| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS127
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS127
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS127
Tuesday 15 January 2008
Airports: Manchester and Stansted
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
I am today publishing my decisions on whether Manchester and Stansted airports should remain designated for the purposes of price control under Section 40 of the Airports Act 1986. My decisions follow advice from the independent aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), on these airports and two public consultations. My department’s analysis has also been peer reviewed by Professor Martin Cave, director of the Centre for Management Under Regulation, at Warwick Business School, whose comments I am publishing alongside my decisions. My predecessor previously consulted on and announced new criteria for deciding whether or not an airport should be designated.
At Manchester, having carefully considered the responses from the consultation, I have concluded that Manchester airport does not have and is not likely to acquire substantial market power. I therefore intend to de-designate Manchester airport and will introduce the necessary legislative changes.
At Stansted, the decision is more finely balanced. After careful consideration, I have concluded that Stansted meets all of the criteria for designation, and should continue to be designated.
The airports in the south-east are now operating at almost full capacity. This is bad for passengers in terms of delays, congestion and lack of choice, and it is also damaging to the UK’s productivity and growth. This is why we support a second runway at Stansted and are consulting on adding capacity at Heathrow, while satisfying strict local environmental conditions on noise and air quality. I am therefore asking the CAA to continue to protect passengers by setting price caps at Stansted until new capacity is delivered, or until further evidence emerges from the ongoing Competition Commission review.
In making my decision on Stansted, I am aware of the comments made by a number of the respondents on the costs of the current approach to price controls at Stansted. The structure of price controls is a matter for the regulator, but my decision is not intended to constrain the CAA from adopting other approaches which meet its statutory duties while avoiding some of the costs of the current system that respondents have identified.
I have today published on my department’s website decision letters setting out in full the rationale for my decisions, and Professor Cave’s peer review comments. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS128
Armed Forces: Compensation Schemes
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
We previously announced on 11 October 2007 (Official Report, col. 42WS) the outcome, subject to consultation, of a review of the multiple injury lump-sum element of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the scheme's intent of focusing benefit on the most seriously injured was being delivered. The consultation has now concluded and I am pleased to confirm that the rule will be amended so that in future those who qualify for 100 per cent of the guaranteed income payment (GIP), who are by definition the most seriously injured, will receive 100 per cent of the surplus payable of all injuries sustained in a single incident, up to a maximum of £285,000. Those who do not qualify for 100 per cent GIP payments will continue to have the current discounting rule applied to their multiple injuries. This does not affect injuries sustained in separate incidents as these are already paid at the full tariff value of the injury.
The new rule applies to those whose injuries are sustained on or after the legislation comes into force. Cases whose multiple injuries were sustained between 6 April 2005 (the start of the scheme) and the date the new rule comes into force and who qualify for 100 per cent GIP will, exceptionally, have an additional benefit paid to bring them to the same level as those who have the new rule applied.
The AFCS is still relatively new. While a full review of the scheme will be undertaken after five years of operation, we will continue to monitor the scheme in order to identify areas where evidence supports the need for further changes before then. The amendments to the legislation will be laid before Parliament on Wednesday 16 January to put the new rule in place on 8 February. Service personnel whose claims have already been processed and who are entitled to the additional payment will receive their extra money as soon as possible thereafter.
Regional Spatial Strategies
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Parmjit Dhanda) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today publishing the phase 1 revision to the regional spatial strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands. It follows the public examination in January 2007 and the proposed changes published in September.
The majority of the consultation responses were supportive of the proposed changes and the Secretary of State is therefore pleased to confirm them with some minor amendments. The final revision includes:
new policies to define broad areas for regeneration and growth in the Black Country,15 Jan 2008 : Column WS129
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has today written to the WMRA with the final phase 1 revision together with a summary of responses and schedule of changes.
Copies of the relevant documents are available on the internet and in the Libraries of both Houses and have been provided for all of the region’s MPs, MEPs and local authorities.
The more extensive phase 2 revision to the West Midlands RSS is also under way. This covers revisions to housing and employment policies and the draft submission from the West Midlands Regional Assembly is currently being consulted on.
Russia: British Council
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
I made clear in my Written Ministerial Statement on 13 December, and again in Oral Questions on 8 January, that the Russian Government’s threatened action against the British Council in Russia was illegal, and that the British Council intended to remain open and operational in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. The British Council has done so.
I regret to inform the House that, on 14 January, the Russian authorities informed the British ambassador in Moscow that Russia intends to take a series of administrative measures against the British Council. These include tax measures against the British Council in St Petersburg and visa restrictions against British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. Russia has further stated that it may take further action against the British Council in Moscow, including visa restrictions against UK diplomatic staff. Such threats can only make matters worse. It is not in the interests of either the UK or Russia for flourishing cultural, educational and scientific links to be held hostage to unrelated issues in this way.
As the Government have repeatedly made clear to the Russian authorities, the British Council's activities in St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and across Russia are fully compliant both with Russian and international law, under the Vienna Conventions. Its presence and activities are also specifically sanctioned by a 1994 UK/Russia Agreement on Co-operation in Education, Science and Culture, signed by Russia.
The Government will consider these latest actions by Russia carefully and will continue to engage with our international partners on them. We will respond to the Russian Government shortly. I will continue to keep the House informed of developments.
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS130
School Teachers’ Review Body
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Lord Adonis): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
Part I of the seventeenth report of the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) is being published today, covering a range of matters referred to it in March 2007. I am grateful for the thorough attention the STRB has given to these matters. Copies of the report and of my detailed response to it are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office, the Libraries of the House and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pay.
The STRB has made recommendations for values of pay scales, spines and allowances, including leadership group pay covering three years from September 2008 to August 2010. It has recommended a 2.45 per cent increase from September 2008 and has made recommendations that would give teachers further increases of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and 2010.
I very much welcome the framework of predictability that these three-year recommendations will give, which will assist long-term strategic decision-making by local authorities and schools. The multi-year figures and processes proposed by the STRB provide an approach which is in accordance with the Government's stated policy on public sector pay, which is for awards that are consistent with the achievement of the CPI inflation target of 2 per cent, are affordable, represent value for money for taxpayers and reflect the labour market position of workforces.
As regards schools in England, the 2.1 per cent minimum funding guarantee which was announced in the school funding settlement on 12 November 2007 is based on a cautious and realistic assessment of the wide range of cost pressures schools will face both from pay and non-pay.
I am therefore confident that these figures will be manageable over the next three-year period.
I propose therefore to accept the STRB's recommendation of a 2.45 per cent award payable from September 2008, and to accept the figures of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and September 2010 which it has indicated in its report. Consistent with its report, I propose to set the STRB a remit in the course of 2008 to enable it to ensure that the increases it has proposed for 2009 and 2010 continue to be appropriate in the light of latest recruitment and retention data and wider economic and labour market conditions. I should however make clear that it is my firm view at this stage that the increases set out in the recommendations in relation to 2009-11 are the right ones. There would need to be clear evidence of a significant and material change in these factors to justify any change to these figures. The STRB would also need to take into account the fact that schools' budgets will have been set assuming the current figures.
The STRB's recommendations also include enhancements to the salaries of some categories of teacher in inner and outer London and it recommends that there should be a review over a longer timescale of
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS131
The review body has also made recommendations on the unqualified teachers' pay scale. These are detailed and technical matters on which I would like to take the views of consultees before proposing how these matters should be resolved. My detailed response contains further information on both these issues.
Annexe to Written Ministerial Statement of 15 January 2008
School Teachers' Review Body recommendations and response from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls)
The following sets out the full set of recommendations from the School Teachers' Review Body and was published in the seventeenth report part 1 (Cm 7252) on 15 January 2008, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The STRB's recommendations below are in bold.
: Part 1 of the seventeenth report of the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) is being published today. It covers a range of matters referred to the STRB in March 2007. Copies are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of the House and at www.teachernet.gov.uk/pay. The second part is expected later this year.
In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items a to g set out in the remit letter of 29 March 2007. Part 1 of the seventeenth report covers the main pay award for 2008-09, provides an indicative award for 2009-11 and makes recommendations related to unqualified teachers' pay arrangements. I am grateful for the thorough attention the STRB has given to these matters. I am inviting comments on the STRB's report and my response to its recommendations by 11 February 2008.
Teachers' pay from September 2008
The STRB has recommended the following:
I am grateful to the STRB for this set of recommendations on teachers' pay, covering the period from September 2008 to August 2011, and which I propose to accept. I very much welcome the framework of predictability that these recommendations will give, which will assist long-term strategic decision-making by local authorities and schools. The multi-year figures and processes proposed by the STRB provide an approach which is in accordance with the Government's stated policy on public sector pay, which is for awards that are consistent with the achievement of the CPS inflation target of 2 per cent, are affordable, represent value for money for taxpayers and reflect the labour market position of workforces.
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS132
This is the first of the public sector pay awards for 2008 and beyond. These recommendations for teachers' pay for the coming three-year period increase the capacity to focus on service delivery by providing stability and certainty for staff and employers alike. In addition to supporting public service delivery, appropriate multi-year pay settlements support the Government's goal of entrenching economic stability by holding down inflation expectations and locking in moderate earnings growth over the medium term.
As regards schools in England, I am also confident that these figures will be manageable over the next three-year period within the minimum funding guarantee of 2.1 per cent, which was announced in the school funding settlement on 12 November 2007. The minimum funding guarantee is based on a cautious and realistic assessment of the wide range of cost pressures schools will face from both pay and non-pay.
I propose therefore to accept the STRB's recommendation of a 2.45 per cent award payable from September 2008, and to accept the figures of 2.3 per cent from September 2009 and September 2010 which it has indicated in its report. Consistent with its report, I propose to set the STRB a remit in the course of 2008 to enable it to ensure that the increases it has proposed for 2009 and 2010 continue to be appropriate in the light of latest recruitment and retention data and wider economic and labour market conditions. I should however make clear that it is my firm view at this stage that the increases set out in the recommendations in relation to 2009-11 are the right ones. There would need to be clear evidence of a significant and material change in these factors to justify any change to these figures. The STRB would also need to take into account the fact that schools' budgets will have been set assuming the current figures.
We will also need to consider with the STRB some practicalities as regards the timing of a report following such a review, as the date proposed (June 2009) would not allow enough time for changes to be implemented by September 2009.
Starting Salaries and the Four Pay Bands
The STRB has recommended the following:
15 Jan 2008 : Column WS133
I welcome this recommendation, which recognises that a review of the four pay areas covering England and Wales would be valuable. The timescale proposed is also helpful and allows time for careful and considered study of the situation. There would be a number of issues to resolve, including in respect of the STRB's suggestion that future banding could be non-static (picking up an aspect of broader proposals in its thirteenth report part 21). I shall take careful note of any immediate reactions expressed by consultees on these recommendations in relation to this current consultation. I shall also want to take into account in due course the views of the Welsh Assembly Government in respect of their own funding arrangements.
The STRB has further recommended:
I note the STRB's recommendation for certain revisions in advance of a review of the structure of the four pay bands. I note its view that a revision is needed to the first point on the main pay scale (Ml) for teachers in inner and outer London, with consequential adjustments to points M2 and M3 on that scale. I also note its recommendations for enhancements in these same areas to the value of each of the three points on the upper pay scale.
I appreciate that the STRB has sought to make recommendations which would lead to the minimum starting salary, in areas where recruitment is generally more competitive, being set at an eye-catching rate over the next three years. I propose to accept these recommendations. As regards the upper pay scale, I consider that it is important for the rewards attached to becoming a post-threshold teacher to be maintained year-on-year and so I propose to accept these recommendations also. DCSF will make available additional funding through a specific grant to cover the increased cost to London authorities of implementing the STRB recommendations on London pay. Our aim is that from 2011-12 this grant will be mainstreamed into the DSG.
The STRB has recommended the following:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |