The Bishop of London described this as an acknowledgment from Government of the unique heritage value to the nation of cathedrals and churches and the way in which these alterations are enabling them to serve their local communities in a range of ways alongside being centres of worship.

Despite not persuading the Government that maintaining zero rated VAT for alterations is the best way forward, church leaders today said that the £30 million a year extra money that the Chancellor has committed to the LPWGS will enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid out on all alterations and repairs to listed church buildings. The Scheme pays out to those denominations and faiths with listed buildings

The LPWGS will in future be ring fenced and no longer vulnerable to cuts in departmental budgets and it is planned to re-introduce monthly pay outs from October. The scheme will be guaranteed for the duration of this Parliament. Parishes have shown they need a much greater degree of certainty in the funding they receive and this will now be met by ironing out some of the more unhelpful characteristics of the current LPWGS.

The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres who chairs the Cathedrals and Church Buildings Division and who led the discussions with the Treasury said “We owe a debt of gratitude to the Second Church Estates Commissioner Tony Baldry, for his role in brokering this agreement, and to Anne Sloman, and Janet Gough who have worked tirelessly in a very short window of opportunity but the Chancellor made it very clear that he was moving to ease the impact on the churches in recognition of the massive contribution made by congregations up and down the land to the life of their communities”.

Anne Sloman, Chair of the Church Buildings Council said, “the fact that the Treasury offer went from £5million to £30million is a recognition of the tremendous value for money to the nation as a whole that our buildings represent. We are grateful to parishes up and down the land who have lobbied so hard since the Budget to bring this point home to the government, and even more grateful for the massive contribution volunteers make by their efforts, week in and week out, to keep our beautiful churches in good repair for worship and adapted to serve the community in so many creative ways.”

To read a copy of the full briefing note issued by the Church of England, please click on the link here: VAT on Listed Buildings briefing note.

On Tuesday 15 May, Tony Baldry MP joined the UK’s largest dog welfare charity in its calls for action on tackling irresponsible ownership.

At the charity’s annual House of Commons reception, the Dogs Trust unveiled a stunning photographic display depicting the work it carries out within communities to help reduce the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership alongside its policy document: ‘Taking the Lead, Tackling Irresponsible Dogs Ownership’.

The event provided a platform for MPs to talk to Dogs Trust staff about the work carried out on the ground to encourage owners to train, neuter and microchip their dogs.

Speaking after the event, Tony spoke of his concerns about anti-social dog behaviour and expressed support for the Dogs Trust work on this issue:

“Incidences of anti-social behaviour involving dogs have been increasing in many local areas. I am delighted that Dogs Trust is proactively looking to tackle the issue by getting down to grass roots. Whilst legislation has its part to play, it is important to emphasise that outreach work within local communities is also vital in order to engage dog owners and to help prevent dog attacks.”

Clarissa Baldwin, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust said:

““Dogs Trust works with over 300 local authorities to tackle the root causes of irresponsible dog ownership. We know from working in affected communities that this is a complex social issue; one that requires a multi-agency approach to target harder to reach groups. As the largest dog welfare charity in the UK, we believe that we’re in the best position to promote change by engaging with dog owners, schools, dog wardens, young offenders, housing associations and the police. We are delighted that Tony Baldry supports the work that we are doing.”

• What is the role of an MP in the campaign process?

• What effect does lobbying have and what is the most effective way to go about this?

• How many letters need to be sent before there is action on a topic?

• Examples of good and bad ways to write letters and

• Do petitions work?

• What not to do.

• What goes on behind the scenes at Parliament and how long does it take for an issue raised to make it to the debating stage?

• How long before actual noticeable change might happen?

I thought it would be helpful to try and respond to these questions with a written speech which could then be shared with other Mothers’ Union branches.

My comments are based on the experience of nearly thirty years in the House of Commons.

Approximately equal time of service on the Government and Opposition benches.

Including the experience of having been a Minister in four different Government Departments and having Chaired a Select Committee for a whole Parliament.

And I think that is my starting point.

During one’s time in the House of Commons, a Member of Parliament may have a number of different roles.

One will start off as a Backbencher on either the Government or Opposition side – depending of course as to whether or not one’s Party is in Government.

If one’s Party is in Government, one would then hope to be promoted to becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary (known as a PPS) – often described by the media as “Ministerial bag carriers” – but who are actually in practice important links between Ministers and Backbenchers.

Between Ministers and outside interest groups.

And in due course from the ranks of the PPS’s, one would hope to be promoted to becoming a Government Whip or a Junior Minister and from being promoted up from being a Parliamentary Under Secretary to a Minister of State and then possibly to a Minister within the Cabinet.

With a similar sort of career ladder in Shadow working on the Opposition benches.

As a senior Backbencher, one might hope to become a Chair of a Select Committee or a senior member of a Select Committee or allocated a specific task such as mine – which at present is the link between Parliament and the Church.

So if one takes a policy campaign and sits down with a sheet of paper, depending on the policies involved, there are likely to be one or a number of Government Departments involved and thus one or a number of Secretaries of State who are going to be interested in the policy initiatives that you are putting forward.

Then there will almost certainly be within their Department a Junior Minister – either a Minister of State or a Parliamentary Private Secretary – who will have day to day responsibility for that particular area of policy. The Secretary of State will have a PPS.

There are Departmental Select Committees for each Government Department so, for example, if the issue which is causing you concern relates to the Home Department, the policy issues are almost certainly going to be of some interest to the Home Affairs Select Committee and members of that Committee.

There will be an Opposition Spokesman, so a Shadow Secretary of State – and a Shadow Member of the Front Bench team who has a particular interest in that area of policy.

There may well be some all-Party Groups interested in the area of policy that is causing you concern.

All-Party Groups are what they say – they are slightly ad hoc groups made up of Backbench MPs of all Parties but interested in a particular policy area.

- and of course in respect of every policy initiative, in addition to Ministers, there will also be a significant number of officials in Whitehall who will be concerned with working up and developing policy on the area which is causing you concern.

So how would I do this – I would start by writing to the lead Secretary of State, ie the Secretary of State of the Department which one thinks would be most involved in the campaign you are running – and to his or her opposite number (ie the Shadow Secretary of State).

Clearly setting out the issues that are causing you concern.

The policy changes that you would like to see and asking for a meeting with Ministers or officials.

When your letter is received in Whitehall, it will be marked out by the Private Officer of the Secretary of State for officials in the Department to draft an appropriate response – and that response will either be signed off by officials or by the relevant Minister.

So the reply you receive is going to tell you a number of things.

Firstly, it is going to tell you whether you have got the right Government Department.

Because if you haven’t got the right Government Department, your letter will be transferred to whom wherever in Whitehall they consider to be the correct Government Department !

You will hopefully get an indication of which Minister within the Department is responsible for the policy area in which you are interested in, as almost certainly he or she or someone from their Private Office will reply on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The letter back from the Department will also clearly set out in broad terms the Department’s existing policy on the issue which you have raised.

In Whitehall parlance, this is known as:

“the line to take”

and this will give you some clear indication of how near or how far apart you are on the issues that you have raised – and with luck you will be invited (if the campaign is a significant campaign) either to meet with Ministers or officials and I would certainly have anticipated any campaign, for example, organised by the Mothers’ Union at a national level that an appropriate Minister or officials would want to meet National Officers.

It is always helpful, if it is at all possible, to meet officials first because they are generally slightly freer in what they say and slightly easier to discern and discover from them just what the difference is or the concerns or the issues or the problems might be in getting your policy initiative accepted.

Of course, it is very often helpful to have the concerted support of a number of Backbench MPs probably on both sides of the House.

You ask about petitions and you ask about numbers of letters or emails.

I wouldn’t wish in any way to discount the value of either petitions or emails or letters.

However, I think the risk is that very often what one gets is a standard letter or a standard email on a campaign being sent to Members of Parliament which are then very often (by MPs of all Parties) simply intercepted by our Research Assistants with not unsurprisingly a standard letter or standard email tending to be replied to by another standard letter or standard email, which may not necessarily take the debate very much further forward.

Personally, I think the most effective way to lobby an MP is to go and see them.

99.9% of Members of Parliament have regular constituency “surgeries”.

I have a constituency “surgery” on average once a fortnight.

These are usually held in a local Town Hall or a similar public building.

They are usually well advertised – either in the local newspapers or on a Member of Parliament’s website.

If you are not sure about a Member of Parliament’s website, just go to www.google.com – type in the MP’s name – and almost certainly the first piece of information given on the Google search will be the details of the MP’s personal website – and the overwhelming majority of MPs now do have their own website on which they almost always will set out the details of when their surgery takes place, where it takes place and a contact telephone number and email address as to how to book an appointment at their next constituency “surgery”.

Book an appointment. In reality you will probably get a 15 minute slot.

That should be ample time to explain the highlights of your campaign.

To set out the key objectives.

To give the Member of Parliament an opportunity of asking questions and it is then sensible to leave them with a short written brief and a check-list of what you hope that particular Member of Parliament will do.

So for example, if they are a member of the appropriate Select Committee, it may well be to raise it with the Select Committee.

If they are a Backbencher, will they be willing to table an Early Day Motion or to ask an appropriate Oral Question to the Minister in the Department concerned or to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the particular topic or indeed for themselves to table and ask for themselves a Backbench debate which can be either an hour and a half or half an hour.

Members of Parliament are human beings and they tend to respond much better to a personal face to face approach.

They tend to respond when they can go with the grain of a problem and the key is to try and develop into a joint campaign, so that the Member of Parliament then feels able to put out press releases to the local press saying something along the lines of:

“Joe Blogs MP working together with the Bloxham Mothers’ Union (or the the Mothers’ Union in Oxfordshire or the Mothers’ Union nationally) are campaigning to……..(change the law on this or persuade the Government to do that or whatever the campaign might be).

It is also important always to remember that Members of Parliament are only as good as the information we receive.

We have all over the years become adjusted to reading large quantities of information very quickly of hopefully trying to sort out what is important from that which is not so important – from sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

But at the end of the day we are still dependent on the core briefing that we receive and the accuracy of that briefing.

So don’t be surprised if Members of Parliament are not omniscient and don’t immediately appear to know everything about the policy area that happens to be causing you concern on that particular day.

Quite often Members of Parliament will shy away from taking up particular policy issues because they are concerned that if they use the wrong language or say the wrong thing, someone will shout at them.

So I am still slightly wary as to whether I should be talking about:

- people with disabilities or

- disabled people

but I am fairly clear if I use the wrong phrase, there is a risk that someone is going to shout at me.
Depending on what role they have in Parliament, any Member of Parliament that you approach will work out for themselves what is the most effective way that they can help you.

So if the person you approach is a Minister but in another Government Department, they will probably write a letter or talk to their colleagues in the lobby.

A Backbencher may well table a number of Parliamentary questions or, as I say, put in for a debate.

If you can get all-Party consensus amongst Backbenchers, so much the better.

Far harder for Ministers to resist an argument which is being put forward with equal vigour from equal strength from Members of their own side of the House, as well as Opposition MPs.

So for example, I remember a debate in Westminster Hall during the last Parliament on victims of thalidomide where the Minister had clearly been briefed and clearly started to resist any suggestion of Government spending or Government involvement with victims of thalidomide who were of course, by definition, now all getting much older and not always finding life any easier.

There was co-ordinated – sometimes very moving – speeches from all sides of the House and it was quite clear the Minister effectively ripped up his prepared speech and announced the introduction of a pilot scheme of support by the Government for thalidomide victims.

Not what I suspect he and his officials had anticipated he would say when the debate started.

Often a campaign can be taken up by an appropriate all-Party Group and I am fairly certain that the House of Commons website has a full list of all the all-Party Groups, ie all the topics and in respect of each all-Party Group, there is a registered MP who is a contact or if there isn’t an all-Party Group for the policy area in which you are interested or causing you concern, you might like to ask some MPs if they would consider setting up an appropriate all-Party Group.

No two campaigns will be exactly the same.

Petitions can be effective if you get a lot of Members of Parliament delivering petitions at the same time.

There is a limit to the number of petitions that can actually be introduced on the floor of the House at the end of any one day’s sitting but there is a mechanism and device whereby they can be placed in a bag behind the Speaker’s chair and are effectively counted, recorded and the fact of there being deposited is recorded in Hansard.

I have seen a number of instances whereby a whole number of colleagues have turned up with petitions relating to a specific issue and which has made it clear to Ministers that this is a matter of concern right across the country and not limited to certain people or certain constituencies.

An important note however to remember about Parliamentary petitions is that you can’t have a general county or national or area petition – each petition has to relate to an individual constituency.

So, for example, if you are collecting signatures in Banbury, you have to try and ensure that those who sign the petition are constituents of the North Oxfordshire constituency and not constituents from people from Daventry or Shipston-on-Stour or Southam because they will need to sign petitions in their own constituency.

If a Member of Parliament or Members of Parliament get involved with your campaigns, they will almost certainly have their own campaigning ideas and suggestions which will reflect their own individual experience in the House and what role they have in Parliament at the present moment.

What works best for them and their own particular style.

I think one of the great strengths of the Mothers’ Union is your “brand”.

Every Member of Parliament will immediately know who you are and I would have thought the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament would want to work constructively with their local branches of their Mothers’ Union or, at the very least, enter into a constructive dialogue with you.

As I say, I think the important things to remember however are that there might be 650 Members of Parliament but within that number, there is a whole range of roles and activities that Members of Parliament can play.

It is so very important before you go and see a Member of Parliament to look up what he or she is doing at Westminster, what are their specific roles and how that might best suit your objective.

So, for example, within the county of Oxfordshire we – amongst the six Members of Parliament – have

• the Prime Minister

• a Junior Minister who is in the Department for Culture, Media & Sport

• a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister – to the Leader of the House of Commons

• an active new Backbencher who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee in Nicola Blackwood and

• a long serving Backbencher, former Minister, former Select Committee Chairman in myself and

• a former Opposition Backbench MP who was a former Cabinet Minister in the shape of Andrew Smith.

Each of us has a slightly different role at Westminster and different ways of being able to make an impact and different ways of being able to influence policy development.

• and of course there are various trade-offs in time.

Brilliant if you are able to get to the Prime Minister but as you can imagine, demands on his diary are enormous and so if you get a meeting with him, you may well not get much time with him – although he will always I know give everyone as much time as he can – so there are always a number of trade-offs here.

Do campaigns work and what is the time scale?

Yes – campaigns do work.

I give you a straightforward example –

Shortly after the General Election, Treasury officials sought to persuade Ministers in the Department for Work & Pensions to withdraw mobility allowance for disabled people living in residential care homes.

I have Agnes Court in Banbury in my constituency which is a home belonging to Leonard Cheshire Disability.

I persuaded the appropriate Minister – the Minister for the Disabled – to come to Banbury to visit Agnes Court to listen to the detailed concerns of residents who are my constituents and in due course, the policy proposal was reversed and abandoned.

As to time scale, sometimes these campaigns take a bit of time – not least because it is almost always more than one Government Department concerned – almost always somewhere the Treasury will be involved – which quite often means inter-departmental negotiation and every Minister having to sign up to a particular change.

We have a collective Government, which means that once a policy is adopted by the Government it is adopted by the whole of the Government and by every Minister but the quid pro quo for that is that very often a number of Ministers are involved in the decision relating to policy development.
It is always important to remember that MPs want to be helpful.

In all honesty, if we didn’t want to be helpful, we wouldn’t be MPs.

All MPs want to have a constructive dialogue with you and even if they disagree with what it is that you are trying to achieve, if they don’t support your particular policy initiative, they will certainly wish to be courteous and engage in positive dialogue with you about your points of view and their points of view.

So don’t be afraid of approaching Members of Parliament direct – they won’t bite – it is worth going to see them at their constituency “surgeries” but bearing in mind they are probably under some pressure – you will need to work on the basis of it being a ten to fifteen minute slot – and don’t forget to leave them a note as to what you hope they might do to help you.

I hope that’s a helpful summary – I am conscious that one could almost organise a seminar series on making Parliament work for you but I think at the beginning of any campaign, I think you start with some basic questions:

• What are we trying to achieve?

• Whom do we need to influence for what we are trying to achieve to happen? and

• How do we involve and enlist our local MP and other Members of Parliament to be part of that campaign.

I hope this is helpful and I would be very happy to answer any questions that anyone might have.

I have sent these comments as an email to the Mothers’ Union so if anyone wants a copy of the text of what I have said, it should be easily available.

Tony Baldry

12 May 2012

The specially designated week, which runs from 18th until 24th June this year aims to raise awareness and recognise the contribution made by all those in North Oxfordshire and throughout the UK who provide care for someone who is ill, frail or disabled and whose work is vital for their families, friends and the entire local community.

This year’s theme for Carers Week is ‘In Sickness and In Health’ and aims to particularly give recognition to the strain families find themselves under as they see their services cut back. It is also providing an opportunity to call for better financial and practical support for the diverse range of people who have caring responsibilities, with recent research finding that 47 percent of unpaid workers said they were made ill by money worries whilst 45 percent of unpaid carers said that caring had pushed them into debt.

By teaming up, Tony and Fiona paid tribute to carers and urged that they receive more support in their caring roles.

After the meeting Tony said:

“Thousands of people in and around North Oxfordshire not only sacrifice their time but also their money and health in caring for a loved one. Carers save this country £119 billion every year. This is a not insignificant amount of money in the current economic climate and so it is vital that carers are offered regular breaks and health checks so that they know that there is support for them in their role as a carer.

“Carers Week provides a fantastic opportunity to raise awareness of the issues carers face and for myself and my colleagues to show our respect and appreciation for carers. Carers come from all sorts of backgrounds and range in age from young to old. Services are available to help all of them and it is important for them to know that. Caring can be incredibly demanding and so it is vital for them to know that they don’t have to struggle alone.”

Fiona Philips said:

“From personal experience, I know caring can demand a lot of your time and attention, which in some cases can put pressure on other areas in your life such as financial responsibilities and relationships. These problems can prove to be exhausting and mentally gruelling and can really take its toll on your health and wellbeing. I hope that Carers Week can again help to achieve change and make a real difference to the lives of carers in this country.”

Helen Clarke, the Carers Week Manager says, “I’m delighted that MPs are listening to carers’ concerns and supporting this year’s Carers Week. We must take action to support the UK’s 6.4million carers. Many are paying the prince of care system in crisis – being forced to give up work to care and often pushed into ill-health, financial hardship and debt because of lack of support to help them care.”

In reflecting on the Queen’s Speech, it is probably sensible to consider where we are and where we have been. In recalling where we are, it is important to remember that the Prime Minister’s party does not have a parliamentary majority. After the general election, it was clearly in the nation’s interest to form a coalition. A coalition, however, requires compromise every day. To govern, the Prime Minister has to agree policy initiatives with a political party very different from his own. In practice, the coalition is working a lot better than many would have imagined. The fact is that the Conservative party did not win enough seats or votes to enable us to deliver all our manifesto pledges. The solution is not to blame the coalition, but to seek to win more votes next time.

Notwithstanding the challenges of the coalition, the Government have, since the general election, embarked on a vast reforming programme unprecedented in modern times to reduce the structural deficit and to put through reforms of the NHS that will enable GPs better to design local NHS services for their patients. The Government have reformed primary and secondary education, introduced a new system of university tuition fees and completely overhauled the welfare system to ensure that as many people as possible can live responsible and worthwhile lives free of state dependency. The Government have capped housing benefit and passed the European Union Act 2011 so that in future any EU treaty that transfers powers to the European Union will be subject to a referendum, and never again will a Government be able to surrender sovereignty to Brussels without the full consent of the British people. On Europe, too, the Prime Minister and the Government have vetoed the fiscal pact. Ministers have swept away pages and pages of planning regulations, but in so doing have still managed to protect the green belt, while providing local councillors and local communities with the opportunity to design and develop their own local plans free of top-down Whitehall directives such as regional spatial strategies.

The Government are introducing elected police commissioners and reforming public sector pensions that would otherwise become unaffordable and unsustainable. Importantly, the Government have taken millions of the low paid out of income tax and have cut corporation tax. We inherited corporation tax at 28% , but by 2014, it will be reduced to 22%. As a result, the UK will have the lowest main corporation tax rate in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. To help businesses further, the Government have introduced a £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme to get cheaper loans to businesses. These have been bold reforms and they have all been achieved without a Conservative majority.

It is not only that the Prime Minister has had to govern with a party that does not have a parliamentary majority, as the second reality is that the Government have no money—and it is not unreasonable to think that a Government with no majority and no money will have problems. We should never forget that the Labour Government left Britain with a deficit that, at £160 billion, was bigger than Greece’s. The Labour Government gave us the longest and deepest recession on record, so that we were one of the first countries into recession and one of the last countries coming out of recession. We should never forget the telling letter left to his successor by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne):

“Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”

That pithy 13-word message—whether it was tongue in cheek or not—well summed up the 13 years of the Labour Government.

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): Does my hon. Friend think it important to remind the House and the country that we are only two years into this historic coalition Government, and considering the economic mess that we were left, it is remarkable how many positive things are in this Queen’s Speech?

Tony Baldry: Yes, this Government have probably achieved more in two years than the Blair Government achieved in the whole of the first term of the Blair Government.

Gavin Shuker: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that we are in the first double-dip recession for 37 years?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has just heard me comment on the legacy of his Government, so I find it extraordinary that he has the cheek and audacity to ask such a question. The Labour Government left the country with no money and the biggest debt crisis of our lifetime.

Indeed, over many years, this country built up massive debts, which we have to pay off. Of course, it is much more difficult to do that when so much of the rest of Europe is in recession. As I suspect France will soon demonstrate, trying to pile debt upon debt is what got Britain and Europe into such difficulties in the first place. It did not work for Britain over 13 years of a Labour Government and would not work now. The eurozone’s troubles are caused by too much debt, the burden of excessive public spending and the burden of excessive public borrowing. It is not surprising that Government are seeking the approval of Parliament relating to the agreed financial stability mechanism within the euro area.

It is no mean task recovering from the deepest recession in living memory, accompanied as it was by a debt crisis. Our banks had too much debt; our households had too much debt; and the Government had too much debt. As Sir Mervyn King, commenting on the performance of the last Government, observed in “The Today Lecture” that he gave last week while the House was in recess:

“Bailing out the banks came too late though to prevent the financial crisis from spilling over into the world economy. The realisation of the true state of the banking system led to a collapse of confidence around the world…unemployment in Britain rose by over a million….to many this will seem deeply unfair and it is. I can understand why so many people are angry.”

One can speculate only that perhaps more than a million people may have lost their jobs unnecessarily because the previous Government failed to act on warnings from the Bank of England.

Notwithstanding the challenge, Britain has so far hung on to our triple-A credit rating. We have kept a lid on borrowing costs and, compared with other countries in the eurozone, many of which are in the process of changing leaders or just starting to tackle their debts, we are thriving.

John Cryer: I thank the hon. Gentleman—or is it right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] Well, I am sure he should be right hon., and I shall put down an early-day motion tomorrow to achieve it! Returning to the last election, is the hon. Gentleman aware that at that time both unemployment and the deficit were falling, yet they are both now rising? The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the deficit is going to be a lot higher at the end of this Parliament than was predicted two years ago.

Tony Baldry: I think we need a bumper book of excuses from the Labour party, explaining why it was not responsible for getting us into the difficulties we face. Let us develop a bumper book of excuses and put all these various contributions into it, saying “Nothing to do with us, guv”! That would be impressive. We must not be complacent. The UK has to rebalance its economy. We need a bigger private sector; we need more exports; and we need more investment. In short, we need to do everything possible to boost growth, competitiveness and jobs.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the big debate is the balance between the need for growth and the need for cuts to lower the deficit? Does he accept that, as we entered 2010, two thirds of the deficit was caused by the banks and the remaining third by the then Labour Government—who had invested more than they were earning, but who had done so with good reason to project a positive growth trajectory? In hindsight, does he accept that the balance between growth and cuts is wrong, and that we should act on the mandate in Europe and invest more in growth and less in cuts?

Tony Baldry: Since the general election the Labour party has engaged in a wonderful exercise in propounding the motif that cuts are being made too far and too fast. In his autobiography, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer responsibly acknowledges the mistakes made by the last Labour Government. Opposition Members, however, have tried to develop a line that will enable them simultaneously to go around the City of London saying “We are being sensible and responsible about the deficit and about the need to reduce public spending” and, when campaigning, to present the impression privately, on the doorstep of every household in the country, that, given their own way, they would not reduce any individual item of public expenditure. That is a circle that the Opposition cannot square, and until they get real in explaining to the country and the markets how they will actually tackle the budget deficit, they will not be taken seriously as an Opposition, let alone as a Government in waiting.

We must never forget that the present Government inherited a budget deficit of 11%—bigger than Greece’s, bigger than Spain’s, and bigger than Portugal’s. We all know that if we do not deal properly with our debts and with the nation’s deficit it will be impossible to keep interest rates low, and that, quite apart from the benefit that low interest rates provide for businesses and those paying mortgages, they offer us the best prospects of getting out of our present difficult economic situation.

The Government and the Chancellor inherited a deeply dysfunctional economy in which, all too often, the taxes generated by the financial and property sectors in the south paid for higher public spending in the north. As Sir Mervyn King so tellingly testified in his speech last week, it was an economy in which the City had been poorly policed, and in which growth was too dependent on debt. Making clear that we intended to have a credible fiscal plan has helped us in Britain to maintain our top international credit rating and has brought interest rates to record lows, making family mortgages and business loans cheaper. Sticking to the deficit plan means that, having inherited a deficit larger than those of Spain or Greece, we have interest rates similar to those in Germany. Indeed, the IMF’s latest forecast for the UK expects it to grow faster than France or Germany. In considering where we are now, we should not forget that the recent Budget cut taxes for 24 million working people.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I love the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)! He left the Chamber for a considerable period, has been back for two seconds, and now wants to intervene. However, because he is very supportive on Church matters, I am happy to give way to him.

Chris Bryant: So much excitement was being engendered by the hon. Gentleman that I felt the need to return to the Chamber. Then I started to listen, which is where I made my mistake. I think the hon. Gentleman said that the present Government had cut interest rates. Can he tell us when they did so? My understanding is that they have been entirely flat since they changed under a Labour rather than a Conservative Government.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman was so excited by my speech that he misheard me. I made no reference to the Government’s cutting interest rates. What I said was that the Government’s financial and economic policies had enabled us, and were still enabling us, to keep interest rates low, while also ensuring that our interest rates compared with those of Germany. I have absolutely no doubt that if we followed the economic policies advocated by Opposition Front Benchers, we would soon see interest rates, including mortgage interest rates, soaring as a consequence.

The Government have taken 2 million people out of tax, they have continued to freeze council tax, and—as I have already observed—they have cut corporation tax so that we can compete with the rest of the world. Moreover, notwithstanding the challenges at home, Britain is meeting its commitments overseas. We are behaving as one would expect of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, honouring our obligations in Afghanistan, seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation—particularly with Iran—and helping to bring greater stability to the horn of Africa. We are supporting democrats in Libya, and, through the Department for International Development, we are helping to tackle poverty around the world.

We should be proud that Britain is sticking to its aid promises. We are a friend to the world’s poorest, and giving aid represents the best of British values. Some 40 years after they first promised to give 0.7% of their national income in aid, rich countries are less than halfway there. Among the major economies, only we in the UK are on target to meet our commitments. Some of the more Poujadist elements of the press claim that public support for aid is diminishing. I suspect that that is because some two thirds of the public think that we spend up to 20 times more on foreign aid than we actually do. Once people know that our aid budget is just over a single penny in every pound spent by the Government, they are much more supportive.

Understandably, the Session of Parliament since the general election has been unusually long, but it is still impressive that the Government have passed more than 30 main programme Bills since the election to help to reduce the UK’s budget deficit and reform our public services. Their programme has been guided by the three core values of responsibility, fairness and freedom. The new Session will be shorter, so it will provide scope for fewer Bills. I do not think that there was any doubt on the doorsteps about what our constituents want us to focus on. They want us to continue to get the economy going, continue to improve the NHS, and continue to sort out welfare and education; and, importantly, they want us to demonstrate that we are on the side of those who are working hard and doing the best they can for their families.

One of the best kept secrets of the last Budget is that the Chancellor raised personal allowances—the amount that people can earn before being taxed—so that 24 million middle-earning taxpayers will keep more of their money, and, from next April, 2 million low-paid people will not pay income tax at all. I can tell those who call for tax cuts that this year we have already made the largest tax cuts for more than a decade. I think everyone would agree that we should be doing all that we can to help families who are trying to do the best for themselves.

Of course we need to focus on jobs and economic growth. I am very glad that the proposals in a report by my constituent Adrian Beecroft for streamlining of the rules that make it hard for businesses to hire and fire employees are to be taken up. Redundancy rules, employment tribunals and rules about unfair dismissal all need to be changed, as Adrian Beecroft’s well-researched and well-argued report clearly demonstrates. We should be doing everything possible to encourage employers to expand and employ more people.

It is good news that the Government will reduce burdens on businesses by repealing unnecessary legislation and legislating to limit the state inspection of businesses. It is also good news that they will reform competition law in order to promote enterprise and fair markets. I think that many businesses will welcome the news that there is to be strengthened regulation of the financial services sector, and that the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking are to be implemented.

I also welcome the proposals relating to pensions. I think everyone agrees on the need to modernise the pensions system and reform the state pension, and on the importance of creating a fair and sustainable foundation for private saving. Governments must always seek to be on the side of those who save for retirement. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that it is possible to avoid reforming public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, I particularly welcome the news that a draft Bill is to be published to modernise adult care and support in England. The health White Paper of July 2010 promised legislation on adult social care in a second session of the present Parliament. We have all had plenty of time in which to read and digest the Dilnot report, which recommended a system under which people would pay the first chunk of nursing care costs and the state would pay after that. Given our increasingly ageing population, we need clarity, and cross-party talks have been taking place for a long time.

I also welcome the news that this is to be a draft Bill. Given such a major overhaul of social care legislation that needs to stand the test of time, and given the number of Select Committee reports on the issue, it is vital that we have an opportunity to get it right by co-operating with the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, every party in the House to produce legislation that seeks to achieve the right outcomes for everyone concerned.

Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): I agree about the need for cross-party agreement on care for the elderly. We do not want a repeat of what the Conservatives did when they were in opposition, however; they played games over this issue to try to gain short-term political advantage. What we need is a long-term solution.

Tony Baldry: I think we all want a long-term solution, which is why it is sensible for a draft Bill to be published so that everyone can agree the way forward, and so that when a Bill is presented to the House it has all-party support.

May I say in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner that I welcome the introduction of a Bill to reduce the burdens on charities by enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations? Many Members of Parliament are involved in charities, perhaps as trustees or patrons. Church groups often rely on Sunday collections and small giving by large numbers of people. This move will allow extra support for charities.

Like all Members of Parliament, a fair amount of my constituency casework involves helping families with disabled children and children with special educational needs, so I greatly welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to introduce measures to improve provision for such children, and the arrangements for supporting children in family law cases and reforming court processes for children in care. That is important, painstaking and detailed work that should improve the lives of many children.

I do not think too much should be read into the fact that the Queen’s Speech does not contain a specific proposal for a hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. The matter is now before the High Court, which is having to consider several applications on judicial review involving points of law on both the process and substance of the HS2 project. Notwithstanding any judicial review proceedings, however, I continue to hope that the Government will reflect that the economic case for HS2 simply does not stack up.

It is clear that in this Session of Parliament the Government will continue to strive for smaller government, freer competition and greater international trade, and they will continue to pursue policies that have been proven to work in the past and that will also work in the future.

Citizens Advice has a whole host of new and updated advice, information and helpful features for consumers on its website www.adviceguide.org.uk including top tips, interactive letters to help consumers to make a complaint and details of what to do next to solve your consumer problem.

Tony Baldry said: “Consumers need good, easy to understand advice which explains their rights and what they can do to solve their problem. The new online consumer advice from Citizens Advice offers just that and I think it will go a long way to helping my constituents sort out their consumer problems. I wanted more information about benefits and concessions for the Armed Forces and veterans and I found out that I could read about it by checking it out online.”

At the event in Parliament Tony got a whirlwind tour of the new online advice which includes template letters people can use to complain about things like faulty goods or a poor standard of work – and letters cancelling a purchase made on the internet or over the phone.

Tony also discovered a huge range of new advice topics: from problems with rogue traders to generating your own energy, scams and unfair trading practices – including misleading the consumer and aggressive selling.

And with cars being one of the top consumer problems there are also new tips on buying new and second hand cars; information on selling a car and how to appeal against a parking ticket.

Tony added: “One of the things I found really exciting and helpful were the new decision trees. These are interactive question and answer tools, guiding you through how to deal with specific problems. Topics include holiday companies going out of business, garage repairs and services, and faulty goods.”

The new online advice is part of the new Citizens Advice consumer service, launched on 2 April 2012, which also provides over the phone advice. Anyone looking for phone advice on a consumer issue can call 08454 04 05 06 (English) or 08454 04 05 05 (Welsh). The phone service is available from 9.00am to 5.00pm on weekdays.

You can find all of the new consumer content on Adviceguide at http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e.htm.

Tony Baldry with North Oxfordshire Academy pupil James O'Donovan and Principal Sara Billins

The initiative showcased students’ talents in areas such as computer aided design, web/game design and film editing; and businesses in the North Oxfordshire area were offered a unique opportunity to benefit from those skills by involving students in live projects and commissions.

The idea for the initiative emerged when local RSA Fellows including Tony met in Summer 2011. Peter Jordan FRSA, the Fellow leading the project commented: “After a few meetings it became apparent that many of us did not want to meet every month to ‘just chat’ but would rather try and get involved in a project that would be in line with the aims of the RSA, help our local community and be of some interest to us as individuals.”

The group invited staff and students from local schools to discuss the idea. From this emerged a plan to kick start, and to support, links between Banbury schools and organisations through the “Driving Ambition” initiative.

The evening began with a welcome from Tony, after which students and local business leaders will work together to develop new projects in various areas from technology and media to local community.

What makes this initiative different from other CSR projects is that students will offer their skills directly to local business, so that as well as enjoying improved reputation, recruitment, employee skills, staff motivation and loyalty as a result of partnering with local schools, businesses will also be offered opportunities to use school facilities and equipment and will get the benefits of ‘young brains’ on their projects.

Tony Baldry said: “The RSA has a long history of changing society for the good through the active engagement of its Fellows. This latest initiative builds on that proud tradition to fulfil a clear local need engaging the time and talents of local people with a genuine interest.

“I hope that the launch of this initiative is just the beginning and will act as a catalyst in making a difference by building engagement and awareness and ultimately leading to action.”

In a subsequent exchange in the House of Commons last Thursday during Defence Questions, Mr Baldry repeated his concerns of Army personnel redundancies to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond MP and suggested that their skills may be used for the benefit of themselves and their community through the setting up of a social enterprise.

The Secretary of State agreed with Mr Baldry’s observation that many of the redundant Army personnel possess skills valuable to the civilian economy and reassured him that arrangements are in place to assist local jobcentres’ advance awareness of these skills.

The full text of the exchange can be found below:

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Because of the need to balance the Ministry of Defence budget, a number of service personnel will be made redundant later this year, including, I suspect, a number who have recently returned from Afghanistan and a number based in my constituency with the Royal Logistic Corps. However, those people have skills that are much sought after by local employers, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that MOD officials work with the local community to set up a social enterprise to ensure that the skills of the service personnel who are made redundant are made known to local employers as swiftly as possible, and so that as many of those skills and those people can be brought into the local labour market as swiftly and speedily as possible?

Mr Hammond: I should say first of all that nobody who is on operations in Afghanistan nor anyone who is recuperating in the six-month period after returning from Afghanistan is eligible for redundancy, but my hon. Friend is right. As we balance the MOD budget and reduce the size of the Army to around 82,000, there will be a series of redundancies. Many of the people being made redundant will fortunately have skills that are of value in the civilian economy. I am not sure I agree with him on the need to create a social enterprise, but I can assure him that very robust arrangements are in place to ensure that local jobcentres are alerted in advance to the availability of the skills that those people have.

To read a copy of Tony’s letter to The Adjutant, please click here: Letter to the Adjutant 160412.

Chris Grayling: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Department for Work and Pensions is leading on the Government response to the Independent review into sickness absence, with input from other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations. These are complex issues and we will need to take time to consider the recommendations fully; the response will be published later this year.

To view the answer Tony was given, please click on the link provided here in which you will find the full breakdown: PA from David Gauke re tax payable on Charitable Donations Philanthropic giving 300412.