Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I propose to put together motions 2 and 3.
10 Nov 2005 : Column 554


Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

UN Millennium Development Goals

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8137/05, Commission Communication on Policy Coherence for Development: Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), No. 8138/05, Commission Communication on Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals—the European Union's contribution, and No. 8139/05, Commission Communication on Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals—Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness; and supports the Government's view welcoming the EU's recognition that its non-aid policies have an important impact on developing countries' prospects for growth and development, including attaining the MDGs; welcoming EU Member States' commitments to double annual EU aid to all developing countries by 2010, with at least 50 per cent. of the agreed increase going to Africa, and to achieving the 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI target by 2015; and welcoming agreements on increased aid effectiveness under the Paris Declaration, untying of aid, trade-related assistance, multilateral debt relief and innovative financing in line with the outcomes of the UN Millennium Review Summit to take stock of progress towards the MDGs.

European Information Society for Growth and Employment

      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9758/05, Commission Communication: i2010—A European Information Society for Growth and Employment; and supports the Government view welcoming the objectives of the Commission's i2010 Strategy and endorses the Government's work, during its Presidency of the EU, to identify and agree on the respective responsibilities of all players and the most important actions they need to undertake to ensure that i2010 makes a real contribution to the Lisbon objective to make Europe 'the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010'.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Question agreed to.



10 Nov 2005 : Column 553

10 Nov 2005 : Column 555

Local Government Funding (Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

4.39 pm

Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of local government finance in Kent. I am grateful to the Minister of State for being here at the end of what has been a busy week for all of us, and to my hon. Friends for joining me for this important discussion. I do not intend to use this opportunity to excoriate the Government to make us all feel better. Instead, I want to take the opportunity to make some serious points, and to invite the Minister to reflect further on some of the pressures that my and my hon. Friends' constituents face when the budget settlement, on which Ministers are consulting, is finalised.

People get the wrong idea about Kent. Because it is close to London, in the south-east of England and has beautiful countryside and historic towns and cities, such as the one that I am proud to represent, they assume that we are universally affluent, with no social or economic problems or real worries. That is far from the case, however. Even Tunbridge Wells has some areas where deprivation is as extreme as in other places that are more renowned for their levels of social deprivation. A charity in my constituency that does fantastic work in one of the most deprived areas of the county has even had to take the name Tunbridge Wells off its letterhead, because its experience was that when looking for donors and applying for grants, people turned a blind eye and assumed that there was no possible need to help the poor and vulnerable in Tunbridge Wells. That is not the case.

Kent is more surprising than many in the outside world realise. In terms of deprivation, for example, 12 per cent. of Kent constituents are wholly dependent on benefits—a massive figure. Kent has 5.6 per cent. of all the looked-after children in the country, which is twice the national average. It is important that we give the best possible service to those young people.

Far from being an area in which proximity to Europe and London has resulted in jobs galore with high productivity and salaries, we lag behind in knowledge work. For example, only 13 per cent. of people in Kent are employed in the knowledge industries—only just over half the level in south-east England as a whole, which is 24 per cent. Areas of deprivation are therefore scattered across the county.

The case that I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends want to make to the Minister is not one of special party political pleading, but for a review of the situation in Kent. As the Minister considers the funding settlement, I want to commend such a review to him for five reasons.

First, deprivation and trends in deprivation in Kent should be considered. Sadly, deprivation in Kent is deteriorating compared with other parts of the country. Between 1991 and 2001, on all the key indices of deprivation, it has shown a marked decline. In Kent, the number of pupils in the areas of greatest deprivation is increasing, which is the opposite of the pattern across the country whereby growth in pupil numbers tends to be in the more prosperous areas. No doubt there are various reasons for that, but it is a fact. Because there is
10 Nov 2005 : Column 556
a uniformity of decline in socio-economic indicators, it is particularly important that Government funding keeps up with the facts.

We know the indices of deprivation. They are very clear in the 2001 census, and yet the Government persist in allocating funds not on the basis of that census, which is already nearly five years old, but on the basis of the 1991 census, which is almost a generation out of date. People in my constituency, especially young people, should be given their fair share—no more than that. If the Government persist in using the 1991 census, a whole generation will have passed their lives as children without the care and support that they might expect if the Government were up to date.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that given the level of deprivation to which he has referred, it is unjustifiable that whereas when the Government came to office Kent council tax payers were contributing a quarter of local government expenditure, eight years later they are being asked to shoulder more than a third? Is that not grossly unfair to them?

Greg Clark: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes his point with characteristic force. The position is particularly unjust in view of the fact that the statistics relating to Kent match those relating to other areas that have been treated more generously. My constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend, feel let down by the Government.

The second factor is our ageing population. As we know, the population throughout the country is ageing, but in Kent that is happening with particular force. In the next 15 years, there will be 56 per cent. more people over 85 living in Kent. We know the reasons for that. People have always moved out of London to the home counties, especially to seaside resorts, to retire. A problem that affects the country as a whole affects Kent particularly severely. Yet again, however, the funding formula does not afford my constituents and Kent county council the fairness that has applied to other parts of the country. The average payment for an elderly person in the London boroughs is over £1,600 a week; the figure in Kent is £630. That is a massive difference, which cannot be explained by the cost of accommodation and services. Paradoxically, we in Kent are given much less money with which to look after our elderly people although wage pressures and property costs are as high as in other parts of the south-east.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but the position is even worse than that. Many elderly people from London are in Kentish homes. Absurdly, there may be two elderly people side by side, one of whom is receiving more than twice as much Government funding as the other although they are in nursing or residential homes at the same cost.

Next Section IndexHome Page