23rd July 2010

Decisions & Contrasts

Difficult Decisions

I never want this column to be rubbed down with soft soap.  Politicians who avoid tricky discussions will soon lose your interest and respect – and rightly so.  You have put us here to make difficult decisions on your behalf.  And difficult decisions mean difficult news.

This Tuesday gave me my first seriously tough call.  It didn’t come after a discussion with a constituent, or in some great Commons debate, or in an interview with a reporter, but in the Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, which I had been nominated to join.  These mini-sessions of the House of Commons consist of just a handful of MPs, broadly in proportion to party numbers, and are called to discuss the fine detail of legislation.  In this instance, it had been convened to end the Child Trust Fund.

We met in a committee room on an upper corridor of the House, all laid out like the chamber of the House of Commons, but in miniature: there was a reporter, a public gallery with a dozen seats, and our very own policeman, trying not to doze by the door.  The few of us, in this remote little corner of Parliament, came together to oversee end the Child Trust Fund scheme, which gave between £250 and £500 to every child in the land.

Facing the Coalition side were a smaller number of Labour members.  They were, understandably, extremely frustrated with the decision that the Coalition had made.  Child Trust funds were a flagship project for the previous government, and one of the few things that Gordon Brown supported with which Tony Blair agreed.  So although one of the shadow junior ministers was there to respond to the government’s plans, it was given to David Blunkett – who ushered in the programme when he was a minister – to express the outrage of the opposition side.

I have considerable sympathy for their point of view.  Although I always thought Child Trust funds should not have been given to the better off, I supported its aim to give disadvantaged children the seed of a savings plan.

Our proposal at the election was to keep the funds for these children.  But the Liberals wanted them all to go.  So when it came to the horse-trading of the Coalition agreement, it was agreed that the money could be better spent on taking low earners out of income tax, and boosting child benefit for those most in need.

I support that decision – as it will help the most vulnerable the most.  But it was hard nonetheless to vote through the end of this scheme.  It was a great idea: it’s just, as a former Labour minister has already admitted – there’s no money left.  We simply can’t do it all, so some tough choices must be made.  But that fact doesn’t make it any nicer doing the deed.

Tough Contrasts

On Wednesday last week I met the senior management of the Strategic Health Authority.  Three days later I opened a new undertakers – Hyde-Chambers – on St Helen’s Street.

One is supposed to be about health, but I came away deeply frustrated at the self-serving talk, the waste of money and the lack of sympathy for the pickle we’re in.

The other deals with death, but I was inspired by what an enterprising husband and wife and family team have done: bringing employment to our town and a new service to people at their moment of direst need.

One is a dead-weight on the other: it unnecessarily uses the taxes of a business that could be spent on new jobs.  For the undertakers to live, the SHA must go.