work involves many organisations, locally, regionally and nationally. One of the great benefits of the response in those difficult times was the joined-up work across government, agencies and volunteers on the ground. Cumbria county council has put in place local recovery arrangements and has been using the recovery plan developed following the Carlisle floods in 2005. A recovery co-ordinating group has been set up and is meeting regularly. It involves the county council, the three district councils most directly affected—Allerdale, Copeland and South Lakeland—the Health Protection Agency, the Environment Agency, the Government office, the police and the chairs of the sub-groups covering business and economic recovery, health and welfare, environment and infrastructure. We have learned from what has gone before and tried to make our preparations for rescue and recovery far better.
My hon. Friend is rightly keen to ensure that Cumbria benefits from the significant investment that the Government have made, and are making, in managing flood risks. As he will know, spending across government has doubled over the past 10 years, and we are investing a record £2.15 billion over the current three-year spending period. In fact, one of the signal successes in traditional river defences was the result of investing more than £30 million in the Carlisle defences. Those defences held. I pay tribute to the contractors commissioned by the Environment Agency to fill in the remaining 20 per cent. at short notice and in desperate circumstances. Those temporary infills held and saved many homes and possibly lives.
One of the homes that they saved that night was mine. I and my neighbours were out until 2 o’clock in the morning working with the contractors, who worked for 24 hours non-stop. To be honest, we had very little help from the district council, but with the contractors’ help we managed to save not only the houses, but the biscuit factory that employs 1,200 people.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Heroic efforts were made by all concerned to avoid the worst. The impact could have been far worse than what we saw, bad as that was.
Cockermouth, Keswick and Ulverston have all benefited from investment and more is planned. In Keswick, for example, the Environment Agency has done a study to justify improvement works and has allocated funding to design works in 2010-11 for construction at an estimated cost of £5 million. For Ulverston, funding has been allocated in 2010-11 to develop a scheme for Dragley beck, which is programmed for construction in 2011-12 at a cost of £2 million. That project would raise the existing one-in-20-year standard of flood protection to one in 70 years. For Cockermouth, indicative funding is in place to begin studying a potential scheme in 2012-13.
We have already seen what good investment can achieve in places such as Carlisle, where some 3,000 properties were saved from flooding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said. In Appleby, a flood action group was set up in 2005. The residents of The Sands, which has no formal flood defences, have taken advantage of the DEFRA property-level flood resilience grant scheme to install flood-resilient and resistance measures on their individual properties, the cost of which averages out at about £2,000 a property. Forty-six properties were protected from flooding by those simple, easy and cost-effective measures.
We need to tackle the problem at all levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has rightly made it clear that we do not focus just on the larger communities in west Cumbria. There is a long list of projects in Cumbria for which the Environment Agency has identified an indicative allocation of expenditure. In his constituency, they include projects at Nor beck in Cleator moor, Skirting beck, Low Mill and the River Ehen in Egremont. The provision of community flood defences in those locations is subject to the necessary project appraisal, as always, to find solutions that are technically, economically and socially acceptable.
During my time in this place I have found that one of the most important things about flooding is to listen to those who are repeatedly affected by it. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the relevant Departments and the Environment Agency will listen to the representations that I make on behalf of the various flood action groups, such as Keswick flood action group and Parton flood action group? People who have experienced flooding know where it strikes and what its effects are. That is important.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the lessons that we have learnt from previous flooding incidents is about the need to listen to people on the ground who have been affected. I can give that commitment to him as a constituency MP and in his role as the deputy Minister for the North West, and to other Members who are affected. We are keen to keep talking, as the weeks and months roll by, about what the experience has been and what we can learn. Even though the response on this occasion was far better than what we saw before, as I have highlighted and as is generally accepted, I have no doubt that there are lessons to be learned. We need to get better every time.
Let me talk about the fairly sizeable package of support that is now being made available in various areas. The Department for Transport will fund the bridge and road repairs, in line with its emergency funding scheme. The £1 million community recovery fund announced by the Prime Minister and supplied and managed by the Department for Communities and Local Government will be for local authorities to use as they see fit in assisting those local residents and businesses affected. The North West Development Agency opened its £1 million flood recovery grant scheme on Wednesday 25 November. The NDWA is also investing in a further £100,000 to push the message that Cumbria is ready to welcome visitors after the floods.
The Communities and Local Government Secretary has announced that the Bellwin scheme for local authorities for emergency clear-up costs and temporary accommodation will be set at 100 per cent. above threshold, rather than 85 per cent. Department for Work and Pensions’ social fund community care grants are available for people on qualifying benefits to meet the cost of replacing essential household items, and crisis loans are also available. I pay tribute to the local community fund that has been organised by volunteer groups on the ground. It is absolutely astonishing how they have been able to mobilise that charitable support in such a short time, and they deserve support.
My hon. Friend referred to the use of local building contractors, which is a salient point. They can be used to carry out the drying and repair of buildings affected by the flooding. I am glad to say that this matter has been taken up by the county council and others, including Ministers, and by the Association of British Insurers, whose representatives I have met in the past few days. We are staying engaged with the ABI, and—to give credit where it is due—it is fair to say that it has been quick to respond to events by issuing advice to people who have suffered flood damage. The association has urged people to contact their insurers as soon as possible and confirmed that the first priority for insurers must be to ensure that every claim is dealt with as quickly as possible and do everything that they can to help customers to recover.
In selecting builders, insurance companies will, of course, want to know that they have the capability and expertise to provide what is needed to do the job right. They have panels of specialist builders to enable them to react quickly to any event—as they conspicuously did after previous flood events. I assure my hon. Friend that some on those panels will be undoubtedly drawn from local contractors, or will use subcontracted labour within the area. At this stage in the recovery process, insurers are using specialist drying-out and stripping-out contractors, and I understand that some of them are local.
My hon. Friend and other MPs representing the area have mentioned the importance of having some choice in these matters. In the longer term, and when rebuilding starts, it will be open to those affected to choose their own builders, and insurance companies will manage them through the process. Should they do that, some of the risk will ultimately fall on the policyholder, because quality and price cannot be guaranteed in the same way. It is therefore very important that people get the right builders in, but having that choice is important.
The Government have been working hard and consistently to provide better, more sustainable management of flood risk for people, homes and businesses. We have been responding vigorously to Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations arising from the 2007 floods, not least through the Flood and Water Management Bill that will shortly come before the House. In relation to streamlining and accountability, the Bill will give the authorities that manage flood risk better powers to do so, putting local authorities in charge of dealing with local flood risk and the Environment Agency in clear charge of overseeing flooding and coastal erosion nationally. That clarity is important, and it flows from Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations. However, it will not remove the need for local authorities and the Environment Agency to work closely together on the ground. The events in Cumbria signally demonstrate how effective such joined-up working can be in protecting livelihoods and property.
The rainfall and the resulting flooding in Cumbria last month were an extreme event, but none of us can be in any doubt that we will face similar challenges in the future. The latest UK climate projections that the Government published in June this year suggest that winter rainfall totals are likely to increase by 20 to 30 per cent. for much of England and Wales. While we cannot say that this event was caused by climate change, we can say with certainty that such events are consistent with the predictions for climate change and are going to occur more frequently, so we must learn the lessons.
We must also continue to build on the community-based and multi-agency approach to planning for, responding to and recovering from flooding events. The people of west Cumbria, and the many organisations that helped them, have done a great deal to show us just what can be achieved by pulling together.
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).