17/12/2015 House of Commons

present of our forces in Syria and Iraq is to restore peace to people

who are wandering around a region desperately looking for a home. We

need them to be able to go back to their own homes.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

I believe that our gloriously diverse country will prosper more of

the district, counties, towns, and cities that make it up, havd more

power. If you accept that it follows that you must believe counchls to be

capable of exercising that power. Over the last five years cotncils

have shown a great responsibility, when local authorities accotnt for a

quarter of public spending ht was always the case they would have to

carry their share of reducing the largest deficit in peacetimd

history. Not only have they done so but public satisfaction with their

services has been maintained or improved. I would like to thank the

staff involved with the recdnt flux, their commitment to their rdsidence

is exemplary. But I cannot credit councils with acumen and thdn deny

them can do. More savings nded to be made as we finish the job of

eliminating the deficit. I have listened carefully to counchls as I

prepare this settlement. Cotncils ask for the right to spend locally

what they raise locally. Thdy have asked for help adult social care

costs and expenditure savings are required that recognise what has

already been achieved by local government. They want to sed a

recognition of the higher costs of providing services to sparsdly

populated rural areas. They want to see encouragement for cost-saving

innovation, rewards for new homes, complete transparency regards

resource allocation and a move you and one year at a time budgdting.

This provisional settlement meet all of these objectives. Local

government will be transforled, in 2010 councils were 80% dependent on

central government grants. ( to correctly they will be 100% funded

by council tax, business rates, and other local revenues -- by 2020 they

will be. It forges the necessary links between local business and

civic successes. To support this further we will grow the local

growth fund to 12 early in pounds by 2021. A conservative revolution

transforming overcentralised written into one of the most decentralised

countries in the world. Authorities can also spend 100% of capital

receipts from asset sales to fund the cost saving reforms and we will

publish guidance to local authorities in this matter. The

spending review set out that based on forecasts of local government

spending would be slightly higher in 2019-20 than 2015-16. The core

spending power for councils will be virtually unchanged. 44.3 bhllion in

2019-20. In real terms requhres a savings of 6.7% over the period

compared with 14% required `t the beginning of the spending rdview

2010. The unanimous view across local government is that thd biggest

cost pressure is care for otr growing elderly population.

In September, county councils wrote to me suggesting this would would

require an extra 2.9 billion by 2019. Social care Council t`x

precept was proposed, guaranteed to be spent on social care, eqtivalent

to ?23 per year for an aver`ge home. We will ensure the precept hs

transparently itemised on residents's bills. For some

councils, the precept will not raise enough to meet growing costs. We

announced our fund to support councils in working with thdir local

providers. We recognise that in the distribution of resources the

particular needs of councils with social care responsibilities are

recognised. Local government asked for ?2.9 billion by 2020 as a

contribution to costs of social care.

I applaud the maturity of local government as a whole in telling me

they accept this prioritisation implies those councils with social

care responsibilities should have relatively more resources than those

that don't have them. Some District Council is, those with low council

tax pieces or serving rural areas, face particular pressures.

Those who have spent more in the past are allowed to spend more now.

I will increase support for the most sparsely populated rural aerials by

more than quadruple in delivery from 15.5 million this year to 64

million, by which time when 100 business rate attention has been

achieved, we can consider what further protection is due. H will

protect in real terms funding for authorities to work as statttory

consultations regarding drahnage systems. I can announce tod`y we

will extend the bonus indefhnitely. With some changes which I al

consulting on. Savings will be retained by local government to

contribute to social care. Only a small proportion of funding will

come from central government so we require transparency. I havd noted

the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee about previous inclusions

of the existence of better care funds and the public health fund in

spending plans. Additionallx, in all of the figures in the settldment, I

have chosen to understate the maximum resources available to

councils. In line with the OBR, I assume councils will increase

council tax in line with inflation, rather than the referendum threshold

of 2%. Councils will increase bills by less than their full enthtlement.

Had I assumed the maximum fhgure, the main reason councils kedp

reserves is as a buffer frol unpredictable year-to-year budgets.

For generations, my predecessors have been told the greater certainty

about their income over the medium term would allow them to organise

more efficiently and strategically and to put some of those safety net

reserves to more productive use In this settlement, I do something that

local government leaders have yearned for. For the first time

ever, I offer a guaranteed budget to every council which desires one and

can demonstrate efficiency savings for next year and every year of this

Parliament. A four-year budget to give certainty and confidence. A

settlement that maintains the financial resources available to

councils in 2020 at around the same level as they are today, by giving

incentives to local governmdnt to make significant savings. A

settlement that direct ?3.5 billion to care for elderly citizens. A

historic settlement that makes local councils and trouble to loc`l

people. I commend this to the House. I am grateful for advance notice of

the statement. Since his prddecessor really turned up for these occasions

in person, it is particularly welcome to see a smile. We join him

indirectly paying tribute to local councils understaffed. The statement

contains a number of details to which we should return. Sadly the

central message is the same as always. Cuts, cuts and more cuts. He

admits to a cached decrease of 200 billion between now and 2020, but he

forgets to say that the addhtional spending pressure amounts to at

least ?6.3 billion, according to the L this is the skill of the cuts we

announce to our communities. What about demographic change? More

people need support than evdr before. What about the additional

statutory duties he has givdn to local government. Home have all

these been paid for? This sdttlement is massively reduces the central

government grant to local government. Does he agree whth the

House of Commons library who calculated that even if central

government was maintaining hts present level, throughout the whole

of this Parliament the government would still overall run a strplus on

the revenue account of over ?4 billion a year in 2020. Is ht not

the truth that these cuts are political choice made of nulber 11,

rather than economic necesshty? Does the honourable gentleman agree with

his Conservative colleague, chair of the LGA, who says it is wrong that

services to our local communities rely on which our communitids rely

on Morpheus deeper cuts than the rest of the public sector ydt again.

Local taxpayers to be left to pick up the bill for new governmdnt

policies without additional funding. Even of councils stop filling in

potholes, maintaining parks, closing libraries and turning off

streetlights, they would sthll not have saved enough money to plug the

financial Blackall which thdy will face by 2020. That is a conservative

leader of the LGA. Does he think anyone is filled when the government

acts in this week? Is it a false economy to cut council fundhng for

adult social care and public health? What is his estimate of the impact

of these local government ctts on the NHS? Isn't it obvious that if

there is less care and the community and less preventative action by

councils, there will be mord pressure on acute provision within

the NHS? Isn't all of this the worst kind of Osbourne economics? Shot

termist and tactical rather than strategical and long-term? What

about the Northern Powerhouse? Does he agree that cuts in local councils

and the North amounts to tens of millions of pounds more than the

small amount that is being tsed to create the Powerhouse. What is his

estimate of the quantity of reserves? In any event, is ht not

the case that the reserves or often built up for asset sales and should

not generally be used to prop up day-to-day spending. The st`tement

today mentions business ratds. Of course it is right and we wdlcome

the fact this money should be directed into Town Hall budgets The

questioners, how will the btsiness rate be distributed, given the fact

this income is notoriously tneven. Will he see now how he intends to

make an equitable distributhon of those funds? On business rates, does

he accept the wise words of the IFF who said if you're somewherd like

Westminster it is easy to whn from the system. Than if you are from

somewhere like Wolverhampton. Turning to another matter, what

estimate does he make of thd impact on different councils of thhs

assessment? Councils have lost out in the past. Doesn't some of the

announcement today met at worst Local authorities in deprivdd areas

have seen cuts of ?220 per head compared to ?40 per head in more

affluent areas. He was not the author of the formula. Will he

examine the injustice in thd way the money is distributed? Finally, the

country needs a new democratic settlement. Locally account`ble

councils need to be the heart of a new settlement. The recent floods

shall councils and their employers at the best. We welcome multi-year

funding which the Minister just talked about. Which we proposed in

the citizen devolution Bill. Which they voted against. Will he come

back to the House with more details on this matter as soon as possible?

The Minister pays lip service to local government Renaissancd.

Doesn't this announcement whth topline cuts of billions of pounds

falling invariably on the poorest areas mean this government hs

unlikely to deliver the Ren`issance required for our country. I will be

charitable to the honourabld gentleman in the spirit of

Christmas. I think he had written his response before she had heard

the statement. So far from this being a tactical settlement as he

puts it, there could be nothing more strategic than a settlement for the

first time ever which gives what local council leaders have long

called for, the certainty of a four-year funding settlement,

previously denied them and give them the chance to manage their `ffairs

in exactly the way they want to As he might have expected from our

previous exchanges, during the last few months, I have spent a lot of

time with local government leaders are listening to them as to what are

the most important pressures and what are the most important concerns

that they want to see reflected The reflected very clearly that adult

social care, funding adult social care, was the main priority for all

kinds of councils. We have delivered the extra resources we have promised

to do that in this settlement. And the distribution between authorities

reflects something that I think the honourable gentleman would give

credit for. When it comes to the overall settlement, I think you

authorities, even a few months ago, would have expected the Comlunities

Secretary would be able to `nnounce in effect a flat cash settldment for

local government with a whole of the spending the -- spending review

period. When it comes to reserves that the honourable gentlem`n

mentions, reserves have increased from 13 billion to 22.5 billion 71%

increase. We don't assume in this settlement that they are gohng to

make use of them, but they now have the opportunity to do so because of

the four-year settlement th`t we have ranted them. He mentions the

head of the LGA. I have met all of the leading groups in the LGA,

including his Labour colleagues that the... I have met government

leaders of all sorts. Lord Porter says this is a fair financi`l

settlement. He says this addresses concerns put to me over the last few

years. If I could just refer to the expectations and advice that we had

from the front bench opposite, when we had the financial statemdnt last

year, the previous Shadow Sdcretary of State said that what councils

needed was help with longer,term funding settlements so they can plan

to protect services. We want to see more devolution of power silicon

work with other public servhces locally to get the most out of

public funding and opera is that needed more than social card. That

is what we deliver in the spending review settlement.

Multi-year settlements are being counted for for many years, and

devolution of power through localisation of income, accountable

to electors and not to Whitdhall. I wish a happy Christmas to yourself

and other members. I would like to wish a happy Christmas to the

opposition front bench but they look as flat as a souffle that h`s gone

off, so we needn't bother. H congratulate my right honourable

friend and having delivered what is frankly the most imaginativd local

government settlement I havd heard in my time on the House, including

those I delivered myself. Hd has listened to local government, I

particularly welcome the reflection he has made upon the pressures of

adult social care. Can he ilpressed the same can-do attitude on my local

authority and all those people is reflected in the health sector as

well? We need the drive of local governor and and the accountability

of local government to take those partnerships forward.

My honourable friend is absolutely right. He made an enormous

contribution during his timd as a minister in the department, to

reforming and driving forward the decentralisation. I can confirm that

part of the money that we h`ve secured for the better care fund is

for local authorities and for the NHS to work closely together, to

recognise that our elderly people, whether care for in hospitals or

care homes, our joint responsibility. This providds an

opportunity for councils to work together in the interests of a

growing elderly population. At least there is some charhty on

this side of the chamber, I will what the Secretary of State has said

about the better care fund, and also about the settlement. We max have

disagreement about the detahls but the principle is correct. C`n I draw

his attention to the 6% real cuts figure was to mark that does not

take account of the increashng demand of the growing number of

elderly nor of the extra costs imposed to local government by

specific policies. I draw hhs attention to two things, thd

increase in the minimum wagd having a particular impact on the cost of

social care, and also the pdnsion changes, having a cost in n`tional

insurance. Will the governmdnt recognise those as new rodents? Or

does he recognise they will be cuts to local government services that

are not recognised in his statement? -- new burdens. I am grateftl that

his celebrity and its predecessors have long called for four ydt

settlements and the devoluthon of powers. We have made a choice advice

by local government in what is a flat cash settlement over the

spending review period to prioritise adult social care. When I t`lked

about candour at the beginnhng of my statement, of course that mdans that

authorities need to continud to make savings in areas outside of those

errors that we have provided extra funds for. That is accepted and

understood. We have also agreed that it should be at a lower ratd than

was necessary at the beginnhng of the previous parliament. I think

local councils were on that. The Conservative control of

Leicestershire County Counchl is one of the best in the country but its

funding is the worst. I am sure that his innovative statement today will

be welcomed in the county, not least because it gives additional

freedoms. And in what is now world famous market Bosworth, since the

internment of Richard III, xou can ask anyone in another country, the

initiatives for rural areas will be very much welcome and a feeling that

they have been neglected. Btt will he explained more about how this

will affect hard-pressed Leicestershire, which is to refit

but his meeting targets and social care. I join in history of

Leicestershire County Counchl. They were one of the councils th`t made

representations because of substantial social care costs that

what recognise. As a result of the settlement proposed over thd course

of the spending review period by 201920 there will be an increase in

resources available to Leicestershire of 3.5%.

I'm sure council like Leicestershire will make great use of it bdnefit of

elderly constituents. Billington is rich in talent but one of the

poorest constituencies in England. In the city of Birmingham, suffering

the biggest cuts in local government story. The consequences for the city

will be very serious. The cttting of school crossing patrols, for

vulnerable families with thd end of home start at 25 years, and for

those of vulnerable and dis`bled people in need of social care. My

experience is that the Secrdtary of State is a decent man. He s`id today

he is prepared to listen. Whll you be to meet with me and my colleagues

to hear the case for Birmingham A fair deal for Birmingham. I am

always delighted to me the honourable gentleman and his

colleagues. My right honour`ble friend, the member for Sutton

Coldfield, who shares his great commitment to that great city, of

course I will, and one of the consequences of this spending review

is that we do recognise the increased cost that social service

authorities like Birmingham face. I can tell him that at the end of the

spending review period, 2018-20 the city of Birmingham will havd a

spending power per dwelling of 200 more than the national aver`ge.

Recognising some of the pressures he mentions.

Can the Minister not penalised councils who are already very

efficient and in the 3.5 million made available for social c`re can

he please take into account Richmond Council, because we are effhcient,

but we have great needs, because there's a disproportionate number

over 65 is living alone, will he please meet with me and council

leaders to discuss the next year's budget? Up to Christmas my

colleagues and I will be busy meeting many honourable members but

I am certainly happy to meet my honourable friend and I pay tribute

to the efficiency of Richmond-upon-Thames Borough

Council. It is right that wd recognise there are two

contributions here, the precept that has been proposed, and the `ddition

to the better care funds. They will be allocated and complement three

ways, which is what local governor leaders across the country have

recommended. A political st`tement dressed up as localism. Will he and

knowledge of the distributional effect of what he proposes leans

that every single local authority in north-east of England gives us out?

And will he save the intervdntion that has announced on social care to

cover children in care as wdll as adults? I know the right honourable

gentleman must have second sight to know the impact before he h`s even

had the chance to look at the figures for the particular

authorities. Of course by prioritising social care th`t

directs resources to those authorities with responsibility for

children as well as adults `nd social services. So compared to what

would have happened in the steady state, as it were, those

authorities, including his own in Newcastle upon Tyne, would benefit.

Conservative lead Hertfordshire County Council and St Albans

district councils are the most efficient councils in the country,

however they face a very large problem, namely sinkholes, will

recognition be taken of those special events, like the Culbria

floods, cause this is a big deal in St Albans, where we need a

significant commitment to elergency repairs in the area? I do understand

that every local authority has its unique circumstances, it's tnique

treasures. Part of the responsibility of local govdrnment

is to anticipate and prepard for them. In the course of the

consultation on the settlemdnt we would be very happy to meet with her

to understand the particular circumstances.

I don't know what happens in Tunbridge Wells but can I tdll the

Minister that in the real world in the Walsall Borough, hardly a week

goes by without news of further cuts to essential services and

facilities? Or that those sdrvices will be abolished altogether. Even

the Conservative council le`der has made it known how concerned he is at

the impact these cuts are m`king in the borough. Would it not bd wise to

understand that in areas of deprivation and low income ht is

absolutely essential that a different direction of policy is

taken by the government othdrwise it is certainly not a Merry Christmas

or a happy New Year for the people who are most vulnerable to cuts

I have some news that might share of the honourable gentleman, and it

looks like he might need it. -- share. In Walsall, by 2020, as a

result of the settlement recognising as I have said pressure on

authorities with social card responsibilities, the resources

available to its council in Walsall will increase by 1.5% per ydar. A

further 1% of the period. Ydsterday along with my honourable frhend from

the reassignment of the leaders from East Sussex County Council to

discuss budget plans and prhorities. They will welcome the announcement

today focused on longer-terl funding and the recognition but on rule

councils. East Sussex has the highest number of 85-year-olds in

any county in the country and I believe that my constituencx has the

highest amount of 85 runs in the country. Can the Secretary of State

give my council further confirmation that it has taken into accotnt the

different demands of the local authorities in terms of adult social

care? I know my honourable friend's

constituency very well, she is my neighbour. I do understand the

pressures on adult social c`re, on elderly people, they are

significant. She will be pldased to know that in East Sussex, bx 20 0

the resources available to the county council will increasd by 1%.

My local authority is facing cuts of ?77 million mixture and there will

be precious little left to hnvest back into social care costs. -- next

year. If my councils to meet the growing demands in social c`re it

needs to be able to make sure that extra funds are made available from

the savings it can make. Is the Secretary of State called that the

funds he has made available means people will not miss out on social

care over the next five years? These are decisions with local

council but what we have earned the settlement is prioritised those

council that have social care responsible did. It is also the case

that in his own Borough the reserves his council holds an early one fifth

of ?1 billion. They can makd and contribute themselves to medting

those costs. The Secretary of State is absent the

right that local councils are an struggle to local people. In terms

of devolution, as he is aware, there is a lively debate in Yorkshire

between a west Yorkshire model and a great Yorkshire model. I wonder

whether he can update the House on whether he sees a deal eventually

been done. I am very keen to see a deal in

Yorkshire, I know that disctssions are at an advanced stage. I don t

think it's good to be an early Christmas present. But I have an

early in the New Year with the people look tawdry will tod`y: I was

in resources that are proper fraud evolution problem.

Thank you for calling the e`rlier. I was in after the start of the

statement and I did not desdrve to be called in that way. I ask the

Minister, in Walsall South, libraries are closing, therd is a

disproportionate cut to the public health budget, and it is tickled to

recruit and retain social workers. -- tickled. Can he confirm that out

of the settlement he has just announced that all the servhces will

be protected. There will be no need for the cut? Play model of candour

his example should be imitated by all members of the House.

I'm very happy to answer thd honourable lady. As I said ly

honourable friend the resources available to also increased by %.

By 2020. As is of my statemdnt savings will continue to be made in

other areas. Right across local government. That is for the councils

themselves to make those decisions. But they have the ability now, with

for your budgets, the certahnty of for your budget, and the possibility

of reform within this for ydars to make savings, too protectivd

services, and make sure that elderly and vulnerable people will look

after. Can I welcome the statement today?

It will increase the amount per head from ?1.10 to ?5 50 from central

government grant. We would like to discuss the next steps to ensure

that there is a fear settlelent from rural and urban constituenches. I

prayed tribute to Maribor friend who has been a persistent and effective

campaigner to draw attention to the special costs that the most sparse

rural authorities face in providing services. We have gone a long way

based on the evidence we have seen to address those needs. I al my

friends will be happy to medt him and colleagues to discuss how that

will work out in practice. Does the Secretary of State accept the

paradox of the statement exdmplified by Man City councillors had a

reduction of nearly 50% in hts settled government grants and is

2010 is a massive increase hn responsibilities, to put helming

adult social care can be picked up by a 2% increase in council tax is

obviously a nonsense. He re`lises I'm sure to resolve his dildmma that

he should enable as every other western democracy has enabld those

local authorities throughout the whole of England to retain `nd raise

funds of their own so effectively they can no longer be an agdnt of

central government. That surely is the difference between devolution

and de-centralisation. P Morgan and most will know that to simply look

at central government grants in our -- in an age when local councils

will request to be in chargd of their own resources is not the right

way to consider it. Look at the total was ushered available,

including the business rates revenue that Nottingham and Nottinghamshire

are doing very well at that moment. Quite rightly attracting more

businesses and expanding businesses. That is buoyant source of income for

his city. We met local councils yesterday who told us that the

lizard devolution bed in cotnties which sees the contribution to the

Exchequer's reckons his -- revenue is second only to the City of

London. And grateful for thd question. I look forward to

discussions with leaders about devolution deals. The settldment

were making today does not hnclude the effect of those deals. One of

the things I know that has being proposed is the earlier retdntion of

business rates. That is somdthing we will consider. I am delightdd such

imaginative proposals have been put or. The Secretary of State said he

will take account of democr`cy in terms of age. Birmingham, 30% of the

population is under the age of 5. When he meets the groups of MPs can

we discuss how his settlement will address the special needs of the

city. When they have that conversation, she will make the case

for Birmingham. The decisions we have made in the spending sdttlement

are very much to recognise that on social care pressures it is

important to recognise the need to help with some of those pressures.

That is what we have done in the settlement we have proposed. While

welcoming this excellent st`tement on behalf of the people of

Herefordshire, can I ask thd Secretary of State if he will keep a

watching brief although he has set four-year budgets because even of

these individual counties h`s specific challenges. I will do that,

Mr Speaker. One of the advantages of a four-year settlement is that local

authorities themselves can prepare for the future and can manage their

resources well. Rather than to be subject to what had been from time

to time the year-to-year variations in the national government. It

provides them with a greater proof against what has been over very many

years and uncertainty about what is coming. I welcome his

acknowledgement of the crithcism of the better health grant. A xear ago,

his department was said to have a limited understanding of local

authorities made worse by complexity on devolution. In Public Accounts

Committee we looked at existing burdens. What assurance can he give

us that he is heeding the ptblic account cash public accounts

recommendations to look at financial sustainability with these ctts? She

talks about uncertainty as being a source of concern and local

government. That is why we have heeded the call is of local

government to have the cert`inty of four-year budgets. Enfield Council

lays the blame at the foot of government further cuts in social

care. Can the Secretary of State confirm

that they have the resources and tries to protect the vulner`ble We

have responded to what local councils set which is to recognise

the importance of social services and his Boro have upper tier and

lower tier responsibilities. For those parts of its activitids that

are required to discharge in this area, they will benefit. I would

like to further the point from my honourable friend for Bristol South

because I feel the Secretarx of State did not and so the qudstion.

The National Audit Office s`id his department has 11 tape -- lhmited

understanding for sustainabhlity. They need to ensure that thd deliver

the services for which they are responsible. Could I give the

Secretary of State another opportunity, rather than repeating

the mantra about a four-year budget, to explain in detail to the House on

what work he has done to understand financial sustainability of

different authorities beford making the announcement today? Every

council has a statutory responsibility and an officdr who is

required to report in real-time on the financial sustainabilitx of the

councils. I have not receivdd any representations from an offhcer that

the council is unviable. We have arrangements in place through the

Local Government Association in recent years to provide support for

councils that require advicd and assistance. They make that `vailable

and expect they want to continue doing that in the future. The

Secretary of State is shortly to visit my constituency to discuss

issues regarding the local dconomy. Can he expand on how this whll help

local authorities in this area? The other challenge facing my atthority

as adult social care. Will he agreed to discuss that matter with council

leaders? My honourable friend has been a long time campaigner for

greater independence and grdater autonomy for local government. I

know his counsel will welcole the certainty of a four-year budget I

will be happy to meet with him when I come to his constituency. Whatever

the Secretary of State says about resources available and resdrves, in

Lambeth and elsewhere, the reduction in central government grant by these

ministers will lead to cuts in front line services. It is import`nt that

those who object to protest and demonstrate against these things

peacefully do not do so agahnst our labour councillors forced to make

these cuts, but against this Tory government. Protesters should not be

doing this government's to work for it by misread repeating blale. How

does he expect my borough of Lambeth to carry on when you have already

cut so much in the last fivd years. The party opposite said thex wanted

to cut local government and in. In the case of Lambeth, against all

expectations, we have been `ble to protect the resources avail`ble to

his councils so that they whll be able to make the decisions to

protect the vulnerable residents as I know they will want to. C`n I

defend my .Mac my right honourable friend will be aware there hs

concern about monopoly rates for services that are monopolies and

councils are increasing thel above and beyond the rate of infl`tion.

What action is taking to make sure residents are not overchargdd for

services they can't go anywhere to afford? Councils should be dfficient

and should pass on efficiency savings to residents. When ht comes

to services they charge for, in general the matter should bd cost

recovery no more. As they do that, I would expect them to become more

efficient and pass on effichency savings. Hartlepool Borough

Council's rant has been redtced by 40% over the past five years,

equating to a cut in spending power of ?313, twice the national average.

Local authority has lost thhs year and occurring years 3.9 million

pounds from the business rates of the nuclear power station which

previously accounted to a qtarter of all business rates collected in the

town. The local authority dhdn't have any power or say over that

decision. Retaining 100% of business rates forges the necessary ring is

-- links between local succdss and civic success. Given the distinctive

nature of the local economy, does he acknowledge this is a real problem

for heart the pool and meet with me to discuss ways to map -- mhtigate

this massive pressure? Parthcular places, such as that nuclear power

station, have a specific impact Are happy to meet with him. The chairman

of the business select commhttee will know that businesses h`ve

called for a greater connection between local councils and

businesses that are part of their area. There is an unbreakable link

between businesses and council success. I would have thought that

was something he would welcome in his capacity as chairman of the

committee. I know the Secretary of State will recognise the unhque

challenges of coastal communities where there is an ageing population

combined with some of the issues regarding younger populations with

particular issues. My honourable friend makes a very good pohnt. He

draws attention to the fact that coastal communities like as have a

high elderly population and often have child social services needs as

well. The settlement direct funding to authorities like is for precisely

the region -- reasons he mentions. I should perhaps start by declaring an

interest as my wife works for a District Council. The Secretary of

State casually strokes off the impact councils will have to do is

make by 2020. Well-run councils are having to consider closing new

centres and adult social care services are under huge pressure.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a shortfall in local government

funding risks hitting the most vulnerable first and devolvhng

responsibility is to local councils without associated funding simply

puts councils in charge of hmplement -- implementing his governmdnt's

cuts. I seem to remember working with his

colleagues in government who were in favour of decentralisation. I had to

say that when I was in the Department in the beginning of the

previous government in which his party was a member, the savhngs that

were required of local government are higher than in this settlement.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the ongoing need to control

costs means that it is more important than ever, for local

councils to look at innovathve ways of combining back-office functions

across local authority boundaries? I would agree with my honourable

friend and as I have said throughout the statement, prioritising social

care means that savings do need to be made in other parts of the

council 's operations. An excellent way to do that is to combind the

administrative services between councils across borders. Can I put

it to the member for Tunbridge Wells that while the government t`lks

about the revival of our grdat cities in the north and the

Midlands, this statement follows the long-standing policy of the scrum

and nation against the metropolitan boroughs with disproportion`te cuts,

not only to council budgets but police and Fire Services as well.

Could he now answer the question posed by the Honourable member, the

opposition spokesman, as to how he will deal from the dramatic`lly

different income levels, to bar is especially those in central London

compared to the rest. I would have thought he would take the

opportunity, of being here today, to applaud the success of the West

Midlands. They have agreed ` devolution deal that will bring

?1,000,000,000 of extra resources, into his area. When it comes to the

business rates, 100% business rate retention, of course he needs to

recognise that there are sole places that would need to contribute.

During the months ahead, we would be working with local government, to

find the best way to address, those requirements, they are not part of

this settlement. That comes in from 19 and 20. I applaud the long-term

budgeting that he has brought in but what is not certain is how the %

preset will stretch for are`s with very high, very lonely populations

like mine. 4.6% of the population of Worthing is over the age of 85

alone, what consideration h`s he taken to those additional costs in

social care? I understand the point that my honourable friend m`kes We

have in moving money within the system, to authorities with social

care responsibilities, we h`ve taken account of the pressures thdre. He

will want to, to talk about the particular circumstances, of

Worthing. I can tell him th`t for West Sussex as a whole, that their

funding will increase by 2.8% by 2019- 20, which will providd a big

help in meeting these costs. The full integration of health `nd

social care here has alreadx identified ?30,000,000 of rdcurring

savings, but that still leaves ?40,000,000 to find through other

efficiencies. The Chancellor 's social care levy on the council tax

only raises ?1.4 million, bdcause of the low council tax base, against a

social care shortfall of ?16,000,000. So how much of that

extra money, announced todax will Thames side received, not as a

percentage in real cash terls, how much of that ?60,000,000 social care

gap will he anticipate will be filled? What I can tell the

Honourable gentleman is that the allocation of the better care fund

is done in a way that is complimentary to the 2%, to

recognise what he says is the particular pressure in authorities

like his. In answer to his puestion, the package for adult social care

including both elements will add nearly ?16,000,000 by 2019- 20.

Somerset County Council of which I'm a member has faced very significant

challenges over the last few years, both on account of the fact that it

is a rule all council, which means it doesn't have

as much money and it has had to do with nearly 400 minim pounds worth

of debt which the previous Liberal Democrat administration had run up.

Can my right honourable fridnd meet with me and with the council

leaders, to help to welcome and also talk about how things will work for

Somerset in practice over the next 4 years. Indeed my team and I stand

ready to discuss the circumstances locally, what I can tell hil is that

as a result of this settlemdnt, Somerset will receive an increase in

their spending power by 4% by 2 19- 20 which I know will be a bhg help.

Jester cancer is seeing its budget cut by Central Bodman to bux

?40,000,000, -- Chester Council So I hope that responsibility for the

scrapping and cuts will livd fairly at the feet of himself and the

Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can I ask him about the new grant

particularly in the light of his longer term budgetary proposals I

understand that when it was 1st introduced, payments would be made

to councils for 6 years and councils have planned their future income on

the basis of that. We understand that pigments might only be made for

4 years, which would only rdstrict the ability of councils to respond

to that. But the Secretary of State just clarify that please? What I

will say to the Honourable gentleman is that if he believes that council

should be in charge of their own destiny and count on their own

resort is, he will need to understand that we are moving into a

world, in which councils ard financed locally, not centr`lly He

will want time sure to disctss with his counsel how they will m`ke

spending decisions. When it comes to the new homes bonus, the good news

for councils across the country is that we are continuing the new homes

bonus which has been very stccessful as a policy. We are consulthng on

some changes including 1 of the options, to reduce from 6 ydars to 4

years for new developments. Councils will continue to receive funding

that they have expected frol developments that they have

approved, and if we do go whth that option, then the funds that are

released will be invested in social care. The people of Lincoln show

will particularly welcome increased funding for oral sparsely populated

areas, but can I ask the Secretary of State that he continues `s he has

previously to bear in mind that in areas such as Boston and Skdgness,

there is genuine deprivation. Can you tell us a little bit more about

what he can do for those ardas of deprivation through means stch as

the attendance allowance? Mr Speaker 1 of the things that we will be

doing over the years ahead hs to look at what services and

responsibilities can be devolved to local councils to recognise the fact

that if we are going to devolve 100% of business rates, it is an

opportunity to devolve some functions that have previously been

in central government. Attendance allowance is something that has been

suggested but we will consult on that alongside other servicds that

potentially could be in the hands of local councils. Mr Speaker lay I

congratulate the Secretary of State on the appointment of his PPS who I

had to say has demonstrated the most remarkable level of assiduity, with

ripping off crib sheets of dvery single constituency. May I just say

for the sake of clarity, Ealing However my question and herd it is,

my question is not about he`ling, we have suffered enough. But about the

new homes bonus, which has not been markedly successful. The Secretary

of State is announcing that he is extending it indefinitely btt at the

same time he says he is consulting. Why is he extending before the

consultation finishes and what form will the consultation take? I'm very

disappointed that the Honourable gentleman is not asking abott

healing since I have lots of information about healing, that I

could have shared with him. Perhaps I can give it to him another time.

On the new homes bonus, we have different options. That is what we

are consulting on. I am surd that the select committee will w`nt to

give its advice. In Solihull, we have an average age of 43, `s

opposed to the UK average of 39 we have an ageing population. The focus

on adult social care is particularly welcome. Can I inform my frhends

that the specific discussions he has had on funding of social care, what

assurance Kenny give the hotsing terms of councils, not using up the

22 Ilium pounds reserve bearing in mind it is 6 weeks cash? I'l

grateful for my honourable friend 's point, in the case of Solihtll,

there will be ?12,000,000 available from the social care packagd for

them to use. The great advantage of a 4-year settlement is that reserves

can be used to smooth the transition over the spending review period with

the certainty and the confidence, that comes from knowing what the

budget is again to be for e`ch of those years. Lure Mr Dennis Skinner.

In the 50 minutes or hours since he got to his feet, the Ministdr has

never once acknowledged that this statement today is set against a

background of 4 example dobber share having a 40% cut in its grant a few

years ago -- Derbyshire havhng a 40% cut. And they have still not

recovered from that ?147,000,00 cut. That is what he doesn't

recognise, and I am telling something else in a question, does

he understand that this is like a budget statement made by his pal

Osborne of them all them poor house variety. -- the Northern poor. He

had better glory at being in the few moments in the house becausd by

tomorrow and certainly next week, when the details out, peopld will

realise it is nothing but another Tory con. The Honourable gentleman

is characteristically churlhsh, if he had listened to my statelent he

would have seen that I pay tribute to the savings that councils have

made and of course they had to make them because we had the biggest

deficit in peacetime historx. Buckwheat to us by the partx of

which he is a member. What we are doing in this settlement is

providing extra resources, to meet the pressures on social services,

that have been identified. Hn the case of Derbyshire, it incltdes an

increase of nearly ?50,000,000 in funding for adult social care, from

the package announced. The statement, the Lord President of the

Council and the leader of the house, Mr Chris Grayling. Mr Speakdr with

your permission, the governlent has today published Lord Strathclyde's

review, secondary legislation and the primacy of the House of Commons.

If I might like to thank on behalf of the house, Lord Strathclxde for

his work. The Prime Minister asked Lord Strathclyde to carry ott this

review after constitutional questions were raised about the

primacy of this House of Colmons. There is a balance to be struck

between the interest or proper Parliamentary scrutiny and the

certainty that government btsiness can be conducted in a reasonable

manner and time. The house of lords is a revising chamber with `n

important core purpose, to complement the House of Comlons and

in doing so the death of public confidence in what the publhc

decides. On primary legislation it can fulfil this pub is by asking the

House of Commons to think again through the process of what is known

as ping-pong. But ultimatelx with the backstop of the Parliamdnt act,

the will of the elected house can prevail. This is not the case for

secondary legislation whethdr house of lords can only approve or

withhold its approval. Given this, Lord Strathclyde was asked hf there

was a better way to handle secondary legislation which would givd the

elected House of Commons thd decisive way she consulted

Parliament Aryans in both houses and from across the political spectrum

-- he consulted Parliament @ryans. Full Strathclyde has providdd 3

options. Option 1, would relove the house of lords from the strdtch

treat instrument procedure altogether, option 2 would retain

the present role of this hotse. Option three would create a new

procedure in statute. It is a compromise option providing the

House of Lords with the ability to ask the House of Commons to think

again but would give the final say to the House of Commons, whhch would

be achieved by allowing the Commons to overrule the house of lords.

North Strathclyde has recomlended the third option. With the

involvement of the procedurd committee should review the

circumstances in which statttory instrument power should be subjected

to Commons only procedures `nd the government ensures the appropriate

use of primary and secondarx legislation. The government will

need to consider the review in his recommendations -- and his

recommendations and will respond fully when we have done so. There

will be refusing both houses as to the best way forward and we will

listen to those views. We bdgun today by making oral statemdnts in

both houses. We are clear all governments benefit from a strong

parliament, being held to account and strong scrutiny. As the report

highlights, the House of Lords has long played its scrutiny role

effectively. We think it important in providing the scrutiny and

challenge the elected house should have the decisive say on secondary

legislation as well as prim`ry. Such a balance will allow the other house

to deliver its core purpose effectively. We will therefore

studied the review in detail and respond fully next year. I commend

this statement to the house. I am grateful to the leader for `dvance

notice of the statement which I received an exemplary fashion before

10am this morning. I am grateful. I am afraid that this has all the

hallmarks of government by fit of pique. The leader says this review

was set up I quote after constitutional questions were raised

about the primacy of this elected House of Commons. What Tosh. The

only people raising constitttional question is whether Prime Mhnister,

Chancellor and leader, who stamped their feet because they did not get

their way. They were not protests against the Lords, they werd

protesting against the government attempt to cut working tax credits.

The truth is this is payback time. It has nothing to do with principle.

Maybe the leader of the house himself is smarting from losing more

votes in the House of Lords as minister than any minister hn the

last Parliament, 24, a quarter of lost votes. The most astonishing

thing is how Lord Strathclyde has done an about turn. In 1999 when in

opposition, he said of the convention that the Lords dhd not

strike down statutory instrtments, I declare this convention dead. Now he

wants to resurrect it. Therd is a word for that. Between 2001 and 2010

when Lord Strathclyde was Ldader of the Opposition he led colle`gues

through the division lobby to defeat the Labour government 390 thmes

Including ones on a fatal motion on a statutory instrument. Now he

thinks that is a disgraceful way of behaving. There is a word for that.

This was meant to be about the financial privilege of the House of

Commons. Camberley to confirm this review will make no distinction

between secondary legislation where financial privileges concerned and

other forms of secondary legislation. What the government is

seeking to do is stop the Lords having any right to oppose `ny

secondary legislation, whatdver they put through. Does he accept the

other problem with secondarx legislation is because it c`nnot be

amended each house is asked to say content or not content. No ping pong

makes any kind of sense. Thd report does not make sense. It seels to

imagine a statutory instrumdnt being sent back to the Commons. The two

houses have distinct processes of deciding on secondary legislation.

Every piece of secondary legislation depends on a parent act, each

specifies whether the regul`tion should be subjected to the

affirmative or negative dechsion process or whether there has to be a

vote in one or both houses before coming into force. Is the government

intending retrospective a moment of each act? There is a simple answer,

use less secondary legislathon, and only use it for non-contenthous

matters. Not significant matters that dramatically affect hotses in

this country. The House of Lords is far from perfect. The Prime Minister

has packed it with 240 new lembers faster than any PM in history.

Surely it would be wrong to deal with aspects of the powers `nd role

of the Lords without considdring the composition of the Lords. Isn't it

time we had a constitutional convention and proper reforl? There

is a pattern. The government has changed the voting rights in this

House, curtailed trade union and voluntary organisations' rights to

campaign, make it more diffhcult for the poor to register and we learned

they have increased the number of conservative special advisers to 96,

costing an additional ?1.6 lillion a year, even as they want to cut the

support for opposition scrutiny of this government by 20%. Where there

is dissent, they crush it. Where a body opposes them, they neuter it.

That is not a Conservative government, respectful of the

Constitution, cautious in advancing change, determined to govern for the

nation, it is not a Conserv`tive government, in the words of a former

leader, Disraeli, it is an organised hypocrisy. Order. The honourable

gentleman knows I will not `llow him to use that word he has just use.

The very last one. It was words used by Disraeli in this House and I am

not maintaining any member has acted hypocritical, but I am saying this

set of proposals is an organised hypocrisy. I accept what thd

honourable gentleman is sayhng, but the fact Disraeli was also wrong

does not make the honourabld gentleman right. I am sure he will

find a better way of putting that last sentence he used. What word

would you use for it? Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make it cle`r, I am

not imputing any sense of dishonourable nurse to any

honourable member of this House I am trying to say the governlent is

trying to get something through the back door and that is not an honest

way of behaving. The honour`ble gentleman is not impugning `ny

member of this House, so for the moment I will let him away ht.

Leader of the house. It does not feel like we are moving anything

through the back door as I `m in the house making a statement, sdtting

out a report prepared with options for the government to consider and

for the house to debate before any change could happen, if leghslative

change were adopted as a result of report. Let's be clear about what

happens. This house has an dlected mandate, unlike the House of Lords.

How a majority government h`s a democratic mandate to implelent the

manifesto, that is what we have sought to do. The conventions that

have guided the relationship between the House of Lords and Housd of

Commons have existed for a long time and it may be, and they certainly

have broken down over the l`st years. It is the view of thd

government it is time to re-establish a framework for the

relationship between two hotses that reflects that this the elected House

of Commons. That is the purpose of the report which sets out three

options for us to consider. Of course it makes reference

specifically to the issue of financial matters. The Commons has

had primacy over financial latters for centuries and there are Commons

only SIs on the national matters. What we had this last autumn was the

first time a financial mattdr had come before the House of Lords and

been rejected. The first tile a fatal motion had been used. Over the

previous decades they have hardly been any fatal motion on st`tutory

instruments. It is my view on reading the report in many respects

it gives the Lords a clearer and broader role in the consideration of

secondary legislation while also making it clear the democratically

elected chamber has to have the final say. When the shadow leader

talks about us using less sdcondary legislation and about the

constitution, I look back to my first few years in this House. And

yours, since you were electdd in 1997. I have no memory of the

shortage of statutory instrtments brought forward under the previous

government. I have no memorx of a shortage of appointments by Tony

Blair of his friends and cronies to the House of Lords over an dxtended

period. I will take no lessons from that side of the house. Thank you.

May I welcome my right honotrable friend's statement and join with him

in thanking the Lord Strathclyde for his report. The government could not

have chosen a safer pair of hands for such an enquiry. And of course

it does avoid the question of composition and other aspects of the

House of Lords, perhaps that is convenient, but we will havd to

address those things. May I welcome the proposal for dealing with this

by primary legislation and the political... Constitutional affairs

committee will wish to look at this as well as the procedure colmittee.

We have questions like how often will this procedure be used, what

kind of behaviour of the hotses will we adopt? And on the question of

particular statutory instrulents that amend primary legislathon

through the so-called Henry VIII clauses, would it be justifhed to

use this procedure in respect of those statutory instruments? Would

be right to use a ding-dong procedure as opposed to a phng-pong

procedure simply to force through an amendment of primary legisl`tion in

this way. Can I assure my rhght honourable friend we will look at

these matters in detail. I `m grateful to my honourable friend for

his comments about the report and work done by Lord Strathclyde. I

would expect nothing less of his committee. And indeed of thd

procedure committee, both of which will want to express views. In

relation to Lord Strathclydd's comments about financial matters, he

expresses he made references to work with the committees of the Commons

to do that. I look forward to seeing his work on this subject. I think

the debate and discussion whll be an important part of shaping a better

relationship between the hotses Can I thank the leader for earlx

sighting of the statement. Rarely has there been a review of such

pointlessness with a prearr`nged outcome is this endeavour in

uselessness. In the battle of blue versus Birmingham there was only one

victor and it was not the unelected friends down the corridor. ,- blue

versus ermine. The house of lords, this government has allowed itself

never to be embarrassed by them again. I liked option bold-lacro to

a certain part, option one would remove the House of Lords. Why cop

we leave it at that get on ht? The House of Lords is perhaps the most

absurd, ridiculous legislattre anywhere in the world, stuffed

through of unelected cronies, party donors, hereditary 's and Church of

England Bishops. Quickly becoming a national embarrassment. The only

thing I can take comfort from in the statement is the fact we might start

to get rid of the whole ridhculous circus. We are poorly served with an

unelected house. The governlent can simply change its rules when it does

not do its bidding because ht can and that place is not accountable to

anybody. Let's work together. If we need a secondary chamber, ldt's make

sure it is equipped with thd 21st century and not the 16th. The

honourable gentleman talks `bout prearranged outcomes. I think I

could have written his speech in advance. He spoke with his flowing

prose. He talks about a pre`rranged outcome for the review. He knows

Lord Strathclyde well enough to know he is the last person to be given a

script and write a review around it. He has done a lot of work, talk to

people and thought about it carefully. I understand the Scottish

national position, they do not want the House of Lords but it is not

about to disappear and it m`kes sense to ensure the workings between

the houses are structured and appropriate and that is what we

intend to do. I also welcomd the statement and I wonder if the views

of the party opposite would be somewhat different if the other

place had blocked a left-wing financial measure rather th`n the

measure introduced. May I urge my right honourable friend to give

serious consideration to option one. I suspect for different mothves than

the honourable gentleman for North person -- Perthshire. Option one has

clarity and I fear the other options, although an improvdment,

would still be open to diffdrent interpretation. The benches claiming

this as happened a lot of thmes this is the first time a financial

measure has been blocked ushng the measure that took place in the House

of Lords. Whilst my honourable friend and gentlemen opposite may

same the -- share the same `ccent I suspect they do not share the same

view. We have to consider all three options carefully. We will bring

forward proposals in due cotrse I note what he says.

It is a pleasure to be here, at the 1st reading of the whistle-blowers

lords Bill. I fully support the shadow leader of the house when he

used the words disorganised, Epoque received. I have never seen

organised hypocrisy and I h`ve never seen anything more disorganhsed

other than me making a joke out of it. What we see in Madam Deputy

Speaker is crisis management again, fire fighting again instead of

having a clear strategy abott what the government wants to do on

democracy and constitutional change. We are in the middle of gre`t

change, with Scottish devolttion, with the mess around English

devolution, and the governmdnt does not quite know what to do so it is

doing its bit by bit. So I would urge the shadow leader to bhte the

bullet and create a constitttional citizens convention that can look in

the round at all of these issues together, whether it involvds the

composition of the Lords or how it affects federalism in the United

Kingdom, in this devolution, and take a strategic view, rathdr than

this constant use real firefight. Madam Deputy Speaker I would use any

words to describe the views of the party opposite but I do havd to say

that after 13 years, I had ` clear impression that they took

constitutional arrangement `nd threw it up in the air and had no idea how

it would land. What we are `ctually trying to do is sort out sole of the

mess that was left behind. What we are trying to do is to put back some

stability in our constitutional arrangements and this is part of

doing it. Whatever the catalyst for the noble Lords's workmanlike

review, all of us who believe in democracy will have to agred with

his conclusions. Will my right honourable friend agree with me that

since we are in the business of voting, that it is important that we

should try at least to see ourselves as others see us. So that ddmocracy,

especially nascent democraches over the world do look aghast at some of

the more archaic features of our constitutional arrangements. There

is always a case for modernhsation in a Parliamentary will

constitutional process. That should continue to be the case, but I do

think that the long-standing traditions of this has, the

long-standing traditions of constitutional arrangements act

surely provide a bedrock to the way that this country works which makes

it admired around the world and should continue to be so. I'm afraid

that yet again when we need reform, we are being offered piecemdal

change by the government today. I deeply regret the way in whhch this

has been brought forward, the leader of the house speaks of this as if it

is something for the governlent alone. It is not Madam Deputy

Speaker, this concerns Parlhament as a whole, this is a process, if

change is required, it must be owned by Parliament as a whole. This was

last within 2006 in a joint committee report on recommendations,

the leader of the house, threatens to drive a coach and horses through

that. If he's going to achidve anything, can I say that he will

need to reconstitute some sort of joint committee between this house

and the other place, otherwhse all his efforts will come to natght It

is important to remember th`t I am not trying to drive anything through

this house, what we are considering is a report that has been produced

by a senior member of the house of lords, with an expert panel, that is

drawn from some of the most experhenced

past officials. He has brought forward a series of recommendations

for us to consider, which we will do when the

government makes its own vidw clear about which option to take. It seems

entirely right and proper to do this. This latest constituthonal

skirmish is another symptom of a 2nd chamber that is far too large and

lacks a democratic mandate. Can he say when in this Parliament at last,

he will bring forward subst`ntive reforms to make it democrathcally

accountable, with clearly ddfined powers. The reason I have not

supported in the past, and dlected house of Lords is because I believe

that it would create signifhcant constitutional problems for this

house. This is a matter that has been considered 3 times since I was

1st elected in 2001, this house has not yet reached a clear view. What

we do have in the house of lords is an enormous wealth of expertise that

adds to the value that we h`ve I think in our democratic process I

accept what my honourable friend says about some of the issuds and

challenges around the structure and nature of the house of lords, I

think right now the best people to make proposals, are the Lords

themselves. May I wish you ` happy New Year and Merry Christmas. It is

a fine review but it is into the wrong thing, wouldn't he have said

and solve the whole trouble if his ministers had gone on a weekend

course as to when it was appropriate to use primary legislation `nd when

it was appropriate EU secondary legislation, it would have saved us

all of this trouble. Absolutely right. I can only say that

governments use primary and secondary legislation, we h`d a huge

is secondary legislation whdn they were in power. I suspect th`t

governments in future will continue to use secondary legislation on a

widespread basis, I think that if some of these recommendations are

inactive, it will do so in ` more structured and balanced way. Can I

echo the words of other members who have spoken and urge my right

honourable friend to move forward with a fundamental change to the

upper house rather than this tinkering at the edges. Can we

please think again has a wax forward, and move towards a mainly

elected upper house. I don't imagine we have heard the last of this

debate but I had to say to ly honourable friend right now, in

terms of enacting our manifdsto and the spending review, right now the

legislative priority is to lake a real difference for the country

That is what the country expected of us. Is the leader of the hotse aware

that what people will recognise certainly outside is that this is 1

big sulk because of the dechsion taken by the house of lords on tax

credits, they were right. They were sustained in their decision by these

benches and by public opinion, and even by some members of the

government side. That is thd reason all of this nonsense has cole before

us today. The reasons these matters have come before us today is that by

general acknowledgement, thd conventions that have existdd for a

long time between the house of lords and House of Commons have somewhat

broken down and it is time to sort this out, and to bride arrangements

that give certainty and continuity to the future. As a new member of

this house, I had to say th`t I find the other place a completelx

that the people of Somerset are very that the people of Somerset are very

confused, as to why it should have any power at all in this pl`ce. I

for 1 would rather see a much more wide ranging review, of what is

going on with it. I think to limit its powers to only, our powdrs to,

it is actually too limited. At the moment what you have got thdre, for

example in my constituency, is elected member of this Parlhament,

which is me, and 3 appointed residence, all of them Liberal

Democrats with no mandate whatsoever, sitting there, claiming

?900 a day, to be there. It is a purely political house now, and it

is completely unacceptable, that should not have to be electdd. -

that it should not to have two be elected. Expresses a sincerdly held

view, it is a matter that h`s been debated on many occasions. What I

would say to him is that right now the important thing is to m`ke sure

that he has the final sale hn these matters and I think as a result of

what is set out in the Strathclyde review, we will return to a

situation where he does indded have that final stage. As people have

been wishing that share happy Christmas, a few of us would say,

may the Force be with you. Having watched the dark horse, I'm not

referring to the amendments in the other place on the house of lords,

can I ask the leader of the house, what impact the procedure hd is

introducing today will have on the procedures introduced in thhs house.

I would imagine that if you went to the Star Wars movie last night and

the Scottish National party Christmas party that he's doing very

well to be aired today, that is perhaps why he has got a gl`ss of

water in his hand, what I would say to him is that these will not change

those procedures. If they m`tter is an English only statutory

instrument, it will be in the process. It will be in the process

of the statutory entrance. Dvery statutory instrument would operate

in a different way in the ftture. It would be for all of them. Ghven the

fact that the house of lords barely regards convention these daxs, may I

also welcome the statement lade today and the report by Lord

Strathclyde, echoing the colments come of many of my honourable

friends. Would my rubble frhend agree with me that the 1st option to

remove the house of lords from statutory is run procedure would be

the best option? I know it was my honourable friend says, and that is

a matter that the government will have to take into account. H thank

him for his contribution. Mdrry Christmas to you but Deputy Speaker

along with everybody in the house. Can I say to the secretary of State,

this is a power that the Lords seldom uses, it has been usdd very

rarely, a poorly proves why should be there for a house that is

required to the government think again. They knew that what the

government had claimed that the budget was wrong, and they

discovered with hindsight, with the benefit of hindsight, that the

claims of the Chancellor th`t people would not be worse off, werd

incorrect, and that working families with children would have bedn

thousands of pounds per year worse off. It was not just this shde of

the house pointing it out, there were a significant number of

backbenchers on that side of the house as well. And the lords listen

to that and they used that power that they use very rarely, to make

the government think again. The chance that came back to thd house,

and wanted to be cheered for saying it wasn't ever going to do ht again.

They were proven to be corrdct. So the power was proven to be tseful.

Therefore, this is just a spat, a tantrum from the government, that

they had the temerity to make the government think again. Let us

remind the honourable gentldman that the changes he is referring to were

voted on and passed 5 times by this elected house. There does come a

point where the elected house needs to be able to assert its will. But

Strathclyde has recommended a number of options to enable us to do that.

I think if we have a revising chamber in the format we have, it

still has a role in secondary legislation, much of which hs a more

technical nature. I welcome the fact that option 3 is the 1 being chosen.

With the leader of the housd confirm, that that would not stop

them from looking at the options that make some of the other place

the laughing stock, that is to say those that don't attend and those

whose reason for being therd has perhaps disappeared. We had to look

at all 3 options carefully before we respond, in terms of other latters

related to the house of rulds, there has been a push for reform hn the

House of Lords in recent ye`rs, and I suspect that we will see further

proposals for change over the course of the next few years from that

house. But right now, our priority is to implement the manifesto that

we were elected on and I thhnk the country expects that of us. I

listened very carefully to the leader of the house when he talked

about the house of lords giving the public confidence in what P`rliament

decides. It will come as no surprise to the leader of the house hf I

heard him to seriously conshder the abolition of the house of lords

This in my view, would give the public confidence in democr`tic

accountability and Ireland remind the leader of the house that the

house of Lords is the only legislature in the world with

unelected clerics with the dxception of Iran. It is unelected,

unaccountable, the public does not have confidence in it, would he

please abolish this museum piece, that is filled with cronies and

politicians rejected at the ballot box. Madam Deputy Speaker, H

suspected he talked to the public about our ways the parliament works,

they will say that we have tnelected house, that will have -- and elected

house that will have its sax after this.

We have people whose job it is to advise and guide the elected house

about whether it might be gdtting it wrong and getting it wrong. I think

they might form a different view. There are strong opinions. Right

now, this is about solving ` structural problem in the

relationship between the two houses and Lord Strathclyde has given three

sensible options to work with. Surely the episode that gavd rise to

the report was an example of Parliament functioning as it is

supposed to. The Chancellor has since tried to take the credit for

the change. Will the leader not accept... I think the majorhty of

his honourable friends do, that the other place was right on tax

credits? What really happendd is the Chancellor was in a position having

set out tough decisions we said we would take, and we have been clearer

discovered the public finances were Chancellor was able,

discovered the public finances were doing better because of the success

of his policies, to not takd some of those difficult decisions, `nd that

is a good thing. Since I was elected democratically, there have been 62

new lords appointed in the other place including 11 Liberal Democrats

lords, more liberal -- Liberal Democrat lords span elected MPs --

van elected MPs. We have cole clean and we will get Lord Strathclyde to

come with option four, to continue stuffing the other place with

cronies and donors. I know his party believes in abolishing the House of

Lords and uses the language of cronies and donors but if you looks

at the Lord Sewel fight people who have contributed and achievdd great

things for society and have a role to play in advising the elected

house on the final decisions it takes. The removal of the vdto from

the Lords affected -- effectively removes the most expensive think

tank in history. How could `nyone justify spending such a disgraceful

amount of taxpayers' money on an impotent talking shop? Surely it

prevents the ideal opportunhty to abolish the Lords and have `

democratically elected second chamber. I welcome any

recommendation that seeks to remove legitimacy from an instituthon that

lacks any. It does not go f`r enough. The Scottish Nation`l Party

are both consistent but not shy on their views of the House of Lords.

They are not alone in this House on sharing views on the House of Lords

but our priority is to get on with the job of sorting out the less we

inherited in 2010. We still have further to go. Our priority should

be about delivering the rest of the changes that will transform this

country. Point of order. Very quickly, a number of colleagues are

here for the two debates later, the first debate I understand there may

be a number of speakers and it is a time-limited debate and every

colleague who wishes to spe`k would get in if there were some rough

guidance from the chair that ten minutes for back and front benches

would allow everyone to makd the point in the debate. The honourable

gentleman makes a reasonabld point. I will be considering how mtch time

is available and how many pdople indicate they wish to speak. I would

say to the house that when the house is operating at its best, there

should be no need for me to set a formal time limit because all

honourable members ought to be courteous to all other honotrable

members and limit their rem`rks to a reasonable amount of time, which is

usually less than ten minutds, as the honourable gentleman suggests.

Point of order. On the 21st of July I ask the Secretary of Statd for

Defence how many UK troops were embedded with the US and other

countries' forces and whethdr or not they were paid from the Dep`rtment

for International Development budget. In September I was told the

department was compiling an answer and I chased that answer in November

and I have still not receivdd it, five months after my origin`l

question. Surely members deserve timely answers to questions and more

importantly, we need to unddrstand the role the troops are plaxing on

the ground across the world and which arm of government is paying

for that involvement. As thd honourable lady knows, the way in

which departments and ministers organise their answers to qtestions

by members is not, of coursd, a matter for the chair. I will repeat

happily to the house what Mr Speaker and his predecessors have s`id for

many years, that ministers lust answer questions from members of

Parliament in a timely and reasonable fashion. I understand the

procedure committee is lookhng into this matter because this is not the

first time and I'm sure it will not be the last that a member h`s no

alternative but to ask for the intervention of the chair in this

matter. At the same time, I am sure the Treasury bench will havd heard

what the honourable lady has said, will have heard what I have said,

and I would expect the honotrable made each should have a proper

answer to her question as soon as possible. No more points of order,

we come to presentation of Bills. we come to presentation of Bills.

Mrs Caroline Spelman. Marri`ge registration bill. Second rdading,

what day? Friday the 22nd of January. We now come to the first

backbench business motion on protecting 16 and 17-year-olds from

child sexual exploitation. Lr Kitt Malthouse. Madam Deputy Spe`ker I

beg to move the motion as on the order paper in relation to the

sexual exploitation of 16 and 17-year-olds. Over the past few

weeks it has been said a nulber of times that our success is mdasured

by how we defend the vulner`ble We have seen too clearly over the past

years that children fall into this category. On the subject of this

debate, the horrendous crimd of child sexual exploitation, our first

instinct is to recoil and the next to hide them away, wrapped tp so no

harm could come to them. But hiding from the problem because it is too

grisly or more impossibly stopping children growing up would bd the

markers of neither a brave society, lawmakers or parents. As well as

recognising they are vulner`ble our approach must be to recognise

children are fully fledged `dults in waiting, steadily gaining experience

and mental development they need to take up their rights and

responsibilities. The protection of children and maintenance of the

environment in which they c`n grow therefore go hand-in-hand. On the

whole we do this well for most children. Even though we nedd to

think hard about technology, the internet, social media and cultural

issues and academic pressurds. Our efforts to protect them and maintain

a healthy environment run into the greatest difficulty at the dnd of

childhood, the transition to adulthood between 16 and 18 and on

the issue of sex. It is a thme of life that requires nuance. @ nuance

that does not come easily indoors that must deal imprecision `nd

definites. We have an age of consent for sexual activity and we `re not

suggesting this is changed, but we do is start the debate in the light

of The Children's Society rdport that shows we do not get thd balance

right in the case of sexual exploitation in the case of 16 and

17-year-olds. The report published by the group highlights the

vulnerability of that age group and awkwardness that exists between the

fact they are children, thehr position over the age of consent,

and expectations society has of them. The motion we are deb`ting

looks at what we can do in xour to better protect them from behng

exploited without changing the age of consent. In particular, we are

looking at the potential role that aggravated offences could h`ve been

better to -- better stopping exploitation. If we can clarify for

sentencing person the guidance of the judges and juries on thd role of

drugs, alcohol, mental-health problems, learning disabilities and

being in care have in adding to the vulnerability of this age group I

believe we can achieve progress We suggest that powers the polhce

possess that enable them to intervene when a child under 16 is

in danger should be extended to situations when a child over 16 is

under threat. I cannot stress enough how necessary basis. I suspdct I do

not need to do so for those present today. At this age, abuse and

exploitation can cause damage that can last a lifetime. Shaping how a

child grows to see the world and themselves. They will see the world

as hostile and threatening. They will cling to any security `nd

affection, no matter how bad it is for them. A vulnerability m`ny

predators exploiting the first place. It risks them for evdr seeing

themselves as a victim Tim or someone who cannot take the risk to

trust anyone. It can stop them ever becoming a healthy independdnt

adult. We know from research that they can end up feeling likd they

deserve this abuse and on occasion juries have not taken the f`ct of

vulnerability seriously enotgh. They refuse to recognise the fact child

was over the legal age of consent did not mean their attacker was not

guilty of sexual exploitation. When they did this, they failed `nd

betrayed these young people. All sexual crimes are serious. However I

hope we can agree those comlitted against children are doubly cruel.

That is why we must achieve changes in the law. While these changes

would protect all 16 and 17-year-olds this is pressing in the

case of children in care. I expect all members agree that we could do

better for them. The Prime Linister has said as much. He noted that

children in care today are `lmost guaranteed to live in poverty. 4%,

84% leaving school without five good GCSEs. He noted 70% of prostitutes

were in care and tragically care leavers are four times more likely

to commit suicide than anybody else. We cannot go on setting up these

children for life on the streets, unable to find work, or an darly

grave. Please God the Prime Minister makes progress on this issud. His

remarks so far are music to my ears but would he agree that... Share

with media experience I had when I chaired the committee and looked at

children in care. He is right about vulnerability. Would he agrde that

access to therapeutic care for those children at a crucial time was often

not there? I would agree with the honourable gentleman. Progrdss needs

to be made in all manner of policy areas to deal with this. Pldase God

the Prime Minister, who I think is making a statement after Christmas

about children in care, makd some progress. Their vulnerability to

sexual exploitation is an area where we can stop failing them now. Their

characteristics mean this group of young people are in need of changes

today to protect them. Whild most children's vulnerability is shielded

by family, friends and the support network through good communhties and

schools, these children are not so fortunate. Their backgrounds are

chaotic, frightening or crudl. Putting them in an almost hopeless

situation. Combine this with the fact there is no one actively

looking out for them and it becomes clear they are easy prey for evil

people. We have seen from c`se notes this background is so often part of

the trajectory of an abused child, one that sees an abused vulnerable

child become a troubled adults. The Children's Society report shows

these predators target thesd children systematically and lie in

wait close to where they live, study or socialise. They stalk thdm on

social media and offered thdm everything the child has missed

isolate them from adults who would intervene, ply them with drhnk and

drugs, and then strike. Every time they are successful, they nded a

life in tatters. Every time they fail, they just move on the next

target. In the past years wd have seen several sickening cases of

hundreds of children targetdd, both by gangs and predatory individuals.

These cases of exploitation sometimes occurred in collusion with

or at least in the knowledgd of those who should have been caring

for them. In some of those cases those responsible for the children

or the police wanted to intdrvene but lacked authority or confidence

to do so. Right now, police, children's services and the courts

lock on without the legal tdeth or power to stop it. Some will think of

high profile cases like Rotherham will stop at this is not a problem

with one demographic. Child sexual exploitation effects

and is exploited by all racds colours and creeds. The papdrs focus

on the big cases but there `re thousands of individuals whose lives

have been turned upside down by these crimes. As I have said Madam

Deputy Speaker, these children don't have parents who can look after them

or it is our duty to be that parents. We, ask, you me have two be

the arms that catch them if they fall and the voices calling them

back when they wander and stray Right now, too often we fell them,

just when they need us most. More broadly I believe that thesd issues,

that we are discussing todax, point to a wider problem in the w`y that

we protect children. To reflect the importance of ending this n`tional

scandal, it is time that we tilt the law, size of Lee in favour of the

children. And those who wish to protect them, not just in this

instance but across the board. In the context of thinking abott

protected groups, it seems strange to me that children are not amongst

them. Gay people are, minorhty racial groups, religious groups are

all protected specifically hn law. And it is right that they are.

Children are not, they should be, we have two had them as a category for

special protection. To at ldast send a signal to society and the justice

system that more effort is required, and the up-and-coming polichng and

criminal Justice Bill offers just such an opportunity. On the distinct

matter of child sexual exploitation, the crux is that 16 and 17

-year-olds are not protected in the same weight because they ard over

the age of consent. Children under 16 are already protected by the fact

that they cannot consent to sex and rightly harsher sentencing that

exists due to this is a strong deterrent. Sexual crimes ag`inst

children under 16 are furthdr deterred, by powers to intervene

when somebody is targeting them or grooming them for exportation. These

include, the child abduction warning notices, we should take notd of this

deterrence and extend this power up to 18. There is already backing for

this extension, in 2012, thd office for the children's Commissioner

asked for them to be served without parental consent where necessary,

there is solid statistical backing for this change too, in 2012-13

there were 306,000 incidents of missing persons

in England, Scotland and Wales. Children accounted for 64% `nd 5-

17 euros were the most common missing persons, accounting for 36%

of such persons. In one third of the cases the police did not have enough

powers to intervene to protdct a child and that must change. The fact

that 16 and 17-year-olds ard still children and that children `re

vulnerable and likely to be targeted is enough to warrant extendhng these

protections to them. One more intervention, does he share my

misgivings, and I will make this a very unpopular on these benches for

having this, introducing a vote on 16 really is a move towards adult

hood at 16, which will reinforce the problem that we have, that the

shrinking of childhood is something that we must be very careful about,

especially that the length of time that URA child, of your verx long

life becomes shorter and shorter? I thank the honourable gentlelan for

that, I know that the house is to fight it about 16 or 17, my personal

view is 18. I am trying to illustrate that the dossiers between

sexual consent and legal majority is a particular zone of childhood that

requires particular attention from a legal and Parliamentary point of

view. But aside from all of those issues, we have two consider the

psychological impact that the lack of protection has on societx, it

makes people think that these children should not have thd

protection, not really vulndrable and that they are in the words very

deliberately chosen by the Children's Society in the rdport

"Old enough to know better". Furthermore it is because they lack

these protections and are above the age of consent, they are likely to

be denied justice and why predators are lurid towards them. This issue

that they are above the leg`l consent has had a big psychological

impact on how people have interpreted the crimes commhtted.

There is evidence that jury 's have There is evidence that jury 's have

lacked sympathy with their cases, their vulnerability and the cruel

effectiveness of grooming is not well understood across the

population. Attackers are aware of population. Attackers are aware of

the public 's complacency. Too many people focused too hard... By all

means. I thank the honourable member for giving way in his important

contribution. On that very topic of public attitudes and public

misperceptions, is he aware of the case of Maria, who bravely came

forward to the authorities `nd eventually to the media with her

story of abuse within the rdpublican movement and how she was suppressed.

Ever since the BBC reveals her story, she has been subject to

punishment tweeting by Sinn Fein supporters and politicians who

precisely have cast a slur at what age she was and

how somehow she was guilty `nd complicit? I thank the honotrable

gentleman, I am sad to say H do not know the particular case but he

makes a powerful point. It hs so obvious that it shouldn't nded

stating, but I will anyway, because when it is intellectually understood

people still aren't getting it. Not fighting someone off, not objecting