| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Let me make the obvious point. Even with the additional funding from lottery and government sources allocated to the arts, we cannot expect those sources to provide everything. Private investment is of course important. It is important that we develop a stronger mixed economy for all aspects of the arts. The more investment goes in, the less dependence there is on public sector funding decisions, which from time to time cause great concern.
The lottery has an important part to play. In the 13 years since it began, the Heritage Lottery Fund has committed more than £205 million to projects that aim to conserve and enhance historic buildings in use or to be converted to use as performing arts venues. Of those awards, more than £79 million has been committed specifically to theatres, of which almost £62 million has gone to theatres in London. The noble Lord said in his opening speech that that is not much more than a drop in the ocean; it is a bit more than that, but it is nevertheless inadequate for the scale of the problems that he identified with our Edwardian and Victorian theatre stock.
I want to address the point raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke in the debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised it first—the question of VAT. We have difficulties with easy acceptance of proposals with regard to VAT. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Italian position. Perhaps I will get officials to look at that, although not too closely; I am not offering them a free trip to look at that development. However, they can certainly do some analysis of where the resources come from. We
7 May 2008 : Column 640
We are pressing where we can. That is why there is an attempt to get VAT zero rated or reduced rated for churches. We have not succeeded in that in Europe, but at least that is a project that we can see has the potential for widespread agreement in Europe. The glory of London in its extensive range of theatres is not something that other countries can necessarily respond to. As will be recognised, getting issues through Europe on a consensual model is quite a challenge.
I agree entirely with a point that I think was the burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, but which was emphasised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine: we should not look on listed buildings as being preserved in aspic. It is important that any proposals for how we conduct operations for listed buildings in future, which must be based on partnership between the owners and English Heritage and others who can contribute, have an imaginative approach to the actual use to which the buildings can be put. In the draft Heritage Protection Bill, which is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and will, all being well, be in the Government’s programme for next year, we will see the framework in which we can take forward the consideration of listed buildings on a much greater level of partnership than we have done in the past.
That is not to decry the work of the past. We are all too well aware of the fact that it is easy to throw brickbats at local authorities. Westminster is almost bound to get the first range of brickbats. Yesterday evening, it was criticised about litter in the West End, which we all know is a challenge for the resources devoted to it. This evening, Westminster sits in the centre of this debate because all the West End theatres are in the Westminster area.
We are looking forward to a much more constructive debate in partnership between local authorities, English Heritage and the owners of these buildings so that we can make progress. Some of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, suggested, may mean that one redesigns part of the building to take account of the different use. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, might be right that some people still go to the theatre to be seen rather than to see, so we cannot take away altogether certain aspects of the boxes and so on of theatres. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is right that the modern discriminating audience wants a decent experience once in the theatre. In too many of our theatres, we rely on tourists being prepared to take some of those seats because they do not know any better. The rest of us who have been pinned in one of those galleries on a hot summer evening and have lived to survive the experience are not likely to renew it quite so enthusiastically.
It is important that we look at ways in which we can modernise the theatres. We have projects across
7 May 2008 : Column 641
I offer the House this. We are well aware of the crisis that faces the West End theatres. We are encouraged by the fact that various actors on the scene are moving much more constructively and we are looking at the reports from the London authorities on the way in which they want to co-operate with theatre owners. As I say, the Westminster authority will play its constructive part. We will, within the framework of our legislation, create an emphasis on partnerships that can give new stimulus and drive to this necessary work. I hope that I can indicate to the House that we cannot within this framework chase fool’s gold. I always welcome it when noble Lords seek to be constructive about resources, because otherwise it always looks from the Dispatch Box as though only the Government are cast in a defensive role. From time to time, we get proposals that are extremely helpful.
The VAT channel is, I fear, largely blocked to us and I suggest that we look to other areas for resources. The Government want to continue their record, which they began when they came into office, of being determined to see increased expenditure on the arts. That was a very important part of the programme in 1997. We have not fulfilled all our ambitions by a long way, but I think that it is recognised that participation in the arts has vastly increased over the past decade. A great deal of that is a reflection of the hunger of people out there for the experience that they can get from all aspects of the arts, including the theatre. I remember when people seemed to think that television would kill off live theatre. Quite the opposite has happened. It is clear from what television produces these days that without live theatre it does not have the actors who can present themselves in quite the way that is wanted in television production.
I am aware that everyone who has contributed to the debate this evening has been extremely constructive. That includes the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who as ever is extremely radical in his approach and indicates to us, probably following his noble friend, that we need to think constructively about some of these theatres. There may be other uses to which they need to be put. At the same time, we must preserve the glory of the West End theatre, which, if I may just reflect on last night’s debate, is appreciated not only by the nation but hugely by tourists who come to London and to the rest of the United Kingdom knowing full well that in London you get some of the greatest theatrical experiences in the world.
7 May 2008 : Column 642
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
8.34 pm
Clause 2 [Objectives of the Commission]:
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 2 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss if I ask him whether he would not mind exhibiting a little displeasure to his business managers for the lateness of the hour. Without making too much of a meal of it, this is very important legislation. Colleagues, acting in good faith and given the importance of the measure in front of us, have made arrangements for the two days that have been set for this Report stage, which has now been slightly disrupted. The events of earlier today could have been foreseen by the business managers, and I hope the Minister will protect the rest of the time that we need. I, for one, am certainly not going to be rushed into trying to do things mixter-maxter and at a very high speed just because other business, important as it is, has intervened. I think that we can all be a bit upset about the business management.
Now that I have that off my chest, I turn to this Report stage, which is an important reflection on what was a very important Grand Committee stage. I have had the assistance, as I am sure have other colleagues, of pressure groups such as Resolution and One Parent Families/Gingerbread in trying to distil what progress was made in Grand Committee. There are government amendments on the Marshalled List for the next two days of Report. They are welcome as far as they go, and we will come to them in due course.
I shall briefly summarise where I think I am left after reflecting carefully on the extensive Grand Committee proceedings. I still think that the Bill can be improved by looking at some of the objectives in Clause 2 and by examining, as Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 do, the bias that is arguably there towards voluntary arrangements. Later amendments on the Marshalled List look again at the amount of maintenance that parents with care can keep. More than anything else, the abolition of Section 6 now looks more and more, risky may not be the right word, but uncertain in terms of the Bill’s policy objectives. The more I look at this, listen to what people say, and discuss it with colleagues, the more I think that, as the Bill stands, funding for introducing a more voluntary way of accommodating these important demands and requirements may not really be safe.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 anticipate looking forward to a unified system, which is entirely right. It will not come fully into effect until 2013, which is a long time in coming. But we have to make a start and we know that the Government are planning that. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will come into play in September 2008 if the timetable under the Bill keeps up to pace.
7 May 2008 : Column 643
After reflecting on the Grand Committee proceedings, I also worry that we are asking poorer households—poorer families and single-parent families—to fend more for themselves in a way that still is not entirely safe under arrangements in the Bill. Finally, some of the legacy issues are still haunting at the back and casting a shadow over everything that the new commission will do on arrears which, if I have done the calculations right, are still growing at a rate of £16 million per month. More arrears are being created than are being dealt with. That indicates that the CSA, and the commission when it gets started, will need to pay much more attention to debt recovery.
In looking at Amendment No. 1, I also am concerned about the operational improvement plan. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that. The Child Support Agency quarterly statistics survey was published last week. The department rightly made hay with some of the improvements that had been made. The way in which case compliance and the cleaning up of cases have been addressed over the past 12 months has undoubtedly been welcome. But there are other less successful parts of the statistical analysis to which the House will want to pay careful attention when balancing these things. There is still a very poor picture in maintenance outcomes. The three-year operational improvement plan started in March 2006 and will not be finished for some time yet. We will need to watch that carefully because the original proposition on which this whole new system was built was that the operational improvement plan would deal with many of the legacy issues. I am not convinced that it has yet been able to do so.
IT problems persist. The release of PR1 is delayed again. There is a second release on the Child Support 2 scheme, the general ledger scheme. It is billed as an important and significant productivity increase on the general ledger system which produces management information. Without it, it may not be safe to go into the new system in September 2008, never mind introducing the commission to its new responsibilities without that being sorted. Perhaps the Minister can say something about where we are with the IT problems. In particular, I noticed with some fear that clerical cases have accumulated to the point where they now number 36,900, a 94 per cent increase since the operational improvement plan began in March 2006. There are some really testing questions about information technology behind some of the proposals in these amendments. I should like to know when these major upgrades will take place and the implications for the start-up date of September 2008 and the commission in the longer term.
Before I turn to the amendments, I have a final gripe. It is casual practice for the department to burrow into contingency funds for set-up costs for agencies of this kind. I know that the Treasury always has to approve sums of money, but we have had three or four slightly worrying levels of requests for money; namely, £300,000 in July 2007 for set-up costs, £1 million borrowed from contingency funds in January 2008, £2.4 million borrowed from contingency funds in April 2008, and, as the House knows, we have a contract for a £23 million Ventura support and guidance system. All those requests were in advance of Royal Assent.
7 May 2008 : Column 644
8.45 pm
Against that brief background, I turn to Amendment No. 1. This is an old argument that comes from our discussions in Grand Committee. It is not new, but for me it is now even more important. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 suggest two approaches in order to redress the balance and ensure that there is no overt or explicit bias towards voluntary arrangements. They are fine and we understand the provenance of the idea behind them. They have their place and they will improve, as well as offering choice where it did not exist; that is understood and acknowledged. However, Clause 2(1) suggests that the default position for CMEC as currently set out is simply to make and keep up voluntary arrangements. That is how it can be read, and I think that it may well be read that way by the new commissioners. The wording of the statute is important.
Of course voluntary can be better than statutory, but we have to be realistic about what we are asking some parents with care who are living on benefits to do in the brave new world we are creating. We have to bear in mind the financial and administrative background of the new commission: it must make administrative savings of £200 million each and every year. The business plan is launching the commission on the basis of 400,000 new cases a year and a 40 per cent increase in the number of voluntary arrangements is being planned for. We also know that the DWP will have to countenance a 5.6 per cent cut in annual expenditure over the course of the present Comprehensive Spending Review period. All of this is bound to bear down on the commission from day one, and there will be practical effects which will impinge on the amendments now before the House.
A large number of parents with care will need to be actively encouraged to use the statutory maintenance systems that CMEC will offer in the future. Why is that? It is because many of them are in hostile relationships; that is the reality. Many of them have no contact with the non-resident parent, many have little knowledge of what is available through the statutory maintenance system, and many lack confidence in terms of what they can and cannot do in their personal relationships. If there is in any doubt about that, DWP research report No. 468 published last year makes the position clear. It talks about the confidence of parents with care versus that of non-resident parents about the introduction of private arrangements. It is no surprise that only 24 per cent of parents with care have any confidence that voluntary arrangements will work for them, whereas 57 per cent of non-resident parents think that it would work in their own circumstances. There is a clear difference of view on the arrangements that have to be made in households depending on whether you ask the individual with the income and cash on the one hand or the individual with custody of
7 May 2008 : Column 645
I turn to the support and information system. What the Government have planned is vital, but I am not at all certain that it will be equal to the task. I know that Ventura has been engaged and that a lot of important work is being done, but I remain to be convinced that the system will be capable of providing the active encouragement that I think will be necessary, if for no other reason than the obviously disproportionate bargaining power in the hands of the non-resident parent.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that while voluntary arrangements will suit some people, and they are welcome in that regard, they will not by any means be suitable for all. The wording of Clause 2(1) does not reassure us that the commission will be able to be even-handed about the requirements necessary to support parents with care going into voluntary arrangements.
Briefly, Amendment No. 2 takes another approach by promoting the idea of encouraging use of the statutory maintenance system. I think that CMEC should share this idea. I shall make one or two points to make the case. We all know that the DWP already has a strategic objective of reducing the number of children living in poverty over the next three years, and I am sure we all know—we discussed it in Grand Committee but it is worth reminding ourselves—that half of all children living in single-parent households are poor. So, if the Government’s objectives are to be achieved, these families will have to be targeted. Amendment No. 2 does that by introducing the idea of encouragement into Clause 2(1).
The Henshaw report, which I read again recently, came to the conclusion that a great deal of trouble and time had been taken in the past transferring small amounts of money from poor households to poor households. It caused a disproportionate amount of administrative expense and we needed to get away from it. These small amounts of money are vital to parents with care. If the commission takes the Henshaw view that we can get a better bang for our buck if we go for bigger sums of money by targeting other people and attacking low-hanging fruit, and all the other clichés, we may again find that the poorest households in the lone-parent family client group are the ones that lose out. The people who establish successful voluntary arrangements are clearly in a better financial position in terms of housing, income groups and educational attainment. All parents with care who have these advantages seem to manage their voluntary agreements better—good for them—but what about those who cannot? Amendment No. 2 seeks to help such people.
This tension needs to be resolved. In Committee, the Minister was at pains to say that the wording does not matter much because the information and support system will get alongside anyone who needs help and ensure that they get the service they need. However, I need to be convinced that every individual will be treated on a case-by-case basis. If there is any doubt in the mind of an officer acting on behalf of
7 May 2008 : Column 646
The amendments are important and this is a good place to start our discussions on Report. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Colwyn): My Lords, should this amendment be agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is very useful to start the Report stage with these amendments. I shall speak only briefly because, as my noble friend will know, I have real reservations about the degree of voluntarism proposed in the Bill and the psychologically flawed view that if you do not pay under a statutory scheme you will somehow pay under a voluntary scheme which by definition becomes discretionary, optional and, in the worst possible case, avoided. The amendments deal with the issue of the commission being encouraged by statute to tilt what should be, at best, a level playing field up towards a voluntary system, with a statutory system only as a default. The amendments would change the position and give equal strength and support to both systems.
We could, equally, do it in a different way. Why cannot we have identical wording in subsection (2)(a) and (b) “to encourage and support the making and keeping by parents” and “to encourage and support the making of applications”? Both paragraphs would read either “encourage and support” or simply “support”, but at least on the face of the Bill they will not push the commission into a position that is full of risk, as I shall show when we come on to the more substantial debate about the repeal of Section 6. The potential losers will be children. It will be win-win for everyone else except the kids.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |