House of Commons

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 9 June 2010

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

1 What mechanism he plans to use to review the effectiveness of non-departmental public bodies.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

4. What mechanisms he plans to use to review the effectiveness of non-departmental public bodies.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

9. What mechanisms he plans to use to review the effectiveness of non-departmental public bodies.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

10. What mechanisms he plans to use to review the effectiveness of non-departmental public bodies.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

We are committed to cutting the number of public bodies to increase accountability and cut costs. In future, each public body will have to meet one of three tests—does it perform a technical function, does it need to be politically impartial or does it act independently to establish facts? The Prime Minister has written to Cabinet colleagues asking them to apply those tests rigorously to the public bodies within their area of responsibility. I will be meeting colleagues in the coming weeks to take the review forward, and I expect to publish the outcome in the autumn with a view to introducing a public bodies Bill later this year.

[Simon Kirby]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Given the Government’s clear policy on localism, will he ensure that the regional development agency quango, SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency—is rapidly dismantled and that its powers and decisions are handed back to the local authorities to which those powers have always properly belonged?

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is very good to see him here. He is a close neighbour in Sussex and he makes a very good point. The Government will engage in discussions with local partners, including local authorities and local business organisations, to work out with them in respect of each RDA the best way forward. I suspect that he and I have the same sort of concerns about the way in which SEEDA has operated.

[Chris Skidmore]

While the excellent Frenchay hospital near my constituency was downgraded by the previous Government despite a 50,000-strong petition of local residents opposing the move, it was reported last year that the salaries of NHS quango bosses have increased by up to 77% in the past three years. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability will help to reduce that sort of cost to the taxpayer and will help to protect NHS front-line services?

[Mr Maude]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very vigorous campaign that he has fought and continues to fight in the interests of his constituents to protect the work of the Frenchay hospital. I have visited the hospital and I know what good work it does. He is absolutely right that transparency is the friend of the citizen in exposing what the state spends its money on. It will enable communities, individuals and organisations to exercise and enforce much greater accountability. Money is going to be increasingly scarce in the years ahead, thanks to what we inherited from the Labour party, and it is going to be increasingly important that it is spent where it is needed, at the front line, on patients and on parents whose children are at school.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those reassurances. Will he tell us what we are going to do to stop the proliferation of more and more quangos, as happened under the previous Government?

[Mr Maude]

In addition to applying rigorously to existing public bodies and quangos the three tests that we have set out, we will ensure that public bodies do not come into existence unless they are absolutely necessary to meet one of those three tests. Bodies that spend public money and deliberate on policy should in general be accountable, through Ministers, to Parliament. That is a basic principle, and that is what we will enforce in future.

[Mr Amess]

As someone who has long been concerned about unelected, unaccountable quangos, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on mechanisms that deal specifically with quangos in Essex? Would he welcome representations from me and other Essex colleagues?

[Mr Maude]

I would indeed. I expect those representations to be vigorous and forthright and I look forward to receiving them.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Many public bodies, such as the RDAs the Minister mentioned, but also the Bank of England, the BBC, the Judicial Appointments Commission and parliamentary boundary commissions, are independent of Government precisely because they have to be independent of Government. Will the Minister give the House a commitment that this will not just be a centralising exercise whereby bodies that ought to be independent are taken under direct control by Ministers?

[Mr Maude]

I am disinclined to take lectures about centralising tendencies from someone who was a Minister in the last Government. I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said. The tests that we will apply to quangos—to public bodies—will be rigorous and serious. If there is an overwhelming requirement for them to be independent politically, that will be one of the tests, but the presumption will be that public functions should be exercised by organisations accountable to Parliament.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? He may be aware that I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a non-departmental public body that has enjoyed cross-party support for its whole existence. Can he clarify the processes that are taking place? The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is already under a process of review as one of the arm’s length bodies independent from the Foreign Office. How does that mix with the process he has set out today?

[Mr Maude]

I hope they will seamlessly meld together. I am not conscious of the particular review to which the hon. Lady refers, but this review will cover all public bodies that come under the responsibility of all Departments. I am confident that in my discussions about the review with the Foreign Secretary the Westminster Foundation will be considered in a proper way.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his responsibilities. If he has a bonfire of the quangos, there are one or two I might add. There is one where newly appointed staff are increasing, its executives earn more than Ministers and MPs, and are appointing press officers and consultants, yet they do not even answer the telephone. Would the Minister be surprised and would he care to name that quango? Might it be the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority?

[Mr Maude]

These are deep waters and I prefer not to venture into that particular one at this stage, but I am absolutely confident that the right hon. Gentleman will make his views known in his characteristically forthright manner.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

2. If he will discuss with ministerial colleagues proposals to strengthen Cabinet government.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who in marked contrast to the previous Prime Minister and his predecessor, long campaigned for Cabinet government to become a reality. I am delighted to tell him that I do not have to answer his question in the future; I can answer in the present, because in the last three weeks we have already taken enormous strides to create proper Cabinet government through the formation of a small number of effective decision-making Cabinet committees that will look across the whole range of Government business, make decisions collectively and not resort to the kind of sofa government that caused so many problems, for example, in the entry to the Iraq war.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his answer. The British constitution has sometimes been characterised as a time-limited elective dictatorship and the Prime Minister as an elected monarch. In an era of sofa government, the Cabinet was downgraded to cipher status. Is it not time for really radical change—perhaps with the Cabinet elected by Members of Parliament?

[Mr Letwin]

The trend towards elections is indeed one that the Government have in general sponsored, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. Many Members have put themselves forward and are in the course of being elected for many important posts in the House. But the reality of Cabinet government does not depend on elections, it depends on whether the Prime Minister of the day and, indeed, in the coalition Government, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the day are willing to see collegiate decision making rather than elective dictatorship. They are not only in this instance willing, but keen to do so. If I may point it out to the hon. Gentleman, one of the advantages of the new politics of coalition Government is that it enforces on us collective decision making, because we have to agree between the two parties in the coalition as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to new Ministers, but answers are, frankly, too long. They need to be shorter.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effects on voluntary organisations of the Government's regulatory and administrative requirements.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd): One of our priorities is to make it easier to run a voluntary organisation, so we are committed to clearing the thicket of bureaucracy that too often gets in the way of doing good and to setting up a joint task force with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look at how we can reduce red tape for small organisations.

[Fiona Bruce]

The requirements for people to obtain more than one Criminal Records Bureau check when working or volunteering with different community organisations is causing much duplication and expense, both to individuals and to community groups such as Crossroads Care Cheshire East in my constituency. Will the Minister consider reviewing the CRB check procedure and introducing one single registerable and transferrable check for each individual?

[Mr Hurd]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and wish her every success in following in some quite formidable footsteps. The point she makes is extremely important and that frustration has been expressed to me by a number of voluntary organisations. I hope that she will be pleased to know that, in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to reviewing the criminal records and vetting and barring regime and I will make sure that the relevant Minister in the Home Office is aware of her concerns. She and I will be following that review very closely.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new and important role. Given statements made in recent days by the Prime Minister and others about deep and early cuts in public spending at the same time as statements about an extended role for voluntary organisations in the delivery of public services, I am sure that, as the Minister for the voluntary sector, he will want to move swiftly to reassure anyone who thinks that there is any suggestion that this means that the Government want to get public services on the cheap. He will want to rebut that suggestion very swiftly. Therefore, will he confirm to Members on both sides of the House who value greatly the work of voluntary organisations that he and other Ministers will uphold the compact with voluntary organisations and, in particular, the commitment to three-year funding as a minimum and to full recovery of costs for volunteering?

[Mr Speaker]

Again, I am afraid that that question was a little on the long side. I know that the answer will not be.

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is a bit rich coming from a member of a Government one of whose last acts involved the breaching of the compact by the then Minister for the third sector. The compact is an important framework for the relationship between the state and the sector at a very important time in its development. We want the sector to work more closely with the state and the compact has an important part to play in making sure that that relationship works productively.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. What plans he has to visit the emergency planning college at Hawkhills.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The emergency planning college is in my hon. Friend’s constituency and does extraordinarily valuable work in training people to support this country’s resilience in all types of emergency. I have no current plans to visit the college but my hon. Friend is, I am sure, about to tell me why that is a missed opportunity.

[Miss McIntosh]

May I take this opportunity to invite my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his appointment, to visit the college? I know that he would be very welcome. Such a visit would act as a morale booster to the college. Will he extend its role to make sure that we can in future pre-empt tragedies such as we have seen in Cumbria and to ensure that all the emergency services are put through their paces at regular intervals to prepare for any such incidents in the future?

[Mr Hurd]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House and I thank her for her question. Clearly we need to be proud of the college, which is a national centre of excellence and has won awards, including, I believe, a best in the world award, for its work? I understand that it has been through a recent reorganisation. If it would welcome a ministerial visit, I would be happy to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the Minister that it is very important to face the House, because otherwise Members cannot hear? The Minister can come back to the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Hurd]

I think that I had finished, Mr Speaker. If the college would welcome a ministerial visit, I will be happy to fit that in.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

6. If he will bring forward proposals to equalise rates of pay between staff in the civil service and in non-departmental public bodies.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

For the grades below the senior civil service, these matters are delegated to individual departments and to non-departmental public bodies. Nevertheless, we will seek to improve and modernise civil service pay arrangements to ensure that they are fair and transparent, to enable us to retain and motivate staff and to offer best value for money to the taxpayer.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome him to his position. He will be aware that there are 230 separate bargaining units in the civil service and, at the moment, people doing exactly the same job can earn rates of pay that differ by up to 30 per cent., and more. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to bring about more equal and fairer pay structures within the civil service so that we have justice and to improve morale?

[Mr Maude]

In the absence of any money—and as the former Chief Secretary pointed out, there is no money left—the opportunities to equalise pay in an upwards direction are pretty limited. We have said that as part of the efficiency and reform group work that we have set in train, we will carry out a review to see how we can simplify civil service pay, but this is a deeply complex area.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Can the Minister please give any details of the review into the introduction of the 20 times pay multiple in the public sector?

[Mr Maude]

The terms of reference for Will Hutton’s review are being drawn up and finalised. As my hon. Friend says, the review will look at the multiple between the best-paid and least-paid employees in the public sector. We are decentralisers and localists, so we will not expect to exercise our writ across the whole of the wider public sector. We think transparency will play an important part in driving down the differentials.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to publish non-personal data held by Government Departments.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

In our first month in government we have already published a number of key data sets, including the Treasury COINS—combined online information system—database, MRSA and C. difficile weekly infection rates for each hospital, and details of the salaries of 172 civil servants who are paid more than the Prime Minister. The letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 May set out specific commitments to publishing further data on spending, contracts and the civil service during the rest of the year. We will also give the public a right to data so that people can obtain the Government-held data sets that they want.

[Mr Watson]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing a great job and I hope he gets the support of my Front-Bench team in accelerating the programme of releasing public sector data, but does he accept that the Government cannot be selective about those data? They cannot print 172 civil servants’ salaries without telling me what Andy Coulson is paid.

[Mr Maude]

All this will be divulged in due course. If I may, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. When he was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, he pursued the agenda of data transparency with admirable vigour, and I suspect he was somewhat frustrated by the lack of progress that it was possible for him to make. I look forward to working closely with him as we jointly pursue this agenda in the public interest.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for the future regulation of charities.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Government are committed to making it easier for people to set up and run charities and to reduce the amount of regulation, monitoring and reporting that has been imposed on the sector. I am meeting the chair and chief executive of the Charity Commission next week to discuss this further.

[David Tredinnick]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. Will he discuss gift aid at that meeting? At present the administrative burden falls largely on the charities and that should be rectified.

[Mr Hurd]

We know how important gift aid is to the sector, and I will meet the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to discuss reform. We have said that we would like to reduce the bureaucratic burden associated with gift aid which falls on charities, and disproportionately on small charities. The Treasury-led gift aid forum is examining the case for reform and will report in September.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman and the other Ministers to the Front Bench. In reviewing the regulation of charities, it is also important to maintain both the capacity and the capability of charities. Perhaps the Minister can therefore explain to the House the reasoning for ending the funding of the Futurebuilders programme, which was widely acclaimed in a recently published evaluation by Sheffield Hallam university, and which is building the capacity of precisely the organisations that the Government want to take more responsibility for delivering services?

[Mr Hurd]

We have not closed the funding for Futurebuilders. As the right hon. Lady well knows, Futurebuilders is effectively shut for business. It has spent the money. We have taken a decision to use the future income from the loan book to fund our programmes for training community organisers and a new community grants programme.

[Tessa Jowell]

That is precisely the problem: the Futurebuilders programme is an investment fund, with loans made that are then recycled to other organisations. The Government have decided to end the programme and, therefore, effectively to shut it. Why?

[Mr Hurd]

The programme has run its course, and we have taken a decision on where to recycle the income. We think that the future of loan finance delivery is through the big society bank, and we want to encourage the traditional banking industry to meet the sector’s debt needs. That is the future—not the Futurebuilders programme, which distorted the market, rather than built it.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of Cabinet Committees, Sub-Committees and working groups to the work of his Department.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

I am very conscious of your admonition to be brief, Mr Speaker, so I shall just say to the hon. Gentleman that we have a rather more modest ambition, which is not to ask what the Cabinet can do for our Department, but what our Department can do for the Cabinet.

[John Mann]

I appreciate that the Government have to find something for their official bag carrier to the Prime Minister to do, but will the Minister confirm that for every new Committee and working group established an existing one will be abolished?

[Mr Letwin]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am actually the unofficial bag carrier to the Prime Minister; I do not even qualify as the official one. We have organised ourselves in a way that means that we have cut to the bare minimum the number of groups that we operate. We have a far tighter Cabinet Committee system than that which was operated under the previous Government, because, as I said to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who asked an earlier question, we are absolutely determined that our Cabinet Committees be genuine decision-making bodies, not merely a dignified part of the constitution.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

12. If he will ensure that trade unions are involved in the work of his Department’s efficiency and reform group.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

We are committed to proper engagement with public service staff and their representatives. Last week I had a good meeting with the Council of Civil Service Unions, and yesterday I attended a meeting of the TUC’s public service liaison group. We will invite the TUC and its member organisations, plus other representatives of public service employees, to meet regularly to discuss matters affecting the work force who deliver our vital public services, and to build on the work of the Public Service Forum, which I am committed to continuing and which will meet in July. There will be difficult issues to discuss, no doubt, but we are determined to air them through regular dialogue.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he look at the report that the Public and Commercial Services Union produced last year, showing that 20,000 tax collectors were sacked at a time when at least £40 billion of tax evasion and avoidance was going on in this country? Will he work with the unions to try to resolve that matter?

[Mr Maude]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will recollect the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said that there was no money left. We have to run the Government with less money than there was, and there will have to be cuts. We hope, to the maximum extent possible, that public spending can be cut without affecting jobs, but it is unreal to expect that that will be totally avoidable.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

13. Whether he has had recent discussions with third sector organisations on the financing of early intervention programmes; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I salute the hon. Gentleman’s pioneering work in that area, and he will know that the voluntary and community sector can be a very helpful provider of early intervention services that reduce the drivers of demand on the state. I shall be in contact with my colleagues in all relevant Departments about any future policy developments on early intervention, and about how the Office for Civil Society can contribute.

[Mr Allen]

I welcome the Minister to his place. Will he meet me and a Treasury Minister to discuss how we can release the bonds on the voluntary and charitable sectors so that they can raise money in the City of London in order to pursue early intervention through social investment bonds? Will he agree to meet me?

[Mr Hurd]

I can certainly speak for myself and agree to meet the hon. Gentleman. He will know about the interesting work on social impact bonds, which bring in private capital for investment in early intervention and involve payment by results. That will be an important part of the future.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that voluntary organisations are preferable to state organisations when providing early intervention?

[Mr Hurd]

I am sure that that is the experience of most colleagues in the House—if they have been to visit social enterprises or community organisations and seen the extraordinary work that they can do and the different relationships that they can have with the people whom they are trying to help.

[Mr Speaker]

There was some very helpful co-operation there from a Government Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), and indeed, I pay tribute to the Minister on the Front Bench for responding in such a pithy and, I hope I can say, timely fashion. The House will be very grateful and will join me in thanking both the hon. Member for Wellingborough and, indeed, the Minister in his response from the Front Bench.

I ask the House to stand and to observe one minute’s silence in memory of those who lost their lives in west Cumbria a week ago today.

The House observed a one-minute silence.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 June.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

As the people of Cumbria gather for memorial services to remember the shocking and tragic events of last week, it is right that our thoughts are with them and with the friends and families of all those who were killed or injured.

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the soldiers who have died in Afghanistan: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Marine Anthony Hotine; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Lance Corporal Alan Cochran and Corporal Terry Webster; and a soldier from 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery who died yesterday. They were all extremely talented and professional servicemen who gave their lives for the safety and security of people in our country. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude, and our thoughts should be with their families and with their friends.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Albert Owen]

May I associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister and offer my condolences to the families of those who were tragically killed in west Cumbria and of the servicemen who have died serving our country?

There have been reports in the newspapers that the Prime Minister wants a positive relationship with the Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, indeed, wants to work with them in partnership. On that theme, will he put a measure before the House that allows a referendum this autumn for greater powers for the Welsh Assembly? Will he come clean with this House, and with the people of Wales, and say whether he is in favour of additional powers himself?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me be as frank and as clear as I can be. We had a meeting of the joint ministerial council yesterday with representatives of all the devolved Assemblies and Governments. I want to have a genuine respect agenda between the UK Government and all those Administrations. We have always said—[Interruption.] I will tell you exactly what that means: there will be a referendum on extra powers for the Welsh Assembly. That referendum, we believe, should take place next year.

[Albert Owen]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he wanted to have a referendum earlier, the last Secretary of State could have pushed it through earlier, and he did not. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that referendum will take place. It will be a matter for people in Wales to decide. They must determine their future. As for my view, as someone who spends a lot of time in Wales and has great respect for people in Wales, I always find that, yes, there is a debate about powers for the Assembly, but there is also debate among people in Wales wanting to know how we are going to make progress on housing, on health care, on schools, and on jobs—the real issues as well as just the institutional ones.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

May I associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister rightly made about the dreadful shootings in Cumbria last week, and also pay tribute to the emergency services and to all those who are recovering from that appalling tragedy?

The Prime Minister will be aware that the national cancer reform strategy states that no cancer patient should have to travel for more than 45 minutes to receive radiotherapy treatment. Last December, we received a commitment from our local health trusts that there would be a new cancer unit for South Lakeland in Kendal. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and health campaigners and NHS officials soon to try to ensure that he, too, makes a commitment to the delivery of a cancer unit—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We really must have shorter questions.

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman will note from the coalition agreement, as I am glad to remind everyone, that we are protecting NHS spending. There will be real increases in NHS spending under this Government year on year. I absolutely understand the concerns that there are about wanting to keep services local to people. I know that is the case in Lakeland, and it is also the case with the West Cumberland hospital. I am very happy to ensure that there is a meeting between the Health Secretary and the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter and ensure that we keep services local. A lot of the reconfigurations that took place under the previous Government caused an enormous amount of pain and unease in local areas and did not actually lead to improved services.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the four soldiers who have died in the service of our country in the past week: Marine Anthony Hotine from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Lance Corporal Alan Cochran and Corporal Terry Webster from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, and a soldier from 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. They fought with bravery, and today we remember not just the sacrifice they made but the loved ones they leave behind.

I support what the Prime Minister said about Cumbria and join him in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of all those who were killed or injured. The police investigation is under way. Can he update us on the work that the Government are doing, and is he in a position yet to tell the House whether the Government have any plans to reconsider the regulations on guns? As the Home Secretary rightly said in her statement last week, we have to learn any lessons we can.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her words. It is right to reflect on this appalling tragedy and think about how best we can go forward. Specifically on gun laws, we need to be clear first about the full facts of the case. We also need to determine the type and scope of reviews that will take place after this tragedy. Of course the Home Office will look again at the gun laws in the light of the tragedy, and I can also announce today that the chief constable of Cumbria has already written to the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers asking him to support a peer review, to be conducted by national police experts on firearms licensing and police firearms response and tactics. Those reviews will become publicly available documents. We should not leap to conclusions, and I do not believe in knee-jerk legislation. We have in this country some of the tightest gun laws, but of course we should look again at them.

On the issue of what sort of review is right for people in west Cumbria, I will be meeting two of the west Cumbrian MPs whose constituencies are affected straight after Prime Minister’s questions in my office, and the right hon. and learned Lady would be very welcome to join us with the Home Secretary to discuss that matter. In the end, we must ensure that we do the right thing by the people of west Cumbria and that they are properly served by the things that we decide as a Government.

[Ms Harman]

I fully support everything that the Prime Minister said in that answer, and may I say that I am sure that the visit that he and the Home Secretary made to Cumbria was very much appreciated?

Just before the general election, the Electoral Commission published a report showing that despite the efforts of electoral registration officers, there are still serious concerns about the number of people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register. Given that the Government are committed to major reform of constituency boundaries, will the Prime Minister undertake not to press forward with those changes on the basis of an electoral register that excludes 3.5 million people?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that it is important that people who are eligible to vote register to vote, and we want to see that sped up and improved. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is taking forward that work. We also want to see individual voter registration, because there has been a great increase in fraud in recent years, but even as that work goes ahead it is important that we have reform so that we have equal-sized constituencies across our country. Those of us who support the first-past-the-post voting system want to make it more fair by ensuring that seats are the same size across our country. Where on earth is the unfairness in that?

[Ms Harman]

The danger is that if the Prime Minister presses on in the way he has indicated, he will be making the system less fair, not more fair. As he said, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged to the House this week that there is a problem with the register. The Electoral Commission study found not just the number of people who are not on the register, but who they are: a third of all black people, half of all young people, and half of all private sector tenants are not on the register, despite the work that has been undertaken by electoral registration officers. Those people will not be counted if the Prime Minister redraws constituency boundaries now. He says he wants equal constituencies, but does he accept that he cannot have equal constituencies based on an unequal register?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Lady that she had 13 years to sort out the issue of voter registration. What is interesting about what happened over the last 13 years is that elections used to be determined by a few officials in the Home Office. We have now got the vast bureaucracy of the Electoral Commission. It spends millions of pounds every year, employs dozens of people, holds huge great reviews, spends vast amounts of money on advertising, but has not succeeded in its task.

We will press ahead to get people to register, but I have to ask the right hon. and learned Lady this again: what on earth is unfair about equal-sized seats? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has, I think, to look after about 110,000 constituents, but some Opposition Members have about half that. That is simply not fair.

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister has shown that he is not listening to the argument that he cannot redraw the boundaries, which is his Government’s proposal, until the problem of the register is sorted out. He has shown that he is not listening to argument, but pressing on regardless. That is not the new politics; it is downright unfair.

May I move to another issue? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Quite a bad example is being set by some senior Members to newcomers—[Interruption.] Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place. The public are not impressed: they want to hear orderly exchanges.

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Before the election, the coalition parties talked about ending what they called the surveillance society. The coalition agreement said that the Government would further regulate the use of closed circuit television, but on Monday, the Home Secretary could not tell the House what that would mean in practice. Can the Prime Minister tell us now?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Lady wanted to move on to another subject. Let me make one last point on the previous question—[Interruption.] I am sorry if it is painful, but it is important. She says that it is not right to redraw boundaries until we have sorted out the electoral register, but I have to point out that we fought the last election on redrawn boundaries, so I think we have a long way to go on that. There was, I have to say, just a whiff of special pleading.

On surveillance, let me be clear that I support CCTV cameras. I have them in my constituency and they are very effective, and when I worked at the Home Office many years ago I championed such schemes, but I think everyone understands that the level of surveillance has become very great in our country. As well as the issue of CCTV, there is the issue of how many different sorts of officials are allowed to enter people’s houses without permission. We will be bringing forward legislation to deal with that. I know that the Labour party has given up on civil liberties, and that the right hon. and learned Lady used to be head of what was the National Council for Civil Liberties—that was all a long time ago—but we on this side of the House think civil liberties are important.

[Ms Harman]

May I ask the Prime Minister the question again, because I was asking not about people entering people’s houses, but about CCTV? Can I tell him what Theresa was saying to me on Friday? [Hon. Members: “Theresa?”] Not the Home Secretary, but Theresa from the Poets Corner estate in my constituency. That Theresa is the one who knows about living on an estate that needs CCTV. Let me tell the Prime Minister that such people do not want to be told by this Government that it is going to be made harder to get the CCTV that they need on their estates. I press him on this because it is about people feeling, and being, safe in their communities. Will he guarantee that he will not do anything to make it harder to get or to use CCTV?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady should understand that this is all about proportionality and making sure that we have a system that helps protect people while respecting civil liberties. It is extraordinary how the Labour party is becoming more and more authoritarian. Hearing the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) talk about immigration, it seems we have the new Alf Garnett of British politics. It is one of the biggest U-turns that any of us can remember: for 13 years, not a word about immigration or our borders, but now they are all in a race. Perhaps it is time to move on to another subject, and the right hon. and learned Lady can tell us what she thinks about immigration.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware of the closure of 12 branches of the Derbyshire building society and its head office in the village of Duffield in my constituency? Can he assure me that he and his Government will do all they can to help those constituents who will lose their jobs—nearly 250 of them—in this small, rural area? Will he please assure us that the Government will do all they can to help these constituents who are being dealt this cruel blow at this difficult time?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise this issue. What has happened to the Derbyshire building society is desperately sad, and obviously the Government will stand ready to do all we can to retrain people who have lost their jobs and to ensure that they get the very best opportunities, and also to ensure that we go on having a strong financial services sector. As the Derbyshire building society reminds us, this is not just about the City of London; it is about the fact that millions of people in our country work in financial services, providing a good service, and we need to help them.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Q2. One of the projects that stands to be affected by the Government’s decision to put on hold £600 million of housing investment is the housing element of the redevelopment of the Longbridge site in my constituency, which is important not just to that area but to the economic recovery of Birmingham as a whole. Given that the project is supported by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that runs Birmingham city council, will the Prime Minister tell me what priority he will attach to the regenerative effects of such housing projects?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone wants regeneration to continue in Birmingham, and I pay tribute to Birmingham city council, which is jointly run, I have to say, by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who are continuing with the very good work that they do. We want that regeneration to continue. The problem with the previous Government’s housing commitments, particularly on social housing, is that they simply were not funded. One of the things that we and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have been able to do, in making £6 billion of cuts this year, is plough back some of that money into social housing schemes, which the last Government promised but never funded.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to reflect overnight on the noble Lord Myners’s candid and forthright remarks in the other place about the appalling financial legacy left by the Labour party? Does he share my view that Lord Myners’s remarks make it clear that the Office for Budget Responsibility should clearly be supported on both sides of the House, and if anything is to be regretted, is it not the fact that he said that after, rather than before, the election?

[Hon. Members]

Give him a job!

[The Prime Minister]

That is a good idea, on that performance. It is great to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House of Commons. He is right that Lord Myners, who was hand-picked by the last Government to be a Treasury Minister, put his finger on the button when he said:

“There is nothing progressive about a Government who consistently spend more than they can raise in taxation, and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred by the current generation.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 625.]

Those words are absolutely right, but what a pity he did not say it when he was in office and had the chance to do something about it.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Q3. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for writing to me today to tell me that the decision on the Nissan grant will be fast-tracked. Waiting for this decision is causing huge economic uncertainty to the north-east economy. I hope that the Prime Minister can help me with a similar cause of concern to my constituents—the issue of whether the rebuilding of Hetton school will go ahead as planned.

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, having written the hon. Lady a letter, I can now go a bit further and confirm, with respect to the specific grant for Nissan that she raised last week, that the money will go ahead and the investment will be going in. Before Opposition Members jump to their feet, let me explain what the problem is with some of the grants. Before the last election, Lord Mandelson had a giant cheque book, which he went all round the country opening up, spending tens of billions of pounds, which he promised to 200 projects, two thirds of which were conveniently located in Labour marginal seats. Given that so much money was spent, it is only right for a responsible incoming Government to review those decisions one by one and make sure that the money is well spent. Fortunately for Lord Mandelson, someone else is now getting out their cheque book to pay for his memoirs.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Opposition Back Benchers must calm down; the hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

[Sajid Javid]

Q4 . NHS managers in my Bromsgrove constituency tell me that they are being strangled by the level of bureaucracy. What action will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take to make sure that hospitals will never be allowed again to put top-down targets before patient care?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We all know of cases where targets were getting in the way of proper clinical outcomes and clinical care. Too many people have experienced that in the health service, and our view is clear: if there is no clinical justification for targets, they will go. I can announce today that we will fulfil another important pledge—to have a public inquiry into the appalling events at the Mid Staffordshire hospital. I remember going to Stafford and meeting families, many of which had lost loved ones, some of whom went into hospital for a routine operation, but because the standards of hygiene and the management were not right and, frankly, because targets were being pursued rather than clinical outcomes, people died needlessly. This inquiry is important so that people in Staffordshire can tell their story.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Q5. “The Coalition: our programme for government” states:“We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants.”May I ask the Prime Minister why he believes that defendants in rape cases are more deserving of anonymity than those accused of murder, domestic violence or sexual abuse of children?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Lady cares very deeply about this issue—the key issue of getting the conviction rate for rapists up—as do I. I know that she gave a good speech on the subject in an Adjournment debate. What I would say is that none of us should ignore the fact that somehow there is a problem with this. We know that a lot of people are falsely accused, whose careers and lives can be blighted—[Interruption.] Opposition Members shake their heads, but in some cases people have committed suicide. One of the proofs is that when the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), now leader of the Labour party, was in office, she commissioned a report into this issue by Baroness Stern, which found that 8 to 10% of reported rape cases could result in false allegations. Baroness Stern, who looked into the issue, said that defendant anonymity was often raised and that a

“full examination of the issues would be helpful to the debate”.

What we are promising is to bring proposals forward so that they can be debated. Let us not ignore the fact that there is a problem, because there is one, and let us see if we can work together to find the right outcome.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The people of Wootton Bassett in my constituency who, week by week, lead the nation in paying their respects to our fallen heroes seek no thanks or recognition for so doing. When the happy day comes when our soldiers are finally brought back from Afghanistan, however, I wonder whether the Prime Minister and his colleagues would consider repositioning the very fine war memorial from Camp Bastion to the High street in Wootton Bassett in commemoration of the way in which the local people carry out their service?

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend makes an extremely good and positive suggestion. The whole country has seen the incredible devotion of people in Wootton Bassett, who, come rain or shine, are always out on the streets watching as that very sad procession goes by. I think it has stirred people in this country to see that, when it comes to this conflict, whatever we think of it, we all want to support our troops and their families. We all want to do what we can to recognise that. It is not just a Government thing; it is about the whole of our society wanting to recognise what these people do on our behalf. The people of Wootton Bassett are, in my view, right up there among the heroes.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Q6. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that a cross-party group of MPs worked extremely hard in the last Parliament to persuade the Government to adopt new measures to regulate houses in multiple occupation and to license private landlords. Can he reassure me that his Government will not seek to undermine that legislation, which is so important to my city centre community and others?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has made a very good point. We all know of the problems of houses that are kept badly, and of past problems involving HMOs. I will ask the Minister for Housing to get in touch with her about his plans, so that we can ensure that we get this right.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The legacy of the former Government’s disastrous decision making in Iraq is still plain to see. Will the Prime Minister look at the existing Home Office guidance on the deporting of asylum seekers to Baghdad? A plane has left today. May I ask the Prime Minister to consider the matter again, personally and compassionately, to ensure that we have a firm immigration policy, but remain a bastion for people fleeing political persecution?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look into my hon. Friend’s point. However, I think we should recognise that whatever view we took of the Iraq conflict—and I supported it—at least Iraq now has some chance of stability and democracy. We are actually seeing some progress there. This morning I had a meeting with General Petraeus, who brought me up to date on what he considers to be the latest situation.

It is important to remember that one of the reasons why our brave servicemen and women fought and died in Iraq was that they were trying to make it a more stable country, and a country to which people who had fled it would be able to return. Yes, of course I will look at the specific issue raised by my hon. Friend, but in general, while we are here to offer people asylum when they are fleeing torture and persecution, if we help to make their country safe they should be able to go home.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to west Cumbria. Will he give me a personal assurance that he will do everything in his power to help and support its people, who have suffered so grievously in recent times?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I know how hard he and other MPs in Cumbria have been working to bring people together after this appalling tragedy. They are, as someone has said, a very tough people in west Cumbria, but also very compassionate, very caring, and a very strong community. They have shown that in the way in which they have responded to these dreadful events.

As I said in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, we will meet after Question Time to discuss what should be done next. I think that that is important, and I think it important to recognise that west Cumbria is a part of the country that sometimes feels quite cut off.

Amazing work was done by West Cumberland hospital, which proved itself when facing the most appalling tragedy, and the terrible difficulties caused by the fact that so many people with such awful injuries were coming to the hospital at once. People are inclined to say that it is a bit too small to cope with such events, but it coped magnificently, and I think it proved that big is not always beautiful.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The last Government changed the rules so that anyone claiming asylum in this country must do so in person in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is wrong to ask one local authority to shoulder what should be a national responsibility, and if so, will the Government review the decision?

[The Prime Minister]

I should be happy to consider that. I recall that it has been an issue in the past for constituencies surrounding Heathrow airport, and that mechanisms were introduced in an attempt to alleviate some of the burdens. I will ensure that Home Office Ministers get in touch with my hon. Friend so that we can deal with this problem.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q8. The European Commission recently reported that European fish stocks were being fished at unsustainable levels, and that 30% were close to collapse. Will the Prime Minister negotiate with European colleagues to seek the abandonment of the common fisheries policy, and, if they do not agree, give notice of Britain’s withdrawal from the CFP?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a question that I am rather used to anticipating from those on the Conservative Benches. I think that even the most enthusiastic supporter of the European Union would recognise that the common fisheries policy has not been a success either in supporting our fishermen or in saving fish stocks. There are good lessons to be learned from other countries that have done better. I have to say though that that sometimes means some very drastic action in terms of closing some fishing areas altogether, but other countries have managed to do that and to regenerate their fishing stocks, so we will certainly take forward those negotiations on, I am sure, a coalition-wide basis.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that we have heard a lot about fairness from Labour Members today, but there is nothing fair about the legacy that the Labour Government have left us: the £75 billion of debt interest that we will have to pay, which we could have spent on public services in all the constituencies represented in the House, including my constituency of Devizes?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which is that, if we do not take action to deal with the deficit, we will pay over £70 billion, not repaying the debt, but just on debt interest in five years’ time. Think about it like this: all the revenue gleaned from corporation tax—all the tax on every company making a profit in our country—does not even pay for half the debt interest bill. That is the mess that we have been left in, but this Government have the courage to deal with it.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Q9. The Prime Minister will agree that cross-border rail services are strategically important to the UK. Will he therefore honour the assurances given to me by the previous Government that east coast main line services will continue to stop at Motherwell and that there will be an increase in west coast main line services stopping at Motherwell?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I will certainly look at it. I cannot promise to arrange all the stops on the east coast main line. Sadly, that is a power I do not think I have, but I will do my best.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Q10. The Prime Minister will know that I am a follower of my beloved England football team. I ask him to do a great thing for the people of England: cut through the bureaucracy and nonsense and fly the flag of England over Downing street for the duration of the World cup.

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have had those conversations. There was some question that this was going to have a cost impact, but I have managed to cut through that and I can say that, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, the flag of St George will fly above Downing street during the World cup. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Fabio Capello and all our team well—for the purposes of this, I am looking at all the Benches here. I am sure that everyone in the House, no matter what part of the UK they come from, will be cheering, “Come on England.”

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words about the Cumbrian people. Can he say, in relation to his forthcoming gun review, whether he thinks that it is still worth the risk to allow guns used for sport to continue to be kept at home? Will that be considered in his review?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right that everything has to be considered, including the mental health of people and police visits to their homes, but we have, because of previous tragedies, very strict rules on what people who keep guns at home have to do in terms of very strict security. I remember sitting on the Home Affairs Committee and asking the ACPO representative responsible for the issue how much leakage there was from legally held guns into the illegal, black market. The answer was virtually none, so if we are looking for what the problem is, it is clearly that in our society we have a huge number of guns that we need to get rid of. Clearly, there was an appalling problem in this case, where, as I have said, a switch flicked in someone’s head. We cannot legislate against that, but let us look at every aspect and ensure that we have the robust laws that we need.

Equitable Life (Portsmouth North)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I offer my good wishes and congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new role.

In presenting this petition, I pay tribute to Mr. Brian Aitchison, a Portsmouth resident who has done so much to support the victims of Equitable Life’s maladministration in his home town and elsewhere.

The petition states:

“The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.

I am very pleased to present the petition, which I hope will ensure a speedy resolution to this grave injustice.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the constituency of Portsmouth North in the Hampshire region of the U.K. regarding the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s reports on Equitable Life,

Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000833]

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

12:34

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

In March last year, the Healthcare Commission’s report on Mid Staffordshire and the appalling failures in patient care that it laid bare shocked us all. Three reports later, and I am announcing today what should have been announced then: a full public inquiry into how these events went undetected and unchallenged for so long. The inquiry will be held in public, including the evidence, the oral hearings and the final report. We can combat a culture of secrecy and restore public confidence only by ensuring the fullest openness and transparency in any investigation.

So why another inquiry? We know only too well every harrowing detail of what happened at Mid Staffordshire and the failings of the trust, but we are still little closer to understanding how that was allowed to happen by the wider system. The families of those patients who suffered so dreadfully deserve to know, and so too does every NHS patient in this country.

This was a failure of the trust first and foremost, but it was also a national failure of the regulatory and supervisory system, which should have secured the quality and safety of patient care. Why did it have to take a determined group of families to expose those failings and campaign tirelessly for answers? I pay tribute again to the work of Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, rightly supported by Members in this House.

Why did the primary care trust and strategic health authority not see what was happening and intervene earlier? How was the trust able to gain foundation status while clinical standards were so poor? Why did the regulatory bodies not act sooner to investigate a trust whose mortality rates had been significantly higher than the average since 2003 and whose record in dealing with serious complaints was so poor? The public deserve answers.

The previous reports are clear that the following existed: a culture of fear in which staff did not feel able to report concerns; a culture of secrecy in which the trust board shut itself off from what was happening in its hospital and ignored its patients; and a culture of bullying, which prevented people from doing their jobs properly. Yet how these conditions developed has not been satisfactorily addressed. The 800-page report by Robert Francis QC, published in February, gave us a forensic account of the local failures in that hospital and the consequences for patients, but, like its predecessors, his report was limited by its narrow terms of reference.

I am pleased to say that Robert Francis has agreed to chair the new inquiry, and he will have the full statutory force of the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to attend and speak under oath. Clearly these are complex issues, and Robert Francis has already said he wants to establish an expert panel that can help support him through this process. However, it is important for everyone that the inquiry be conducted thoroughly and swiftly, with the aim of providing its final report and conclusions by March 2011.

I also want to assure the House, however, that we will not wait to take earlier action where necessary. I can therefore announce today that we are going to give teeth to the current safeguards for whistleblowers in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 by: reinforcing the NHS constitution to make clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing; seeking through negotiations with NHS trade unions to amend terms and conditions of service for NHS staff to include a contractual right to raise concerns in the public interest; issuing unequivocal guidance to NHS organisations that all their contracts of employment should cover staff whistleblowing rights; issuing new guidance to the NHS about supporting and taking action on concerns raised by staff in the public interest; and exploring with NHS staff further measures to provide a safe and independent authority to which they can turn when their own organisation is not listening or acting on concerns.

In the coming weeks we will introduce further far-reaching reforms of the NHS that go to the very heart of the failures at Mid Staffs. This is not about changes in processes or structures; it is about a wider shift in culture, putting patients at the heart of the NHS and focusing on the things that matter most to them. That includes putting the focus on safety. At Mid-Staffs, safety was not the priority. It was undermined by politically motivated process targets. The first Francis inquiry was crystal clear on that point. It said:

“This evidence satisfies me that there was an atmosphere in which front line staff and managers were led to believe that if the targets were not met they would be in danger of losing their jobs. There was an atmosphere which led to decisions being made under pressure about patients, decisions that had nothing to do with patient welfare. As will be seen, the pressure to meet the waiting target was sometimes detrimental to good care in A & E.”

We will scrap such process targets and replace them with a new focus on patients’ outcomes—the only outcomes that matter. We will empower patients with access to information, giving them the ability to hold their own records, to make informed choices and to interact more readily with clinicians. We will put power in patients’ hands. Ultimately, if patients had been informed and empowered, and if people had listened to them rather than obsessing about centrally mandated processes and targets, these scandalous failings could not have gone unchallenged for so long.

In closing, I want to say a word about the trust itself. It is so important that the hospital and the trust, which have been under such an intense spotlight, should be able to continue to improve services for the patients they serve and continue to rebuild the trust and the fractured confidence of their community. Staffing there has increased, with more than 140 more nurses recruited since March 2009. Processes are more open and transparent, and monthly board meetings are now being held in public. Results are improving: the hospital standardised mortality ratio there is now significantly lower, and the rate of healthcare associated infections has improved. The Care Quality Commission will, in the coming weeks, provide its considered view on that progress, when it publishes the findings of its “12 month on” review.

We cannot and should not underestimate the task still ahead, and the attention of the trust must not be unduly diverted. That is why I am clear that this further inquiry should not cover ground already covered in the first Francis inquiry, and that it should, as far as possible, ensure that it supports all those staff who are working so hard to bring about the necessary changes. When this inquiry has completed its work and I return to the House to present its report, I am confident that we will, for the first time in this tragic saga, be able to discuss conclusions rather than just questions. We will be able to show that we have finally faced up to the truths of this terrible episode and that we are taking every step to ensure that it is never allowed to happen again. That is a basic duty of any Government. For the people of Staffordshire—many of whose relatives suffered unbearably in the closing stages of their lives—and for the nation as a whole, this is the very least they are entitled to. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) for his statement, much of which I welcome. It will be hard for the people of Stafford and for the staff at the hospital to hear that their town and their hospital are in the news again today, and it is important to say at the outset—as the Secretary of State did—that this inquiry relates to historical events at the hospital and that the situation there has been improving ever since. I should like to put on record my own personal appreciation of the role played by the new chair and chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust in improving standards at the hospital, rebuilding confidence and rebuilding the important relationships with the local community.

Events at the hospital between 2006 and 2008 represent one of the darkest chapters in our national health service. As the Francis report—which ran to two volumes and more than 900 pages—documented, there were appalling failures at every level, from basic care and human compassion on the wards to a failure in the duty of care at board level towards staff, patients and the whole community.

The NHS and its values are part of what makes our country great, but the NHS is not perfect. When things go wrong, it has a tendency to push people away and bring down the shutters. Yes, it is hard to deal with complaints when they affect matters of life and death, but it is only by holding up a mirror to the national health service that we will get an open, learning health service that learns from its mistakes and ensures that they are not repeated. That is why I took the decision to commission the original Francis report. It is also why, before the election, I signalled the need for a second-stage inquiry, to be held in public, into the actions of the supervisory and regulatory bodies, right up to the Department of Health. I therefore give the Secretary of State the assurance that this new inquiry will have the Opposition’s full co-operation, from the very top right the way down.

We published the draft terms of reference for that second-stage inquiry before the election. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House what questions or areas it will consider that were not covered either by the Francis report or the draft terms of reference that we laid before this House and on which we sought comments from a wide range of organisations? Also, what is different about the inquiry that he has announced, compared with the one that we proposed?

How long will the new inquiry take, and how much will it cost? Will he give the House an assurance—as I think that he did in his statement—that he will ensure that it does not distract the trust from the overriding task of ensuring that the hospital continues to make the necessary improvements? Will he also make sure that the trust’s leadership can continue to focus on improving relations with the local community?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the recommendations of the original Francis report will continue to be implemented in full while the new inquiry takes place? He will know that Robert Francis concluded in his original report that many people came forward who would not have done if the inquiry had been held under a different status. I gave Robert Francis the ability to come back to me to ask for further powers if they were necessary, but may I ask for the right hon. Gentleman’s assurance today that the status of the new inquiry will ensure that all the people who need to speak to it do come forward and give evidence?

On NHS targets, I was disappointed by the Secretary of State’s comments in his statement, and by those of the Prime Minister a few moments ago, as they appear to be prejudging the inquiry that they have set up today. Trusts up and down the country are implementing national standards safely. Indeed, targets are about patient safety: the four-hour A and E target is the basic minimum that every person in this country can expect when arriving at the door of the NHS.

The targets were implemented and brought in because some years ago, people were waiting for hours on end—almost whole days—in A and E departments. If the Secretary of State is resolved to remove that standard in the NHS, which many of the professional health bodies support, will he therefore give us an assurance that we will not see a rise in A and E waiting times? What mechanism will he implement to ensure that?

The trust’s board allowed staffing to fall to dangerously low levels, with 120 whole-time equivalents lacking from the wards. I put it to the Secretary of State that that was the main reason for the failures at the trust. I am sure that he will agree with me that not all the staff then working at the hospital are to blame, and that there are many good, decent, hard-working people at the hospital who will again find it hard to see their place of work back in the news today. There will also be many staff across the NHS who will feel that there is a daily focus on their failings but very little recognition of the outstanding professional standards that they show, or of the millions of acts of human kindness that take place in our NHS day in and day out.

In closing, may I ask the Secretary of State to give the House an assurance that he will always present a balanced picture and, in this case, be clear that these were isolated events at an isolated hospital?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he supports this further inquiry, and that he and his colleagues will give it that support. They will know that for more than six years as shadow Secretary of State I always gave both a balanced and positive view of what the staff of the NHS achieve daily on our behalf. That extends to the staff at Stafford hospital, as I have made clear to them when I have visited them in the past. Indeed, I shall be visiting again tomorrow in order to make that even clearer—and I have asked Robert Francis to ensure that as he conducts his inquiry, he does whatever he can not to divert them from continuing to improve care for people in Staffordshire.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what the difference is between the inquiry that I am announcing today and what he said should happen in a second stage Francis report, and I must tell him that there are a number of very serious differences. First, this is an inquiry not under the National Health Service Act 2006 but under the Inquiries Act 2005, so there will be a presumption that hearings will be held in public, and that records of evidence and information given to the inquiry must be made available to the public.

In addition, there will be a power of compulsion in respect of witnesses and evidence. I simply do not accept his assertion that had there been a different legal basis for the earlier inquiry people would not have come forward to give evidence. Either they would have done so or, if they had not been willing to do so, they could have been compelled to do so; that power will be available now. This inquiry will have a power to take evidence on oath and a power under the 2005 Act to make recommendations, if Robert Francis so concludes, concerning not only NHS organisations, which are covered by the 2006 Act, but non-NHS organisations. The terms of reference make it clear that Robert Francis will be able to look more widely. The inquiry will examine, for example, the actions of the coroner and the Health and Safety Executive. Indeed, he will be able to make recommendations in relation to the General Medical Council. He would not have been empowered to do that in an inquiry simply under the 2006 Act.

Finally, may I deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about targets? The four-hour target is not a measure of outcome; it is not a measure of the result for patients. The result for patients is about their going to an emergency department and their disease, injury or illness being treated successfully. What happened at Stafford hospital provided evidence—we saw other such evidence in many other places—to suggest that the four-hour target was being pursued not in order to give the best possible care to patients, but in spite of what would be the best possible care for patients. Patients were being discharged when they should not have been, and patients were being transferred to inappropriate wards where there was no provision to look after them.

It is vital that we focus on the result for patients. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the length of wait in the emergency department is not an irrelevant fact for patients. We are therefore going to consider, constructively, how to scrap the four-hour target as it currently exists, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, work on the basis of saying that what the clinical evidence makes clear directly contributes to delivering the best possible results for patients. We will start that process soon, in making that clear to the NHS. Our approach will go beyond the simple question of how long people wait in an emergency department; it will go to the outcomes being achieved in those departments. That is what putting quality at the heart of the NHS actually means; it means quality and results, not just processes.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the announcement of an inquiry under the 2005 Act. I am also grateful to him and to the Prime Minister for their support for my constituents over the extremely difficult past year. The Secretary of State will recall that I have written to him on a number of matters in connection with this case, but I should like to raise just one now. Can he assure me that the resources needed both for the inquiry itself and for staff cover will be made available to the trust, so that staff can continue the vital work of restoring public confidence in Stafford hospital?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Although he has only recently arrived in this House to represent his constituents, I know from my personal experience of our conversations, our meetings and my visits to see him and others in Stafford just how diligently and consistently, and in what a compelling way, he has represented his constituents over the past year or so. In reply to his question, I can tell him that although I have made it clear to Robert Francis that we must do this swiftly—and, therefore, without incurring excessive costs—we must do it successfully and achieve a quality result in order to inform everything we need to do to improve the NHS. We need to go beyond the mere structures and the processes—we have seen all that—to find out why people in all those structures were not focusing on patient safety and quality of care, and how they can be better incentivised, encouraged and required to do that in future. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that we are ensuring that the additional costs that the Mid Staffordshire trust has had to meet in the course of the first Francis inquiry and now, and in supporting the delivery of better care, are being met with additional resources from the strategic health authority.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

May I, on behalf of constituents whose families were affected by what happened at Mid Staffs, welcome the continued focus that the new coalition Government are placing on making progress on this issue and on ensuring that what happened before never happens again at Stafford hospital? I pay tribute to the work done by my former colleague David Kidney, who, along with the action group, called for a full public inquiry into this matter; that needs to be put on the record. Will the Secretary of State give me assurances about the make-up of the panel, and perhaps give consideration to making trade union representatives members of it? We need to ensure that all people affected in the provision of care can be properly represented and can be part of that panel in the further inquiry.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the further inquiry. I should say, first, that I share her view that David Kidney sought to get to the bottom of what happened at his local hospital, and pressed for a further, and public, inquiry. The shadow Secretary of State must know that at the beginning of last September Robert Francis came to him in the midst of his first inquiry to raise the issue of the legal base for that inquiry and the question of whether it should be brought under the Inquiries Act. He wanted the terms of reference to be extended sufficiently widely to ensure that at that stage he could have looked beyond the question of what happened, to the question of why the primary care trust, the strategic health authority, the NHS in general, and other organisations, did not intervene earlier and in a better way. On 10 September last year, the then Secretary of State did not agree that that should happen, but had he done so the first Francis inquiry could have achieved much earlier what the second will now have to do.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which was well overdue because the previous Government declined to do what he has agreed to do. I also thank the Prime Minister—a former candidate for Stafford—who took a very active part in this extremely important decision, for which both my constituents and those in Stafford will be deeply grateful. The Secretary of State has rightly dealt with the question of oaths and of compulsion of witnesses. Will he also indicate that expenses relating to the provision of legal representation for witnesses will also be made available? In addition to dealing with issues relating to whistleblowers and targets, will the whole question of self-assessment by hospitals and hospital trusts be considered? Will the inquiry examine those matters? A similar inquiry in 1984 led to a great improvement in the national circumstances relating to hospitals. The same hospital was involved in the legionnaires disease inquiry that Baroness Thatcher incorporated. I again thank the Secretary of State for making this decision, which will be greatly welcomed in my constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

Although we heard about four questions there, I am sure that the Secretary of State will content himself with one reply.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I shall content myself with saying that my hon. Friend made it clear from the outset that an Inquiries Act inquiry was the right idea. He said that more than a year ago, and had we gone down that route then, we would have been much further towards getting to the whole truth now. Matters relating to the Inquiries Act and the panel membership are ones that will now be determined by Robert Francis. I have published the terms of reference to which he will be working, and under the Inquiries Act issues such as legal representation and its funding are determined under those.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My constituents who were affected will also be following very carefully what happens in this public inquiry, and I associate myself with what has been said about David Kidney, who worked extremely hard and effectively on this horrific issue.

I am concerned that the horrific failure at this hospital is being used as a hook in a most appalling way for the proposals to scrap targets, which the Conservatives have talked about for a long time. In any system there will always be people who try to manipulate it; in a culture of fear and bullying, as there was in this hospital, that is exactly when systems will be manipulated. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take into account as wide a spectrum of advice as possible when he is considering the new outcome proposals, to ensure that whatever system he brings in is not also open to abuse and manipulation?

[Mr Lansley]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s friends says that we should take action on the basis of the first Francis inquiry, and we will, and the hon. Gentleman says that we should not take action on targets. The first Francis report made it clear that targets compromise patient care, so we do need to take action.

The hon. Gentleman asked a further question. Robert Francis and I have had two discussions and the terms of reference are very clear. He is looking beyond the structures and processes to how the culture of bullying, fear and secrecy came to pass, what effect it had and how we can move beyond that. The report will be very important, if it is successful, not just for the people of Staffordshire but right across the country in showing how we can move from a top-down, secretive, bullying culture to one that is absolutely open, transparent, focused on patient safety and entirely responsive to the needs of patients.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

One of the tragedies is that concerns were being raised about Stafford hospital as long as five years ago but little or no notice was taken of them. A constituent of mine, Barbara Allatt, was until recently a student nurse who helped to expose the appalling neglect of elderly patients at the hospital trust, but rather than her concerns being acted on, she was instead needlessly thrown off her training course. In his statement, the Secretary of State outlined new whistleblowing rights for future staff. Will those rights be extended retrospectively so that staff who spoke out previously, and in doing so put their job at risk, will not be punished again?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, by definition, contractual rights cannot be retrospectively applied, but let me make it clear that I will be issuing guidance in terms that I have set out to the House in my statement today—albeit that we might need to do more. That guidance is entirely intended to move the NHS to an open culture that encourages staff to raise concerns. As I said to the Patients Association yesterday, we must have a culture of challenge inside the NHS under which the offence is not to make a mistake, as mistakes are human, but to seek to cover up or ignore a mistake. That is what happens in the best organisations and it must be what happens throughout the NHS.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s promise of early action. Will he tell us how many members of the present board were in post on 18 March 2009 and when he will sack them as he has promised?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me: I know that the chief executive, the chair, the nursing director and others have moved on, but I do not know the precise answer and I will write to him about that. In relation to any individuals, I think it is proper that, having asked Robert Francis to conduct a further inquiry that takes account of all that he discovered in the first report and that covers the same period of time—2005 to 2009—he is free to make recommendations that will bear upon people working inside the trust and in organisations, and upon how they discharge those responsibilities.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the inquiry, which will be welcomed by many of my constituents and others. I urge the Department of Health always to listen to the relatives of patients, because relatives were saying that this was a problem far earlier than anyone else. Will the Secretary of State, please, always listen to what relatives and patients say?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises this point, because I know from the four occasions on which I have visited Stafford and talked to members of the Cure the NHS group just what a desperate struggle they had to be listened to. We should therefore be clear not only about changing the culture inside the NHS, so that patients’ issues and complaints are treated seriously from the outset in an open and transparent way, but that the patient voice should be strengthened in the NHS. Even people who are literally self-appointed voices for patients should not be dismissed and pushed to the margins. We have to be prepared to listen to patients however their views are brought forward.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was unclear about his proposals for waiting times. Will he clarify this issue? He seems to be saying that he will do away with waiting times but then introduce a new system. Will the new waiting time be four hours, five hours, six hours, 10 hours or 12 hours?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. I was very clear in saying that I am going to abolish the four-hour accident and emergency target. I will issue guidance to the NHS shortly, the purpose of which is to amend the four-hour A and E target, alongside others, to ensure that we deliver better quality. That is not just about the time spent waiting in an emergency department; it is about the quality of the service provided and it is based on clinical evidence.

[Andy Burnham]

That is unclear.

[Mr Lansley]

The point that I am making is very clear. We are not going to focus on narrow process targets in future; we are going to look at the quality and outcomes provided for patients. I will issue future guidance on that.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The report highlights that there was a breakdown of care at almost every level, from basic nursing care up to high levels of communication. Does the Secretary of State agree that when the patient becomes the absolute focus of every level of care delivery, from basic levels of nursing care right up to top levels of management, it will be more difficult for such a culture to grow in terms of process delivery? Will he guarantee that the report will look at putting back into hospitals the approach of making the patient the most important person and of putting the patient at the centre of every element of care that is delivered?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I have made it clear that that is the first priority for our Department in how we are going to improve the NHS. As a nurse, my hon. Friend will know that what she describes is absolutely how many people across the NHS want to conduct their professional relationships. They have been so frustrated, demoralised and demotivated by not being able to deliver care in the way that they wish—focusing on the needs and expectations of patients.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Is not the important issue that the terrible events in Mid Staffordshire are not purely a local issue, terrible though they are for Mid Staffordshire? It is vital that lessons are learned for application right across the NHS. What were the commissioners doing? Where were the regulators? What price professional accountability? Why was all that allowed to happen over so long? Perhaps the most difficult question of all is this: why was it not the first time that this had happened in the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have to move from all those questions to some serious answers—so that we can have the reform that the NHS so badly needs. I know and he knows that this is about not just a different set of structures, but a change of culture and a focus in the NHS on patients and results for patients to the exclusion of other bureaucratic impositions. There is such immense bureaucracy—PCTs, SHAs and regulators—that everything should have worked perfectly, but it did not. Why? Because in all of that, the underlying pressures in the service were not focused on results for patients. We have to drive towards that conclusion.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Speaker]

There is no giving way involved; this is a statement.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Only yesterday, I wrote to him regarding a constituent in South Derbyshire who had gone through a four-hour wait and was then admitted, to make sure that the four-hour rule was not broken, and had to stay in a ward for six hours and see even more people when he could have been on a bus going home much earlier. There are lessons to be learned across the whole country, and I look forward to the report coming through.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will take not only the clear evidence from the first Francis report, but evidence from many other places, including that from many of the leading clinical professions that the way in which the four-hour target has been administered has undermined the quality of patient care. We will focus on quality and help the NHS to deliver what it knows is the right quality.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and thank him for his two visits to Malvern over the past few years to support the new community hospital that will open in October.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the West Midlands strategic health authority. In the past six months, the authority has required our local Worcestershire NHS to divest itself of its community hospitals. At the moment, the authority is proposing to abolish the mental health trust and put it and the community hospitals into a new trust. Secondly, it has asked NHS Worcestershire to cluster with neighbouring NHS organisations. What are my right hon. Friend’s proposals to stop all those reorganisations and focus on patient outcomes?

[Mr Lansley]

The inquiry will look at both the West Midlands SHA and its predecessor bodies. My hon. Friend will know from what I said a couple of weeks ago that proposals for such reconfigurations in the national health service must now answer to the clinical evidence—the clinical base. They must answer to patients—current and prospective patient choice—and to the referral intentions and commissioning intentions of general practitioners exercising responsibility for commissioning. That will change the nature of such decisions from a top-down, unaccountable process to one that is much more locally accountable and effective.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The excellent new Secretary of State for Health was right to praise the men and women of the health service, but when things go wrong there needs to be an early-warning system. Does he agree that standardised mortality rates are an indication that something might be going wrong, and that such indicators should be used more often to investigate hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, the Francis inquiry will go on to understand why one of those hospital SMRs, from 2003, indicated the nature of a potential problem. The SMRs are not a sufficient measure of quality across the board. The National Quality Board has already undertaken some work on how we can ensure that hospital SMRs are consistent and meaningful, and beyond that how we can identify the early-warning signs and act on them. As one of the things we derive from that, I shall be working with the quality board and across the NHS to ensure that we act on warning signs, including looking at potential risks either across the system or in relation to individual trusts.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will the inquiry cover the sheer volume of bureaucratic paperwork that nursing staff have to complete, which seriously gets in the way of their fulfilling their clinical responsibilities?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to Members for their co-operation. We have got to everybody.

Point of Order

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

13:13

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph? It announces a planning policy change on so-called garden grabbing. May I ask you to investigate the circumstances of this case, which appear to be of selective leaking and spin, and will you report to the House your views on that and your views in general on announcements being made to journalists before they are made to Members of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope he will not be shocked, and the House will not be horrified, to learn that I have not yet read The Daily Telegraph today. However, I am mindful of the fact that there has been a written ministerial statement on the subject by the Government, so I do not think it would be correct or accurate to characterise the situation as one in which the House has not been informed of Government policy. I am happy to look at the piece in question. I will reflect on it. If I have anything further to add that the House needs to hear, the House will hear it, but otherwise I am inclined to leave the matter there.

Identity Documents Bill

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

13:14

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am very pleased to introduce the first piece of legislation that the new Administration are putting before Parliament. It signals a profound change in the way in which Government will interact with the people they serve.

The national identity card scheme represents the worst of government. It is intrusive and bullying, ineffective and expensive. It is an assault on individual liberty which does not promise a greater good. The Bill is, therefore, partly symbolic. It sends a message that the Government are going to do business in a different way. We are the servants of the people, not their masters, and every action that we take must be considered in that context.

Of course our first duty is to keep people safe. That truism cannot be repeated often enough. We will do whatever it takes to honour that covenant. Sometimes, respecting the rights of the few while protecting the many will be a delicate balancing act. Not on this occasion. We have no hesitation in making the national identity card scheme an unfortunate footnote in history. There it should remain—a reminder of a less happy time when the Government allowed hubris to trump civil liberties.

Last month, the coalition set out its plans to abolish ID cards and the national identity register. The register contains the biographic and biometric fingerprint data of cardholders. In bringing forward this stand-alone Bill, we are now seeking swift approval to enable us to abolish both.

The Government are of course also bringing forward a freedom Bill, and will launch a consultation on the laws that the British people want to see repealed. So the Identity Documents Bill is just our first measure as we begin to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties—the crucial, delicate balance which was so carelessly abandoned during Labour’s years in office.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I opposed identity cards from the very beginning and I have not changed my views, but will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in 1996 the Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, announced that the Conservative Government intended to bring in an identity card scheme? It was described as voluntary—whatever that meant. It was not possible to do so for obvious reasons: because of what happened in 1997.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of what was done in 1996 by a former Conservative Home Secretary and what was proposed. That Conservative Government did indeed look at the possibility. We have looked at the idea brought forward by the Labour Government and we do not think that it is right. We take a different view, which is that we should abolish the identity card scheme. The hon. Gentleman referred to his opposition and indeed a number of Labour Members objected to the proposals of their Front-Bench colleagues.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is talking about the abolition of the scheme. Is she telling the House, and the wider country, that the abolition of the scheme will include foreign nationals coming to this country?

[Mrs May]

No. I shall come to that point later. There are biometric residency permits for foreign nationals and they are completely separate from the identity card scheme. They were rolled into the ID scheme only because the Labour Government were trying desperately to bolster it; they claimed that the residency permits were somehow part of the ID card scheme, which they are not. Those biometric residency permits will continue to exist.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

As one of the Labour Members who opposed identity cards from the beginning, I am delighted that the Bill is one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government are putting through. Will the Home Secretary say something about people who went ahead and rather stupidly bought an identity card? Does she feel that they should be recompensed or does she think they should have listened to those of us on both sides of the House who said, “This is the wrong scheme and you shouldn’t be doing that”?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She does indeed have an honourable record of maintaining opposition to identity cards. I will make reference to this point later, but I can tell her now that we will not be offering refunds to all those who chose to get an identity card. [Hon. Members: “Outrageous!”] Labour Front Benchers shout “Outrageous”, but we made it clear that we were opposed to identity cards. The Liberal Democrat party made it absolutely clear that it was opposed to identity cards. People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary recall that the Labour party’s manifesto in 2005 had a commitment to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme? Does she recollect that it was the Labour party that won that general election? In what way was it illegitimate—or, indeed, “stupid”, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—for people then to buy a card that was legitimate and had been set out in the manifesto of the winning party?

[Mrs May]

I must make a confession; I did not study the 2005 Labour party manifesto in any great detail because I was too busy promoting the 2005 Conservative party manifesto—[Interruption.] I am not trying to rewrite history; the right hon. Gentleman and his party won the 2005 election and introduced the identity card scheme. Let us remember; the scheme was not introduced in the very early stages of the Government’s term, but we made it clear from an early stage that if the Conservative party came into government, ID cards would be scrapped. That was clear to people, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—

[Alan Johnson]

This is arrogance.

[Mrs May]

I fail to see how it is arrogant for a political party to make clear to the electors that if it gets into government it will pursue a particular policy, to allow electors to make a decision as to their actions on the basis of that knowledge.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I agree with the Home Secretary. Has there been any estimate of the cost of continuing the system for those few people who already have identity cards?

[Mrs May]

I am coming on to some of the cost issues but, over the next four years, we will be saving £86 million by getting rid of the identity card scheme, with over £800 million being saved over the next 10 years.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

No, I said that I was going to make some progress. I have been quite generous already in taking interventions.

Much of the Identity Cards Act 2006 will be undone but the Bill will re-enact certain provisions in the 2006 Act that do not relate solely to ID cards. Those provisions on offences and passport verification make available powers in relation to the detection and prevention of fraud, and the consular fees provision makes it possible to issue passports at subsidised rates. It will remain an offence to carry an identity document that a person knows or believes to be false or to hold a genuine document that relates to someone else, or that has been improperly obtained. Also it will remain illegal to possess equipment for falsifying documents. Under the Bill, ID cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On the passing of the Bill, I will not issue any more cards. Following Royal Assent, cards will remain valid for just one more month.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way? I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for doing so. [Laughter.]

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Blunkett]

The right hon. Lady paused and I believed she had given way. My apologies for that.

I have an ID card here. Is the right hon. Lady saying that from now on any use of the document to reinforce my identity would be illegal?

[Mrs May]

I have not said that that is the case from today. I have a rather greater belief in the value of Parliament than the last Labour Government showed. Any provisions will come into force only once the Bill has been approved by Parliament and has received Royal Assent. It is after Royal Assent that cards will remain valid for one more month only. I will be writing to all those who already have a card to inform them of the change, so the right hon. Gentleman can look forward in due course to receiving a letter from me. Let us get this in proportion: fewer than 15,000 people already have a card.

[Mr Blunkett]

I am sorry for intervening again, but as the House will appreciate, the subject is rather close to my heart. I understand entirely that the document will not be useable for travel purposes once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but I understood the right hon. Lady to say that it would not be valid in offering any proof of identity. Just before that, she said that it would be illegal. I am trying to ascertain whether using this document, which has my fingerprints and photo and is more authentic than my passport, would make me a criminal were I to use it for other purposes, such as opening a bank account.

[Mrs May]

I followed the right hon. Gentleman’s argument quite carefully and perhaps I can reprise what I actually said earlier. Under the Bill, the cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On Royal Assent, they will remain valid for only one more month. I did not use the word “illegal”, except in relation to those who possess equipment for falsifying documents. I trust that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is not intending to hold equipment for the falsification of documents.

[Mr Blunkett]

indicated assent.

[Mrs May]

For the record, the right hon. Gentleman nodded at that point.

The post of Identity Commissioner will be abolished. The public panels and experts groups that were established by the Identity and Passport Service have already been disbanded, and 60 temporary staff in Durham have already been released early.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I am going to make a little progress if the hon. Gentleman will wait.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

In deference to the hon. Lady’s constituency interest, I will give way to her.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am very grateful. The Home Secretary has just announced that 67 people in my constituency were made redundant last week because the Government are not continuing identity cards. What efforts will her Government make to get jobs for those people who lost them this week, and for those who are likely to lose their jobs because the Government are not going ahead with the second generation biometric passports?

[Mrs May]

If I can just correct a slight inaccuracy of terminology in the way in which the hon. Lady referred to the job losses in Durham, the people concerned were temporary staff on short-term contracts and they have been released early from those contracts. There are implications to abolishing the previous Labour Government’s scheme but, as the hon. Lady may know, we as a Government have considerable proposals for helping people who are unemployed to get into work. Our single work programme, which will replace the previous Government’s proposals for helping people into work, will give people much more focused individual help on getting them into the workplace and ensuring that they are retrained and given the skills that they need.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The Bill also places a duty on me to destroy all information recorded in the national identity register within two months of Royal Assent. Photographs and fingerprint biometrics will be securely destroyed. This will not be a literal bonfire of the last Government's vanities, but it will none the less be deeply satisfying. The national identity register will then cease to exist entirely.

The Government will always defend the security and integrity of the British passport, in order to safeguard the free movement of its citizens abroad and protect our borders from illegal immigration.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman has a little more patience, I will make more progress.

[Chris Bryant]

How much patience?

[Mrs May]

That will be for me to judge in due course.

We will continue to work to ensure the free movement of citizens abroad. We are halting work on fingerprint passports—the so-called second generation biometric passports—because we believe, in common with the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, that we can maintain the integrity of our passports by other security measures. Already a combination of physical and electronic security features makes the British passport very hard to counterfeit and forge. A new design with improved physical security features will be issued from 5 October, and we are considering ways to strengthen further the electronic security features.

In November 2008 the previous Administration began issuing to non-EEA nationals the biometric residency permits mentioned in an intervention. I want to reiterate the point that I made in response to that intervention. For purely political reasons those permits were referred to by the previous Government as identity cards for foreign nationals. Let no one in the House be in any doubt. They are not ID cards, and they will continue.

We anticipate that the net cost of the Bill will amount to about £5 million this year, which includes termination of contracts, writing off equipment, contacting cardholders and others to inform them that the project is over, exit costs for staff who cannot be redeployed elsewhere, and payments to contractors for secure destruction of identity information. I regret that another unavoidable cost is maintaining the ability to issue new cards before our statutory obligation to do so is removed. This is yet another example of why we want to act as quickly as possible.

The good news, however, is that the taxpayer, as I said in answer to a previous intervention, will be saved some £86 million over the next four years. Moreover, the public will not be hit with the roughly £800 million of ongoing costs over the next 10 years. To put that in perspective, that is a millennium dome’s worth of savings. At any time it is utterly wrong for Government to waste taxpayers’ money on a folly. In the current climate, it is obscene.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have relented and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), she said that the staff were on short-term contracts. I should remind her that she, too, is on a short-term contract, as are all of us. How does she intend to use the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Consular Fees Act 1980?

[Mrs May]

I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman by saying that I will not give him a precise answer in response to that point. We are ensuring that we still have those abilities in the Act to allow discounts on applications for passports under the consular fees permission in the Bill. The Bill enables us to retain the ability to do that, should we at some stage choose to do so, but I shall not give the hon. Gentleman a more detailed answer at present. I am sure he can make his points known during the debate if he chooses to catch the Speaker’s eye.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

No. I shall go a little further in my speech. I return to the subject of savings. The Bill is not just about saving money. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I be the first to congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of Ways and Means? I look forward to many debates in the Chamber under your wise rule in the Chair.

If an overwhelming case could be made that ID cards would keep us safe without intruding on civil liberties, we would find the funding. But that is not the case. First, if databases are compromised, so too is security. The Labour Government’s track record on this was appalling. We all remember the moment the House was told that HMRC had lost data for 25 million people, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers, and that was just one example of many. We recognise that some data storage is essential, but these events do not point in the direction of a massive expansion of the surveillance state, which ID cards would necessarily involve.

Moreover, ID cards would not make us safer or beat benefit fraud. Benefit fraud usually involves people lying about their personal circumstances rather than their identity. Turkish and Spanish ID cards stopped neither the Istanbul bombers in 2003 nor the Madrid bombers in 2004; nor did German ID cards prevent terrorists plotting 9/11 in Hamburg. As Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, said after the 7/7 attacks here in London:

“I doubt”—

that ID cards—

“would have made a difference. I’ve never argued . . . that ID cards would prevent any particular act.”

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is right that ID cards did not stop the bombing in Madrid, but does she accept that ID cards in Spain allowed the bombers to be traced from the fingerprints on the Atocha bombs?

[Mrs May]

The point that I am making is a simple one. The last Labour Government claimed that this would be—[Interruption.] A shadow Minister on the Front Bench says, “No. we didn’t.” As I had not said what I was going to say the Government had claimed, I suggest that she is being a little premature, or perhaps she is learning the ways of opposition rather earlier than some of her colleagues.

Many claims were made at various times about what the Government said. One of them was that the purpose of ID cards was to keep this country safe. The examples that I gave show that ID cards do not keep this country safe and are an intrusion into civil liberties. The imposition of an enormously expensive system, which will be a target for computer hackers, might result in greater identity fraud and would not make us safer, cannot be justified.

There is one other objection to such an extension of the state’s surveillance powers, and it is one that Labour never understood: it is unBritish. We are a freedom-loving people, and we recognise that intrusive government does not enhance our well-being or safety. In 2004 the Mayor of London promised to eat his ID card in front of

“whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”

I will not endorse civil disobedience, but Boris Johnson was expressing in his own inimitable way a discomfort even stronger than the discomfort to be had from eating an ID card. It is a discomfort born of a very healthy and British revulsion towards bossy, interfering, prying, wasteful and bullying Government. The coalition Government are determined to do things differently.

I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of ID cards. They include N02ID, Liberty, and the parties that make up the coalition Government. I am also grateful that Members in other parts of the House, including Labour Members, as indicated earlier, have had the integrity to speak out and vote against the issue and, in the case of Labour Members, against those on their Front Bench. Indeed, Labour Members may even find that voting for the abolition of ID cards curries favour with the next leader of their party although, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), none of the leadership candidates appears to have taken an interest in civil liberties.

Let me read to the House what the hon. Lady said during her impassioned speech against the Identity Cards Bill in 2005:

“As the evening has worn on, the Government Whips have subjected several of my colleagues to their usual rough-hew methods of persuasion. However, I say to colleagues in the closing minutes of the debate that voting against the Bill would be far from betraying our Government or going against Labour principles, because we would be doing the Government a great service. The more the public hear of the Bill, the less they like it, so the sooner it is stopped in its tracks, the better.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1248-9.]

I could not agree more.

I urge Members in all parts of the House to vote with their conscience, and to show their constituents that they stand for freedom, sound expenditure and common sense. The case for ID cards has not been made and will not be. It is an extension of state power that we cannot, in any sense, afford. I commend the Bill to the House.

13:38

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I feel honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be the subject of your first pronouncements from the Chair. It will be a pleasure to serve under you.

We on the Labour Benches will not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Although we do not think the general election was in any way a referendum on ID cards, we accept that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have a mandate to abandon the measure. We believe that the 15,000 cards already in use should continue to be a legitimate form of identity, and that those citizens who have purchased them should not be treated in the unfair and arrogant way that the Home Secretary proposed: it is arrogant to punish the public because the Government believe that the public were duty bound to presume a Conservative victory at the general election. That is constitutional nonsense and I have never heard anything so arrogant from a political party in my life.

We think a version of the national identity register must continue to exist in some form, and that second generation biometric passports need to go ahead. However, we will pursue those arguments in Committee and at other stages of the Bill’s passage.

In recent times, my party has been consistently in favour of an identity card scheme, the Liberal Democrats have been consistently opposed and the Conservatives have been inconsistent to the point of perversity. The Bill before us to abandon a voluntary identity card scheme, which the right hon. Lady says is intrusive, bullying and unBritish, was in the first semi-Conservative—I suppose we could call it—Queen’s Speech for almost 14 years.

The irony is that the previous Queen’s Speech under a Tory Administration, in November 1996, included a Bill to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme, following extensive public consultation by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, who said that the potential benefits fell into two categories. It is worth repeating them to the House. This was a Conservative Government, proposing a Bill at the Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] “Fifteen years ago,” says the Minister for Immigration. We will get on to what has changed in the almost 15 years since 1996, and how the problems that led that Conservative Government to put forward an “unBritish, bullying and intrusive” Bill have actually worsened in the ensuing period. However, Michael Howard summed up the benefits succinctly, noting first, the

“direct benefits to the individual holder (e.g. through use of an identity card as a travel card or to provide reliable proof of identity including for commercial transactions)”;

and, secondly,

“the wider benefits to all citizens, (e.g. by reducing the level of certain crimes or by providing more efficient or less costly provision of state services).”

That description of the benefits is as accurate today as it was then. The consultation under the Conservative Government found that 64% of the public supported ID cards, with 36% opposed, and the last Tory Government to be elected to power in their own right—perhaps the last in more ways than one—proceeded to include the measure in the Gracious Speech.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I, too, very much welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend understand the concerns of my constituents, who have been in touch having bought that voluntary ID card precisely for the reasons that he just gave? They saw it as an opportunity to get proof of identity without going down the route of obtaining a passport and to have something in their pocket? Does he also understand their concerns in writing to me and asking me to vote against this measure because they want either to get some recompense for the card that they have bought, or, if hon. Members will pardon the pun, to passport it for use in another way?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend should write and tell them that the Government believe—this Government, who believe in the big society and in listening to people—that the scheme into which they bought, which Parliament approved at every stage and which was in the 2005 manifesto of the party that was elected to government, is somehow illegitimate. His constituents should realise that it was their mistake in not presuming a victory for the Tory party at the recent general election. That seems to be the reason.

That description of the benefits to which I referred is accurate, and the consultation carried out by the previous Conservative Government showed overwhelming public support. The Labour Government resuscitated the proposals and subjected them to a fresh, six-month public consultation and further scrutiny in the form of a draft Bill in 2003. The Select Committee on Home Affairs held a simultaneous inquiry, and the outcome of all that was, again, overwhelming public support.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am trying desperately to understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position. He still seems to be for ID cards, but he will not oppose the Bill this evening. What is the Labour party’s position on ID cards? Can we expect to see them in a future Labour party manifesto?

[Alan Johnson]

That is to be determined by the party. However, we cannot suggest that we did not lose the election; we cannot simply oppose every measure that the Government propose. We have to ensure that we consider the will of the people. I do not doubt that the mandate of the two parties in government allows them to introduce the measure before us, but they are absolutely wrong to cancel the national identity register, to say that they will not go ahead with second-generation biometric passports and, most of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, to take such an arrogant and dismissive approach to the British public.

The Home Secretary said that ID cards would be made a footnote to history, so let us carry on with the history. The Conservative Government proposed ID cards and undertook public consultation; Labour resuscitated the proposal; the Home Affairs Committee supported it; public scrutiny supported it; and the draft Bill gained overwhelming support.

I should at this point mention the strange episode of the ten-minute Bill in January 2002, when the then Member for Broxtowe, now sadly no longer a Member, proposed leave to introduce an identity card Bill. The House will know that on a ten-minute Bill only the die-hard supporters of a proposition will turn up to vote, but among that bunch of ID card zealots, those people who wanted an “unBritish, intrusive and anti-democratic” scheme, we find the former shadow Home Secretary, now the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the current Leader of the House, and a whole bunch of their Conservative colleagues.

To listen to the Home Secretary speak today, one would never believe that she once walked through the Aye Lobby in support of ID cards. I have to reveal that she did. Members should listen to her speech today, or read it again in Hansard, and then recall that the Home Secretary supported Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill on 20 December 2004; and she was not a Tory rebel: she voted with her party in support of that Bill, whose measures she now seeks to repeal. The Conservatives continued to give their support. Indeed, they supported it under the leadership of Michael Howard at the 2005 general election.

The right hon. Lady now says that people were foolish to go out and buy ID cards, but both main parties at that general election supported ID cards, so the proposition that they should be removed is quite extraordinary. The Conservatives continued to give their support right into the 2005 general election, when Labour’s winning manifesto pledged

“to provide citizens with a…secure identity card to protect them…from identity theft and clamp down on illegal working and fraudulent use of public services.”

Why does the Home Secretary now believe that it was an infringement of civil liberties, the cause of the end of civilisation as we know it, when she voted for that precise scheme in 2004?

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your position. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that only a few days ago the head of the TUC, Brendan Barber, said that the scheme would have been an expensive folly and an unwelcome intrusion into people’s private liberties and lives? Does he also know that the TUC head said that he welcomed and supported this Government’s proposals to get rid of ID cards? Given Labour’s current financial circumstances, is it wise to ignore paymasters in that way?

[Alan Johnson]

The TUC is a lot of things, but it is not a paymaster. I was not aware that Brendan Barber had said that, but if that is his view he is perfectly entitled to express it. I am setting out the views of the current Home Secretary and the Conservative party on Second Reading on 20 December 2004 of the Bill whose measures they now seek to repeal. Indeed, they are not just seeking to repeal that legislation, but describing in extraordinarily derogatory terms anyone who supported it.

I quoted our precise manifesto commitment in 2005. We were in the course of carrying out that commitment, and everyone recognised that it would be a long process, but it began with the Tories’ enthusiastic support at the 2005 general election, and ended with their bitter opposition. How do we explain the Conservative party’s change from hard-headed pragmatists to the political wing of Liberty? In respect of the issues that galvanised the Conservatives to act in the 1996 Queen’s Speech and support the Identity Cards Bill on Second Reading in 2004, the only change is that the problems that they sought to address have become more acute.

The mantra of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is civil liberties, but the Home Secretary should remember that when we talk about civil liberties—our basic freedoms—we are not talking solely about the rights of individuals but about the rights of society as a whole. We are talking about the right to be able to travel freely, the right to have access to efficient and effective public services, and the right to live our lives free from crime. ID cards, biometric passports and the national identity register that supported them were designed precisely to protect those freedoms, but at the same time to help to increase security—the security of each individual’s identity, the security of our borders and, yes, an added layer of security in the fight against terrorism.

The Home Secretary might like to be aware, because she mentioned it, that it was not me who first pointed out the link with terrorism—it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is, I confess, not normally guilty of any inconsistency. During the Second Reading debate in 2004, he said, as shadow Home Secretary at this very Dispatch Box:

“I would not have countenanced ID cards before 11 September. After that, however, I accept that we must consider them. After 11 September, it is incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures that might enhance the nation’s security. Identity cards introduced properly and effectively may help to do that.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1953.]

That is what he said as shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend—I will call him that, because he knows our relationship—is carefully not quoting the rest of the speech or saying what actually happened. What we did at that time was to give the Government of the day the benefit of the doubt because there had just been some terrorist events that obviously brought the country into some risk. We therefore said, “We will support the Government on this, under five tests”—they were very fond of five tests in those days. The five tests were that the Government could control the cost of the programme, which they did not; protect the privacy of the individual, which they did not; manage it competently, which they did not; protect the security of the data, which they did not; and show its effectiveness against terrorism and crime, which they did not. That is why we opposed it.

[Alan Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before the right hon. Member replies, may I remind people that interventions should be very short?

[Alan Johnson]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend in this broad coalition, but I do not have time to quote the whole speech. Of course he made those points in that very important debate, after which the Tories walked through the Aye Lobby with us. I do not agree that the tests were not met. My point, however, is that the Conservatives are now in government. They can carry out the proposal that was in the Queen’s Speech in 1996 and meet the tests that they set.

That debate took place on 20 December 2004, three years after 9/11 and, unfortunately, seven months before 7/7, and before the airline bomb plot, the liquid bomb plot, and all the other terrorist outrages that we have had to counter. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that anything has changed in relation to national security except that these problems are more acute. We are at a severe level of readiness. No one on the Government Benches can say, “Well, things have changed since 1996,” or since 2004. They have changed—they have got worse, and that has made the case for ID cards stronger.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

I will make some progress and then give way.

Of course, for the Government, as the Home Secretary said, it is conveniently symbolic to have this debate so early on in this Session of Parliament. It is a symbolic act to prove that the coalition can actually agree on something, as it certainly cannot agree on Europe, the alternative vote, or even the Human Rights Act.

It is certainly true that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been consistently smug in suggesting that a simple ID card scheme will mean the end of civilisation as we know it. Not for nothing are the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister known as the self-righteous brothers, although they are bound to have lost that loving feeling before too long. The Deputy Prime Minister has a Dutch mother and a Spanish wife, so he should know that the claim that ID cards are an affront to liberty and freedom would be greeted with bemusement in Holland, Spain, France, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and all the other countries that have managed to provide their citizens with the cards’ pragmatic advantages without becoming despotic oligarchies.

The Bill has provisions to keep the clauses of the 2006 Act that relate to false documentation, and we welcome that, but we need much more than penalties for false documents if we are to win the fight against identity fraud and illegal immigration.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Was it the shadow Home Secretary’s intention that it would be compulsory for everyone to have ID cards? If not, how on earth could they help to prevent terrorism, benefit fraud or anything else, given that the people who were likely to commit those acts were unlikely to apply for an ID card?

[Alan Johnson]

That is a very good point. No, it was not my intention to make the cards compulsory. Indeed, we made it absolutely plain that people could use their biometric passport as an identity document or use an ID card, which was a smaller, simpler, cheaper version. France has a voluntary ID card scheme, as do many countries in Europe that would not go to the compulsory stage, and it helps people to protect and prove their identity, which is the fundamental reason behind it. As I said, it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden who mentioned the link with terrorism, not moi.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a customarily amusing yet powerful contribution to the debate. He is wise to accept the mandate of the coalition Government, whereby they believe that they have a right to dismantle their version of the surveillance state. Does he agree, however, that the Bill does not remove any obligation on any Department to verify people’s identity, so there will be no less identity verification going on? If the Government really want to reduce the surveillance state, they should give citizens ownership of their data so that Departments do not continually data-share—there might be more of that as a result of the Bill—and have a transparency register that means that every occurrence of data-sharing that goes on between Departments is in the public domain so that people have the right to challenge it?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point; he has a good track record in this area. He is highlighting the real issues of civil liberties, which are not only to do with a simple identity card to prove and protect identity but a whole range of other issues that I shall come to in a moment.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Johnson]

No, I need to make some progress.

If we want to travel abroad, take an internal flight, open a bank account, take up a new job, register with a doctor, get a driving licence or get married, we need to prove our identity. No one would dispute that it is perfectly reasonable to have to provide proof of identity in such circumstances. For those who voluntarily acquire an ID card, it enables them to prove who they are quickly, easily and securely. It provides a universal and simple proof of identity and a convenient end to the disorganised use of a year’s worth of photocopied bank statements that people have to hand over—phone bills, birth certificates and so on, all copied to numerous different places because of the ways that people have to prove their identity. The Conservatives agreed about that almost unanimously in 1996 and again in 2004. For those lucky enough to be blessed with youthful good looks—like you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker—it also provides proof of age. For those who are less well-off, it provides a cheap and convenient alternative to a passport for European travel. It enables people easily to access the services to which they are entitled. The fact that a robust and trusted form of identification can be a tool for empowerment is something that the Government have ignored in all their posturing on civil liberties.

[Mr Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about other countries in Europe and gave us a long list without deviation, hesitation or repetition, but can he say whether one of them introduced a national identity register? That is unique to this country, and an unprecedented complete disaster.

[Alan Johnson]

Yes––France.

There was nothing Big Brotherish about the system that we were implementing. We already have the NHS database for those registered with GPs. Incidentally, I note from yesterday’s Independent—I do not know whether it is true, but if we have read it in the papers, it probably is—that the Government have reneged on their pledge to scrap that database. We already have the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database for those with a driving licence and the passport database with information on 80% of the people in this country—exactly the same information as is on the ID card.

All that we want to do is make it easier for banks, GPs and employers to verify someone’s identity and thereby make it much more difficult for people to create multiple identities and commit identity fraud. That crime costs our economy £1.2 billion every year and has increased by 20% in the first quarter of this year alone. Combating identity fraud protects the security not just of individuals but of all of us collectively. Drug dealers, people traffickers and terrorists depend on access to false documents. Having no simple method of establishing and recording someone’s identity simply plays into their hands, as the police have said in numerous submissions, as the Conservative party stated in its pronouncements before the 2005 election and as the public have said in every consultation held by Governments of both persuasions over the past 14 years. The introduction of ID cards was linked to the switch to biometric passports, with all the costs intertwined. The national identity register is crucial to both, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment.

[Conor Burns]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the scheme would be successful on none of those points unless it were, in time, to move towards being compulsory? People who are going to commit crimes would not participate in a voluntary scheme. During my early years in Northern Ireland, people were compelled to carry photographic driving licences whether they were drivers or not. That fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state, in a profoundly detrimental way.

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which has rather bedevilled this debate, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden well knows. There was a confusion among the public and politicians about whether the scheme would be compulsory or voluntary, and the whole debate in 2004 and subsequently was about whether future Parliaments would have the opportunity to declare the scheme compulsory. It would have taken a vote of Parliament, but yes, that was implicit in the legislation.

In the debate on 20 December 2004, Charles Clarke, who is sadly no longer in the House, said in his very first address to the House as Home Secretary, “Don’t vote for this Bill if you don’t want to see ID cards become compulsory.” The current Home Secretary voted for the Bill. I can only imagine what she would say if we proposed a compulsory ID cards scheme, having heard her rhetoric about how a voluntary scheme is the end of civilisation. However, she voted for that scheme on the clear statement of the then Home Secretary that Members should vote for it only if they wanted it to become compulsory. I disagree with a compulsory scheme and believe that we can have simple proof and protection of people’s identities without it becoming compulsory.

Second-generation biometric passports, planned to commence in 2012, would provide a crucial additional level of security, enabling verification that the person presenting a passport had the same fingerprints as those encoded on the chip. Amazingly, the Liberal Democrats appear to have convinced the Tories in their political pre-nup to scrap second-generation passports.

[Robert Flello]

There were appalling events fairly recently involving British passports being used in state-sponsored terrorism. Would not that extra layer perhaps have prevented that atrocity?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend pre-empts a crucial point that I shall come on to in a moment.

There was no mention of scrapping second-generation biometric passports in the Conservative manifesto. In fact, the Tories have not only been in favour of biometrics but wholeheartedly and enthusiastically in favour of them. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) summed up the matter in 2007 when he said:

“There is not a Conservative Member…who disagrees with the notion that there should be biometric passports.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 671.]

The Prime Minister himself has admitted that

“there is a need for the use of biometrics on passports”.

Why the change of heart when we know that by locking people to one identity using advanced passport technology, we would help protect our country against the use of multiple identities by criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists? Why, given that updating our passports would bring us in line with the rest of Europe, which has already set minimum passport standards to include facial and fingerprint biometrics, do we intend to allow our country to become an easy target for illegal immigration and our citizens to be subject to onerous checks at airports and ferry ports around the world? We had already introduced facial recognition image biometrics in British passports in 2006, but now the countries in the Schengen agreement are going further and the US has already imposed a fingerprint requirement on all visitors who have not historically required a visa—in other words, those from the UK.

I turn to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised. In March, when I was Home Secretary and sitting alongside the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), the House heard about the inquiry carried out by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, at the request of the Dubai authorities, into how 12 people with joint UK-Israeli citizenship had had their passports cloned without their knowledge. Those were pre-biometric passports. Second-generation biometrics would make such cloning impossible. Indeed, the current Foreign Secretary, who was then shadowing the position, when that statement was made, said:

“The Foreign Secretary said that the biometric passports introduced four years ago are more difficult to counterfeit. Does he consider these new passports to be as invulnerable to counterfeiting as it is possible to make them, or will the Government review whether any other steps are needed to protect the integrity of British passports? Is there any suggestion that British passports are more vulnerable than those of other countries, including other EU countries?”—[Official Report, 23 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 135.]

No, there was not such a suggestion then, but there is now that, amazingly and incredibly, this Government are planning to abandon second-generation biometric passports and leave our country more vulnerable to attack. It is beyond me to understand how the new Home Secretary could have been lulled into that decision. Identity fraud, illegal immigration, terrorism and organised crime are international problems, and it makes sense for Britain to continue working with our international neighbours to tackle them. Biometric passports are part of an international drive to make travel documents more secure. Their electronic security features, including fingerprints, are a significant impediment to forgers and counterfeiters, and we need to keep pace with our neighbours if the UK passport is to continue to be recognised as having the highest integrity.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate you on your illustrious elevation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In Dover, people are concerned that border security has been lax for years. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put more energy into dealing with the security of our borders? If he had done that rather than dealing with ID cards, maybe we would have had less illegal immigration.

[Alan Johnson]

That intervention was not worth waiting for. We put considerable effort into securing our borders. As he represents Dover, he will know that the chief constable of Kent has seen the number of illegal immigrants roving around the county reduced by 92% since my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) went over and did a deal with Sarkozy, who was then the Interior Minister, and shut down Sangatte. We have taken every measure possible. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the security of his constituents in Dover, I tell him that I am talking about the current Government abandoning second-generation biometric passports, probably on the basis of a decision at the hippy commune known as the Liberal Democrat conference. That is an incredible decision.

On funding, the Government claim that scrapping the scheme will produce an initial £84 million in savings in the next four years. I would be extremely interested to learn how the Home Secretary came to that figure. On none of the statistics I saw when I was doing her job only three weeks ago does that make sense. Seventy per cent. of the start-up costs for ID cards are linked to first-generation biometric passports, to ensure that they fall into line with international standards. Those costs are unavoidable and the money is committed, so where does the £84 million come from?

[Steve McCabe]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary needs to publish the detail of those alleged savings? All we have heard today is how she is going to rip-off 15,000 people who have already paid for the card.

[Alan Johnson]

Indeed—and for the grand sum of £1 million, which she will save by not giving pensioners and students their money back on the cards they acquired because they had the temerity not to forecast a Conservative victory at the general election. We will question that more closely in Committee.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; I was unfortunately unable to persuade the Home Secretary to take an intervention on refunds.

I am seeking my right hon. Friend’s support for a suggestion made to me by one of my constituents, and perhaps the Government will also consider it. If the Government are unwilling to refund those who applied for a passport and paid the £30 in good faith, perhaps they would consider giving a credit to all card holders for the next time they apply for a passport.

[Alan Johnson]

That is a sensible suggestion, except that some people who have ID cards do not have passports. They are part of that 20% of the population who generally will not have a driving licence or bank account. We used to call them the socially excluded—indeed, the Government are supposed to be wedded to the idea of helping them—and many of them will not have that facility because they do not have a passport, but my hon. Friend’s point is relevant, and I shall address it further shortly.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary must also cost in the additional cost in unemployment benefit that must be paid to my constituents if they do not manage to secure alternative employment when they lose their jobs because of the Government’s decision?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend might get an answer to that from the Home Secretary. Perhaps those staff should not have had the temerity to take those jobs, because they should have known that the Conservatives were going to win the next general election. This is the new, bizarre world in which we are living.

Abolishing the national identity register would save very little for three reasons: first, all the information held on our existing passport database will continue to be held; secondly, that information will need to be held securely, as it is now; and thirdly, we will still need to collect and securely hold the fingerprints of foreign nationals on a database.

The Government’s claim that scrapping ID cards will save £800 million in operating costs over the next 10 years is utter fantasy. We always proceeded on the basis of full cost recovery and made it perfectly clear that over 10 years, the operating costs of ID cards would be recovered through fees, so there would be no charge on general taxation over that period. However, if there are no ID cards, there is no charge for ID cards, and therefore no way of recovering the costs. By cancelling the scheme, the Government remove the income stream but leave the cancellation costs, which the taxpayer will be forced to pay, and let us not forget the continuing cost to the economy of fraud, abuse of the NHS, illegal immigration and unauthorised working. By cancelling the scheme, the Government will make not a saving, but a substantial loss.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that our black and Asian British constituents will come under suspicion, because some in authority will assume that they ought to have the card that foreign nationals must carry? We will have a return of the sus laws, because there will be double standards: one towards black and Asian migrants and British citizens who might be suspected of being migrants, and another towards other British citizens. Can the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister assure us that there will be no increase in stop-and-search or sus law-type provisions against black and Asian British citizens?

[Alan Johnson]

That precise point has been made by Liberty, which opposes ID cards—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that Liberty does not make that point, but it does, on the basis that ID cards for foreign nationals will be compulsory. Although it is a card with fingerprints and biometric identification, we cannot now call it an ID card, which is really silly—it must be called a “permit” or “warrant” or some such thing. Liberty says that either everyone should have a card, which is novel for Liberty, or no one should have one.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

I will not give way because I am about to conclude.

My final point is that the Government intend not only to stop issuing cards, but to make the 15,000 already in circulation illegal. I find that despicable, and I do not think that that is too strong a word. How can any Government seek to punish hundreds of thousands of its citizens for having the temerity to take advantage of a scheme that was pledged in a manifesto, supported in law and introduced in an entirely legitimate way? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering from the Front Bench, but I will gladly take an intervention.

[Mrs May]

If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he claims that somehow we are going to punish “hundreds of thousands of citizens,” but actually, fewer than 15,000 people hold those cards. Perhaps he would like to correct the record.

[Alan Johnson]

Fifteen thousand is a significant number of people—[Interruption.] On Monday, the Deputy Prime said that he had made a slip of the tongue when he told one of my hon. Friends that the Government will certainly campaign for a yes vote in a Welsh referendum to devolve powers to Wales, and I think I am entitled to make a similar slip of the tongue. Of course I am talking not about hundreds of thousands of people—it would have been if the scheme had gone on a few months longer—but thousands, and 15,000 is a significant number of people.

Those in possession of identity cards ought to be able to continue to use them as a legitimate form of identification, and to travel in Europe and access services. At the very least, they should receive a refund, or the Government should take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and offer a discount off future purchases. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that they could treat people with such off-hand arrogance, and they must look again at that aspect of the Bill.

The Opposition remain unconvinced by the Government’s arguments for scrapping ID cards. The money saved will not pay for 3,000 extra police officers, as the Lib Dems claimed. In the long term, the proposals will cost us more money, hamper the efforts of the police to tackle identity fraud, and weaken rather than defend civil liberties. Illegalising cards that have already been issued will penalise those who bought them in good faith, including pensioners and students. Scrapping second generation biometric passports will threaten our borders and encourage illegal immigration, because our passport technology will lag behind that of our European neighbours. I urge the Government to rethink this expensive, misguided and spiteful little Bill.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. A limit of 12 minutes on speeches has been applied by Mr Speaker.

14:18

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House for the first time, and in this fascinating debate, on a day when we are both maidens together—I would not comment on which of us is the fairer.

As is customary, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Viggers, who served as a Member of the House for 36 years, having been elected in 1974. Most notably, he was a junior Minister for Northern Ireland, and over the years was a member of the Select Committee on Defence and the Treasury Committee. I wish Sir Peter and Lady Viggers a very happy, restful, long and happy retirement, and my sincere hope is that they are both able to reflect upon many long years of public service, and not upon the events that dominated the last 12 months of the previous Parliament.

Another notable predecessor was Lord Palmerston, who may well have approved of the latest coalition: having started political life as a Conservative Member of Parliament, he crossed the Floor of the House to join the Whigs, was elected as the first MP for South Hampshire in 1832 and of course went on to become Prime Minister. As a humble new girl, and the first woman to represent Gosport, I am conscious of being a bit behind the drag curve. Being 13 years older—I do not admit that freely—than Lord Palmerston when he was offered the job as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and given that I did not catch the Prime Minister’s eye three weeks ago, when he filled that job, I suspect I will drop further behind my illustrious predecessor.

It is customary in a maiden speech to speak glowingly about one’s new constituency. Although a duty, it is also an enormous pleasure, because Gosport could be described as my dream seat. The Gosport constituency includes not only the historic town of Gosport, but the charming seaside resort of Lee on Solent, the beautiful coastal village of Hill Head and the equally lovely rural village of Stubbington. The man I call “Mr Gosport”, Councillor Peter Edgar, tells of a Gosport legend in which King Stephen and his brother Bishop Henry de Blois were on a little medieval ship that was caught in a fierce storm in the Solent. In danger of drowning, they were rescued by some brave fishermen who took them ashore in Gosport, at which point the bishop struck the ground with his stick and named the place “God’s Port Our Haven”—that is where Gosport got its name—and rewarded them with profitable markets and fairs. It is a good story—royalty in danger, a brave rescue and a good reward—and will always remain part of the story of Gosport. So, too, will the true story of Bishop Godfrey de Lucy, who in 1204 was commissioned by King John to build a fleet of ships to recapture Normandy from the French. So began Gosport’s 800-year history as a vital part in the defence of the realm. Indeed, England has never been involved in a major conflict without Gosport playing its part, right up to the modern day: we have just welcomed back 33 Field Hospital from Afghanistan.

There is a common misconception that Gosport is near Portsmouth, but as my constituents will explain, it is Portsmouth that is near Gosport. Gosport and Portsmouth fought on opposing sides during the civil war, and I am proud to say that on that occasion Gosport was on the side of Parliament. Gosport is a constituency of contrasts. It may be part of the affluent south of England, but it has pockets of shocking deprivation. I have met kids in my school visits who talk of things that young children should never have to experience. Thinking of my own seven-year-old son, it makes me so determined to work hard and change things for them.

Conversely, we have stunning waterfronts, the beauty of Stokes bay looking over to the Isle of Wight and the Falklands memorial gardens, with their amazing views across the harbour. There is also evidence of Gosport’s distinguished military heritage everywhere: HMS Sultan, which was one of the earliest Royal Flying Corps airfields in the country, and the military hospital Haslar, which first received patients in 1754. It later took patients from conflicts such as the battle of Trafalgar, and Queen Victoria described it as the noblest of institutions.

Reading my predecessor’s maiden speech in 1974, it staggers me how many of the Royal Navy establishments that he described have been stripped from Gosport in the past 30 years—not only that noble hospital at Haslar, but submarine base HMS Dolphin and Daedalus air base. We still have a range of military facilities including for engineering training and helicopter maintenance, but the prospect of shutting any more of those bases would be a disaster for my constituency. Any thought of moving the Royal Navy engineering school at HMS Sultan to Wales would be a huge upheaval for those from Portsmouth-based ships and their families, as well as a vast and unnecessary drain on the defence budget. If amalgamation of engineering training is so vital, why not bring the Royal Air Force and Army to Gosport and save huge amounts of money? We would welcome them with open arms, and it would save a huge sum.

Of course, the crowning glory of Gosport is its very special people, with their strength of character, warmth of spirit, good humour and generosity—not to mention their immaculate good taste at election time. However, recent Governments have starved the peninsula of infrastructure. We are the largest town in Britain with no railway station. Our one major access road, the infamous A32, has no dual carriageways and is blocked for much of the day. That is made worse as much of the population has to commute out to work because huge swathes of housing were built to match the targets of the previous Government but no jobs were created to match them.

Also under the previous Government, the wonderful Haslar hospital was closed. It was not only the last remaining military hospital in the country but a well-used community resource. Now Gosport is inadequately served for accident and emergency and other services, and this great hospital sits there in a mummified state of limbo at a time when we need military hospitals so badly. This is why I have chosen to talk in this debate: the billions of pounds already spent on identity cards were badly needed elsewhere for roads, better housing and to save that hospital. The good people of Gosport should be free to get on with their lives, with their jobs and with raising their families, and not have to share information about themselves unless it is for a good reason. They should not have every personal detail stored on a national register. It is appropriate for me to support the abolition of identity cards as a small gesture towards acknowledging the freedom of this nation’s people, given that Gosport has done so much to deliver the freedom of both this and other nations around the world.

14:26

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on a feisty maiden speech, demanding that her constituency get a greater share of resources and investment from the Government, and I wish her well in that endeavour. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election. I intend to be brief, because my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary’s speech was excellent and put forward in considerable detail a great deal of what I would otherwise have needed to say. I speak as the former Home Secretary who published the Bill to which he referred extensively and which was supported by senior Conservative Members. However, I do not want to cover old ground; instead I want to admit to one or two mistakes, and touch on what may have happened since.

I need to be contrite enough to congratulate Phil Booth from NO2ID, Dr Whitley from the London School of Economics identity project, and others, for the tremendous campaign that they have run, over the past five years in particular, to stop this scheme. I congratulate them because they changed the culture and atmosphere around, and attitudes towards the scheme and its intentions in a way that those of us initially involved could not have conceived. In doing so, they have persuaded large swathes of the normally well-informed population, including vast swathes of the media, that the identity cards scheme and the second generation biometric register were intended to impact on the public and intrude on their civil liberties in a way that was never intended and was never going to happen. That they were wrong should not mislead us into misunderstanding what can happen in a vigorous democracy, and how careful we have to be in explaining our intentions and taking on arguments openly.

It is because we have such a vigorous democracy that we have reached this situation and are accepting that—for the time being, at least—the proposition is dead. However, the issues will not go away. The issue of second generation biometric passports will not go away because the rest of the world is moving around us, and because they are a more authentic and therefore verifiable way of securing our identities. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) is right to say that we need to find and develop simpler ways of securing, presenting and owning our own identities, in a manner that was not possible 10 years ago but is becoming possible now.

That is so particularly for specific purposes. In the end, I believe that our person will be our identity, and that we will be able to walk through electronic border controls and present ourselves, not a card or passport. It will automatically register our biometric fingerprints, our irises—in the future; at the moment the technology is not up to it, but it will be—and use facial recognition based on digital technology, which will avoid fraud.

I have a card here; I am very proud of it. I have been offered a lot of money for it on eBay. I have agreed with Simon Davies of Privacy International that we could frame it and put it in a gallery. I do not intend to auction it off because my grandchildren will want to hold it in their hands. They will say, “Granddad, what was so terrible about this card that you paid £30 for it? Did it involve you actually having to give deeply private information that was going to be shared with the rest of the world, or be intruded upon by criminals who were going to steal the information that was registered when you took up the card?” I will have to say to them, “I’m terribly sorry, but that didn’t happen. It was never going to happen, but people believed it was going to happen.” My grandchildren will say, “Did they really believe that? Do I understand from reading the history books that people believed it was going to cost £2.5 billion, and that they were going to employ 3,000 extra police officers?” I shall say, “Yes, they did.” My grandchildren will ask, “Did they go to school, granddad? Did they do mathematics? Did they have any grasp of economics?” I shall say, “No, they were substantially driven by the Liberal Democrats,” and that the Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 onwards, who was the leader of the Liberal Democrats, actually believed his own rhetoric.

I have a lot of time for the new Home Secretary. I like her personally, and I do not believe that she believed a word of the adjectival hyperbole with which she started her speech. She does not believe that the scheme was going to cost billions or that money that had never been raised would have been spent on projects that could not be funded because the money being spent on the register and the ID card was not coming from the taxpayer or from those purchasing the passport and the ID card. She does not believe that, but she has been forced to, because of the coalition agreement, which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats sat down one afternoon to work out. Presumably, the new Chief Secretary managed to persuade the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), now the Foreign Secretary, that he had got it completely wrong, making it necessary to do away not only with the ID card—which, as the Home Secretary said, is symbolic—but with second generation biometric passports. The Foreign Secretary was persuaded that afternoon, and the Government and the country are now lumbered. What an odd way to carry on.

I do not know whether the new Chief Secretary has any grasp of economics, but he must now know, as the Conservatives now know, that there were no billions of pounds available to spend on anything else, whether on hospitals in Gosport or anywhere else. There was no pot of gold to draw on. We are apparently going to save £5 million a year over 10 years. Well, that is really going to knock a hole in the deficit and provide the cash for the deficit reduction strategy!

I have in my other hand my existing passport, which is totally forgeable, and is not really worth the paper it is written on. When I went to Europe twice this last month, they were really happy to have my ID card, because it has biometrics on it and it is more authentic, ensuring my identity is proved.

What have I learned from the last eight years? First, we need to explain more clearly what is beneficial to the individual rather than to the state. Secondly, we need to be absolutely clear about the costings so that they are not rolled up over 10 years and people’s individual purchase is not confused with taxation. Thirdly, we need to ensure that people do not believe that additional data is going to be taken that would previously not have been available for the passport or for the DVLA driving licence.

Incidentally, the BBC managed to get a driving licence for Freddie Forsyth, who wrote “The Day of the Jackal”, and for me. I promise the world that at no point in the future will I ever use the driving licence that the BBC obtained on my behalf in order to drive around this country. I would have been a much greater risk to the people of Britain than identity cards would ever have been in terms of intruding on their lifestyle, their liberty and their well-being. When I took out the ID card, the only thing I had to provide over and above the information for my passport was to pick from 25 options something relevant to my past that only I would know, which I could offer if my identity were to be challenged and a further check had to be made. That is all—no information that could be transferred for other purposes, no intrusion that criminals could get hold of and use beyond what they already had access to in other ways, nothing nefarious that would in any way intrude on my or anyone else’s civil liberties. The truth is, however, that people believed otherwise. They believed that there would be those problems, that the card would cost a lot of money, which could be spent on something else, and that the register and biometrics were not a priority at the time.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but this is typical new Labour arrogance: everybody else was wrong, and they were right. What has been described are these benign, nice and inexpensive cards, forgetting the fact that they hold up to 50 pieces of information that would be stored and shared. That is what new Labour were enthusing about with these identity cards. Can the right hon. Gentleman not accept that perhaps the rest of us have got it right and he has got it wrong?

[Mr Blunkett]

I thought I had accepted this afternoon that I and many others got it wrong, but not my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) or our admirable, and honourable, Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who did a fantastic job in the time she was in post in getting the message across. I have already indicated that we did not explain the issue. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the position extremely well in saying that 50 bits of information were required. If he had gone along and got himself an ID card, he would have realised that that was complete and utter bunkum, but this has been repeated so often that people started to believe it. I challenge anyone who has an ID card, who went along and gave the information to be placed on that database to stand up this afternoon and challenge me. I will give way quite happily if people believe that they can justify the claim that this mega-amount of information had to be provided over and above what was required for the passport.

In the end, however, if people believe something in a democracy, that is what counts. I remember saying at 3 am Friday morning after the general election, “If you’re defeated, you’re defeated.” When defeated, it is right to go back, think again and work out how to develop sensible arguments that protect civil liberties, and protect the nation’s well-being as well.

14:38

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your well-deserved appointment, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on her excellent maiden speech.

I support the Identity Documents Bill, but one of the difficulties is that it should really be called the Identity Documents and Register Bill. It is the register aspect that I would like to concentrate on. Section 10 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 deals with

“Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register”.

The claim that maintaining a database and any changes to it has no cost is ludicrous. There is obviously a saving from not having to change the database.

Under section 10(1):

“An individual to whom an ID card has been issued must notify the Secretary of State about…every prescribed change of circumstances affecting the information recorded about him in the Register”.

Under section 10(7):

“An individual who contravenes a requirement imposed on him by…this section shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.”

Essentially, what that means is that once the information dealt with in schedule 1 is on the register, anyone who has an ID card—whether they are compulsory or not—is under a duty to notify and will be fined up to £1,000 if they do not inform the Government of those changes. Perhaps that was the stealth tax that was going to get the Government out of the financial mess the country was in. If we are talking about £1,000 fines for 60 million people, that comes to £60 billion, which is a good start: there is a third of the deficit gone. The reality is that all the debate, on the basis of which public opinion was formed, has been about the card and its cost. Once people start being fined for not telling the Government about changes, the position becomes much more difficult.

Schedule 1 of the 2006 Act is relevant to the subject of the 50 pieces of information, although the amount of information required obviously depends on the individual. The requirement for the individual’s “full name” is straightforward, but people change their names by deed poll from time to time, and if they do not tell the Government, they must pay a £1,000 fine. Next, the schedule refers to

“other names by which he is…known”.

People may have nicknames. If someone fills in an election nomination paper with a name by which he is known, but does not tell the Government for the purposes of the identity card, he will have to pay a £1,000 fine.

There are requirements for “date of birth” , “place of birth” and “gender” to be recorded. “Gender” is an interesting one. Under the Identity Cards Act 2006 (Application and Issue of ID Card and Notification of Changes) Regulations 2009, people can register two genders if they wish. I shall say more about that later.

The schedule also refers to

“the address of his principal place of residence”.

To be fair, people do need to tell the various authorities where they live, for electoral purposes and the like. However, paragraph 1(g) refers to

“the address of every other place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”.

Someone with a holiday home in France must tell the United Kingdom Government where it is. If he sells it and does not tell the Government where he has moved, he will have to pay a £1,000 fine. It is a good way of raising money. A great many people, including many in the House, have more than one residence—they may have to work away from home—but if they do not tell the Government where that other residence is, they must pay £1,000.

The schedule demands

“a photograph of his head and shoulders (showing the features of the face)”.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) may wake up one day and decide that they would like to use the razor to a greater extent than usual. If they take such action and do not tell the Government, they must pay a £1,000 fine for not sending another photograph.

The passport system is simple and straightforward. Every 10 years, people must renew their passports and send in a new photograph. At one stage the Government got into a real mess with babies. They required a baby not to have its mouth open when being photographed, and people had to send in 20 photographs before one was considered acceptable. That was a serious problem. Under the ID card system, such people would fall outside the time limits specified in section 10 of the Act, and would have to pay a £1,000 fine.

My daughter decided to dye her hair green. Obviously that is a change, involving not just the price of the dye but a possible £1,000 fine for dyeing her hair green and not telling the Government. Let us suppose that I decide tomorrow to put on a dress and call myself Doris. The statutory instrument requires me to tell the Government that I am calling myself Doris and have an alternative gender. If the day after that I decide to call myself Ethel and do not tell the Government, I will have to pay a £1,000 fine. The Government are definitely making good progress in getting rid of the deficit: this is a very good stealth tax.

It is all a question of whether the Government serve the citizen or the citizen serves the Government. One of my constituents was stopped by the police on the Coventry road, which—as those who are acquainted with Yardley will know—is a very big road that, unsurprisingly, leads to Coventry. Everything, including his insurance, was perfect, but the wrong box was ticked on a form, and he was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of an offence that he had not committed. It took a lot of doing for us to reverse the conviction and remove it from the system. That is an example of what can happen when things are done for the convenience of the state rather than the convenience of the citizen. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said that this was not Big Brother, but I think that having to tell the Government every time one does something is a bit like Big Brother.

During the general election campaign I cut my finger on a piece of paper, and obviously that changed my fingerprint. Schedule 1.2 is headed “Identifying information”, and subparagraph (c) refers to fingerprints. If I had had an ID card and had not told the Government that I had cut my finger, I would have had to pay a £1,000 fine. Members may laugh, but such things happen. The purpose of speed cameras was to make money out of the fines. If a Department is targeted to be self-financing, it will look for solutions such as another change that should have been, but has not been, put on the identity card register.

There is no point in my reading out all of schedule 1, which is available to Members, as are the regulations which amend schedule 1. More than 50 pieces of information may be required, but the main issue is the sudden creation of a major duty for the citizen to tell the Government everything that he or she does. We all know how good the Government are at keeping information secure. They can get a little memory stick and lose a number of bank accounts, for instance. There is also the question of access to the information. The Data Protection Act may make it an offence to sell access to any of the databases, but when there is a single database in a single place all the information is tidily collated, and it may be worth someone’s while to obtain and pass to someone else information such as where a holiday home is in France, what name a person uses when wearing a dress, the colour of a person’s hair, or a national insurance number.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I am the proud owner of an ID card, and I went through the process of filling in the application form. Yes, I did give information such as my name and address, but there were huge parts of the form that I did not have to fill in, because I had already provided that information in order to obtain my passport. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not give such information in order to obtain a passport?

[John Hemming]

When we apply for a passport, every 10 years, we provide a new photograph. I, for example, am a little bit follicly challenged, and at some stage I must recognise that.

[Mr Watson]

Shave it off then.

[John Hemming]

If I follow the hon. Gentleman’s advice and shave it off, and then do not provide a photograph for the ID register, I will pay a £1,000 fine.

It is recognised that passport photographs go out of date. That is why children’s passports do not last as long as adults’ passports. But, having applied for a passport, we do not have a duty to tell the passport office that we have moved to a new address, or that the location of a second home has changed. There will be no £1,000 fine in such circumstances. The real difference is that individual citizens are threatened with a fine of up to £1,000 if they do not inform the Government’s ID card department of such changes. It could be said that the most intrusive aspect is not the ID card itself, but the maintenance of the register and, in particular, the duty for the individual to update the register.

I think that all the other aspects have been ably dealt with. A voluntary scheme is unlikely to achieve anything in terms of preventing crime, particularly serious crime. People who are willing to die in the process of committing crime will not be frightened of a £1,000 fine for not giving a photograph of themselves to the Government. We have heard no good arguments for how ID cards and the ID database would prevent crime. What is clear is that the identity register is massively intrusive. The duty that it places on the citizen to inform the Government of every change is an extreme step, forcing people to serve the Government and make things convenient for them by providing such information. It is obvious that this is all about convenience in the provision of services. The public interest is defined as the achievement of more efficiency in providing public services. The basic point is that the Government are here to serve the citizen; the citizen is not here to serve the Government.

14:50

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election and thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a privilege—an interesting one—to follow a fellow Birmingham MP, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who made the point very well that was brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that there are those who believe in caricatures and myths.

Birmingham, which I am proud to represent, is a remarkable city, the birthplace of local government and municipal enterprise. Under Joseph Chamberlain and the visionary Victorian pioneers, Birmingham city council provided gas, water and electricity. The council built some of the first swimming pools because it understood the link between health and well-being. Some of those pools are still in use, including the great Moseley Road baths. Birmingham city council even established a municipal bank.

In the 20th century, under visionary pioneers such as Dick Knowles, the national exhibition centre, the national convention centre and the national indoor arena were remarkable examples of municipal enterprise and partnership with the private sector, which brought millions to Birmingham.

Birmingham remains the industrial heartland of Britain: 100,000 people work in manufacturing. Birmingham’s manufacturing contributes billions to our economy and to the quality of life and the culture of Birmingham itself. That is captured by the legend in the municipal museum,

“By the gains of Industry we promote Art.”

Birmingham is indeed a city of culture that deserves to win the accolade of European city of culture.

Birmingham is a city of diversity. As the proud son of Irish parents who left the emerald isle to escape poverty and to build a better life, I feel at home with what is the largest Irish community outside London, the Erin Go Bragh Gaelic games club, the magnificent St Patrick’s day parade and enjoying the craic in the New Inns. I feel at home in a city that celebrates its diversity: the Afro-Caribbean community and its churches, Vaisakhi, that great Sikh festival that brought 100,000 people to Birmingham’s Central park, and St George’s day, celebrated with passion in the working men and working women’s clubs, with more flags of St George being flown than I have ever seen before—English people proud of their identity and rightly recapturing the flag from the brain-dead bootboys of the BNP.

Birmingham is characterised by Brummie pride. There is a distinct ethos of hard work and enterprise, of smiling in adversity, of community and solidarity. I have attended excellent events such as that for Help for Heroes. These are proud people in proud communities in Erdington. Castle Vale, which I am privileged to represent—entered through Spitfire island, rebuilt under the remarkable Robin Corbett—is still a remarkable community to this day. It has a great community spirit; 5,000 people turned out recently to celebrate the life of a young girl who died of asthma and to raise money for charity so that no more would follow that terrible fate. Among the great communities of Erdington are Pype Hayes, the Asian community in Slade road, the traditional Green, Perry Common and Kingstanding.

Erdington is a constituency with manufacturing in its blood. Sadly too many workplaces have gone to the wall: Fort Dunlop, Cincinnati and IMI. However, there are still great industrial enterprises such as the Jaguar plant, the jewel in the crown of manufacturing excellence; GKN; Valor Fires, recently the winner of the Queen’s award; and small but dynamic companies such as Guhring.

Erdington is a stronger, fairer, better place thanks to 13 years of a Labour Government. The schools were rebuilt and new children’s centres were built, including the Gunter school and children’s centre, giving kids the best possible start in life. We have world-class health centres such as that in Stockland Green. Thousands of homes have been renovated as a consequence of Labour’s decent homes programme, including those on the Lyndhurst estate.

For all those advances over 13 years, Erdington has enduring deep-seated problems, including high unemployment. I have seen the impact of that. An excellent craftsmen from LDV lost his job and five years on was desperate to get back into work. A young builder from Marsh lane was almost in tears with frustration because he could not get a job in the industry for which he had been trained. Often there is still poor housing, long waiting lists and a lack of affordable family housing, which divides families and breaks up communities.

Crime is down thanks to Labour’s investment in the police and the excellent police community support officers in Erdington, but there are still too many examples of unacceptable antisocial behaviour. Too many people in Erdington were left behind, including those in Kingstanding. People lost their jobs three or four times in the 1980s and some of them never went back to work again. Two generations have grown up in workless households.

Erdington is a community that believes in the power of community, solidarity and self-help. I mention the excellent Enta project. Recently I was privileged to be with young men and women who had been brought back into the labour market by that excellent organisation, which believes in the legend of that song “You Raise Me Up”. But Erdington is a community that knows this: the deep-seated problems of jobs and housing are incapable of resolution without the power of good government.

For 25 years I fought great battles for working people in Birmingham. I am a Labour man proud of my trade union background, but I have worked with those from other political parties: the admirable hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chaired brilliantly the recent Select Committee inquiry into the scandal of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s; Baroness Shephard, who stood alongside me and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) in the drive to take the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill into law, ending modern-day slavery; and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), with whom I fought to save Rosyth dockyard from closure in Scotland. Therefore, where the Government get it right, I will work with them, but where government, national or local, gets it wrong, I will stand up for the people of Erdington as their champion, fighting their corner, making a difference for them and with them, and defending that which matters to their lives. There can be no rolling back of those great advances that we have made. Yes, choices have to be made, but I will resist any notion of asking those who are least able to bear the burden to pay the price of the misdeeds of the bankers.

I have seen that at first hand. A young schizophrenic approached me in Erdington high street and said, “Jack, for 10 years I could not get out of my home. Now I can, helped by a local project. They are going to help me to get back into work, but what will I do when they close the project because of city council cuts?” Therefore, my message to the Government is this: if they cut the future jobs fund, they will deprive the unemployed of Erdington of hope; if they cut the child trust fund, they will deprive parents of modest means of the ability to pass on to their children assets for the future; if they cut Labour’s expansion of university places, it will not be the stockbroker belt of Surrey and Sussex that suffers, but the young working-class kids of Erdington who will be deprived of the chance to become the first in their family to go to university.

I pay tribute to my predecessors: Robin Corbett and Siôn Simon, who have served the people of Erdington well, and I hope to follow in their footsteps. I have one other message to Government: do not step back from what Labour has done in recent years on industrial activism—that necessary partnership between industry and good Government. Everyone now understands, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, that we must rebalance our economy, no longer be heavily dependent on the financial sector but again rebuild the real economy, including our manufacturing base.

Locally, I have seen this in Castle Vale. The admirable chief executive of the Castle Vale community housing association says that we have rebuilt the housing and built a community, but we have a desperate shortage of jobs. That is why my No. 1 priority will be jobs and manufacturing—and I have to say that the subject of ID cards did not come up once in the 4,000 doorstep discussions I had throughout the general election campaign.

My priority will be jobs and manufacturing. I want us to preserve what is left of our manufacturing base, which is why I will promote a “Cadbury’s law” so that we protect vital British industrial assets from hostile takeovers by foreign multinationals. That is why I will stand up for the future of the Jaguar plant in my constituency, and that is why I will work—with Government, I hope—to promote the hi-tech industries of the future. I want green manufacturing in Birmingham and a green investment bank for Birmingham, but as I know from experience of dealing with major manufacturing companies, there is a simple reality: manufacturing will flourish only if there is a partnership between good government and these world-class companies.

Historically, Birmingham was the laboratory of the world and the workshop of the world, combining British genius, enterprise and hard work. Too often now, however, it is British genius, but made in China. For both Birmingham and Britain, the single biggest task is the renaissance of our manufacturing industries, and I say this to the Government: do not walk away from Birmingham’s great industries, and do not condemn this generation to the fate suffered by that of the 1980s. In the 21st century, we must not have a generation of young people with no work and no hope. Birmingham, Erdington deserves better.

15:02

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate you on your election, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I also congratulate the previous maiden speaker, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), not only on his excellent speech but, if I am not mistaken, on becoming the first Member of this House to make his maiden speech while his wife, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), was not only present in the Chamber but sitting before him on the Front Bench.

It is a big step for anyone to represent his cathedral city in this House. Many previous maiden speakers have alluded to the difficulties of filling the large shoes of their predecessors. In my case, that is literally true as both of my feet would probably fit into one of Parmjit Dhanda’s shoes. I pay tribute to him for the work he did on behalf of Gloucester, his great interest in Gloucester City football club and his contribution to the relocation and rebuilding of Gloucestershire college. I also respected his enthusiasm—although I did not share it at all—for the regionalisation of many things, including government, planning, the police and fire control centres. In these respects at least, I hope that small is beautiful.

It is appropriate that I am making this maiden speech on behalf of my Gloucester constituents during the Second Reading debate of the Bill to abolish ID cards, which are certainly a vivid example of the misuse of both parliamentary time and taxpayer money.

The main issue in my city and others like it is not dissimilar to that described by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington: we are a great working city which now has record youth unemployment and too many families with no working role model—in fact, there are occasionally three generations living entirely off benefits. I believe that everyone in Gloucester will support me in our main endeavour today—to increase business growth in order to generate more jobs, especially for the young, and that this will in turn generate the tax revenues that fund the front-line services that are so crucial for everyone in my city.

Let me try to put our work in context. Gloucester first appeared on the map through two early attempts at European integration: first, it was the Roman colonia of Glevum, and it was then at the forefront of a large Norman military and religious building programme, which has left us with the glories of Gloucester cathedral. However, as Conservative Members know so well, economic development rarely follows Government plans, and our next phase of mass tourism was created by the unfortunate and regrettable homophobic act of regicide against Edward II in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). The numbers of pilgrims then arriving in our city have only recently been exceeded, with another pilgrimage after the filming of Harry Potter in our cloisters.

Our true business adaptability was shown during the industrial revolution, however, when we created, first, the world’s deepest canal, and then Britain’s most inland port, to bring raw materials to Gloucester to make things. That is where my city has excelled: we have always made things. We manufactured wagons during the age of the railway to carry everything from coal to maharajahs, with slightly different degrees of comfort, and most spectacularly we built the world’s first jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, which was exported to 14 countries.

Today, we face different times and challenges. Like many other constituencies, our business sector has a strong retail and financial element, but we continue to manufacture despite the large drop in our manufacturing sector during the last 10 years. Some 15% of Gloucester’s gross domestic product still comes from manufacturing, including health products and large quantities of materials for the aerospace industry such as insulation, coatings and cylinders, and almost every ice cream that every Member has eaten in this country comes from the Wall’s ice cream factory in Gloucester.

It is as a symbol that I am today wearing something manufactured in Gloucester. The shirt I am wearing was made two days ago on the Cross in the heart of our city by Gloucester cutters and machinists, and I am proud to say that the company that makes these wonderful shirts will shortly be opening a retail space in Bombay, demonstrating that Gloucester will soon be exporting to India again.

At the same time as this greater diversity in manufacturing and business enterprise, we have seen a growing diversity of our residents. I thought it would be useful as a new Member of Parliament to have lived and worked in 10 countries and to speak the languages of eight of them, but the people of Gloucester speak 46 languages and so, in this as in so much else, I still have a lot to learn.

It will be of interest to Members to learn that many of our residents from overseas come from close to the Indian port of Surat in Gujarat, which was, by wonderful historical irony, the port where Elizabethan sailors from this country first landed in India some 450 years ago. I welcome all my friends from Gujarat, and also more recent arrivals. I am proud to have been invited as the guest of honour at the opening this weekend of the new association for Tamils and also to an event by the Polish community.

Today, the truth is that all of us, whatever our origins, face severe difficulties in handling the record youth unemployment and in trying to re-grow our economy to provide jobs for our young people. That is why all my constituents will welcome measures taken by this Government to stimulate business, which we must remind ourselves is the sole source of growth, providing jobs and then tax revenues for the services that many Members are calling for in our different constituencies.

The most famous book written about Gloucester is Beatrix Potter’s “The Tailor of Gloucester”. Some Members will remember the sad moment when the tailor runs out of money and finds that there is “no more twist”. In his case, he was bailed out by the mice, who in the dead of night brought both the cloth and the needles and finished his sewing for him, but today we cannot trust entirely to the benevolence of the mice in Gloucester to re-stimulate our economy, and therefore I welcome the changes that I am sure this Government will make in order to bring about that re-stimulation.

So I promise the constituents of Gloucester, whom I am so proud to serve, that I will work ceaselessly, especially to help business growth that will provide job opportunities and generate tax revenues. To those ends, I intend to create a new all-party parliamentary group on urban regeneration—which links so many of these issues together—and I shall work with Members on both sides of the House to explore new ways of contributing to the solutions in that area. If we can successfully stimulate micro-regeneration on the streets, as well as macro-regeneration through projects and new investment, it will be possible for the people of Gloucester to take greater pride in our city and for hon. Members and people all round the country to see that, like our cathedral and our rugby club, our entire city belongs to the premier league.

15:11

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you for calling me to make my maiden speech today, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to congratulate the hon. Members for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on their excellent maiden speeches, and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on his passionate and informative speech.

I believe that a Member of Parliament once described maiden speeches as lasting 10 minutes, beginning with a few nice words about the previous Member—often the most difficult part—followed by a description of the constituency and an indication of the Member’s own parliamentary obsessions, and concluding with a passing reference to the subject at hand. I can assure hon. Members that I have no difficulty in paying tribute to my predecessor, Martyn Jones. I have known him for 24 years; indeed, I campaigned for him when he was first elected in 1987, in what was then the parliamentary constituency of Clwyd, South-West. Martyn was rightly proud of serving as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, and of all the painstaking and detailed work he did to ensure that money left lying in dormant bank accounts found its way to good causes. Many hon. Members who served alongside Martyn will recall his distinctive bow ties. Indeed, one of the first messages I received after my election came from a well-wisher who ended his note with the rather startling comment:

“Long may the tradition of bow tie-wearing Joneses representing Clwyd South continue.”

I am afraid that I might have to break with that tradition before it becomes too entrenched.

Clwyd South is not one community but many, and that is something that we are very proud of. It has agriculture, industry, tourism—including a world heritage site at Pontcysyllte aqueduct—natural beauty, including the breathtaking Horseshoe pass, and a world-famous international music festival in the Llangollen international eisteddfod. It was also the home of Wales’s first ever national Welsh language youth festival, the 1929 Urdd eisteddfod, at Corwen. It is the home of the great centre of the co-operative movement at Cefn, and of the site of the citadel of Welsh music, culture and non-conformity at Rhosllanerchrugog. We also have the historic base of a former iron and steelworks at Brymbo, which was where my father worked. Sadly, the steelworks itself closed almost 20 years ago, with its blast furnace being shipped off to power the economic revival of China. My constituency also has a history of coal mining, including mines near Chirk, Bersham and Hafod.

There is a history of coal mining in my family, as there is in many families from my area. My paternal grandfather was killed in a major mining accident in Gresford in 1934. My maternal grandfather, also a coal miner, started work at the age of 12. A year or two later, my grandmother had left school and was caring for her parents and siblings. Because of childhood illness, my mother was not allowed to sit the 11-plus examination. She left school and went to work at 15, having to train in her own time to become a medical secretary. All those people, and many others like them from my home community, experienced a poverty of finance and of opportunity in one way or another. It was the kind of poverty that brought together ordinary people in communities across the United Kingdom to seek election to this House to change things for the good. Without such people, many of the opportunities that people of my generation have enjoyed would not have been possible.

That type of poverty—of finance and of opportunity—has been well documented, and rightly so. But there was another type of poverty in my home community that is less well known. It was the poverty of a child going into their local school and not merely being denied the opportunity to be taught in their own language, but in many cases being punished for speaking it. Indeed, in the 19th century, there was the common punishment of the “Welsh Not”, a piece of wood worn around the necks of children who spoke Welsh, who would later be caned. It might shock hon. Members to learn that, even after the use of the “Welsh Not” ceased—indeed, as recently as the 1930s and 1940s—children in the communities that now make up Clwyd South and in many other parts of Wales were punished for speaking Welsh at school; and even after those barbaric practices ceased, there was a sharp decline in the use of the Welsh language. It took decades before its use was finally accepted as mainstream.

Today, I rejoice that I can swear my oath as a Member of Parliament in Welsh, but in doing so, I pay tribute to people such as my former head teacher, Mrs Mair Miles Thomas, who fought for the Welsh language at a time when it was not fashionable to do so. They were ordinary people in the mould of Mrs Rosa Parkes, and their commitment and dedication to civil rights deserve wider recognition.

I know that, for many Members, part of the art of a maiden speech is naming every single community in their constituency, but for Clwyd South that would not be possible, such is the profusion of villages and small towns spread over a vast terrain of 240 square miles. In today’s debate, we have heard much about the protection of the rights of the few, and I have found much of that debate interesting and informative. When one considers the nature of constituencies such as Clwyd South, one is indeed considering the rights of the few. It is not difficult to understand why, over the years, local campaigners have spoken out against proposals drawn up in metropolitan areas, apparently with our best interests at heart, whether for the deregulation of the bus services in the 1980s, for a rural school, for a post office, or for a game plan drawn up by metropolitan policy wonks to “equalise” us all into communities of 70,000 people, regardless of sparseness, terrain, or other local factors. Those of us who care about our rural communities will not be railroaded in that way.

That is why I also hope that those who have to make undoubtedly difficult decisions will not consider the rate of value added tax as a mere statistic to be increased at will. In many areas such as Clwyd South, where small businesses form the backbone of the local economy, the net result of high rates of VAT would be an intense struggle in many cases, and bankruptcy for the local builder, the plumber, and the small business person in others.

On that note, and having made those points, I pledge to do my best to serve the people of the communities of Clwyd South and to contribute to the life and work of this House. Diolch yn fawr.

15:19

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations on your recent election, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech? It is a great honour to serve Finchley and Golders Green, and I have found the trust placed in me quite humbling as I walk around this building. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for telling the House of the interesting and emotional journey that has led her here, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for his passionate support for Birmingham and for the manufacturing industry that he seeks to recreate. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for his evocative description of that fair city.

First of all, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor. Dr Rudi Vis was not of my party, but I do regard him as a friend of over 20 years. He served this House for 13 years before retiring a few weeks ago, but he sadly died less than a week ago. He will be a sad loss to public service. He was a diligent public servant, in this House and also in the London borough of Barnet, where we both served together. Sadly, he leaves a wife and teenage children, but I know that they can be proud of his record of public service. He served his community of Finchley as a local councillor, and represented the wider community of Finchley and Golders Green in this House.

I should like to comment on another of my predecessors. Those hon. Members in the Chamber a couple of days ago will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) claiming that his constituency gave the country the first king of England. I cannot claim that for Finchley and Golders Green, but perhaps I can claim that we gave the country the latter-day Boadicea—in one Margaret Hilda Thatcher. In my view, my noble Friend is the best peacetime Prime Minister that we have had. In this current economic climate, we could learn much from her resolve in addressing the economic crisis that she inherited. Then, unemployment and inflation were rising, and our public sector spending was out of control.

Perhaps the task ahead for our Government today is slightly greater, as Baroness Thatcher never managed to cut public spending. She was able only to slow its growth, yet we have laid out plans to cut public expenditure—something of a daunting task. Like her, however, I believe that we must return to sound money and good housekeeping, and to protecting our cherished freedoms. Throughout her premiership, she remained an active and effective constituency MP, and I shall be fortunate if I achieve a fraction of what she achieved through my campaigns to improve breast cancer screening for local women, to promote infrastructure investments on the north circular road, and for the free schools programme, which are so wanted and deserved by my local population.

Finchley and Golders Green is no longer the suburban seat that Margaret Thatcher knew. It is now metropolitan London. We have huge pockets of wealth and pockets of deprivation. We have the Hampstead Garden suburb, the largest conservation area in Europe where houses can cost from £80 million downwards. Within miles, however, we come to pockets of deprivation on our estates that need regenerating. We also have Brent Cross Cricklewood, which is the largest regeneration scheme in the UK. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will soon give the green light to it.

We also have the finest schools in the country. Barnet council is a net importer of pupils from our neighbouring boroughs, which clamour to send their children to our local schools. If I may, I should like to mention one fine school: Christ’s College, which produced my noble Friend Lord Sachs, the Chief Rabbi, and of course our own Mr Speaker Bercow.

Finchley and Golders Green is not known for manufacturing or farming, and neither does it have a fabulous cathedral about which I could wax lyrical. However, it does have the highest level of graduates in London and we rely on, and contribute to, the knowledge-based economy.

Perhaps it was always thus. Those colleagues who still use fountain pens might be pleased to know that, in 1832, Dr Henry Stephens invented blue-black ink, and that he was based in Finchley. I am pleased to say that he went on to become the Conservative Member of Parliament for the neighbouring seat of Hornsey, which is now held by our coalition partners in Hornsey and Wood Green.

We are also home to the European headquarters of McDonald’s, which I am sure hon. Members will have heard of, and to the Pentland Group, of which they may not have heard. However, I am sure that they will have heard of some of their brands, such as Berghaus, Ted Baker, Lacoste, Red or Dead and Speedo. The latter brand is quite prominent in the popular press this week. The Pentland Group is also the greenest and most innovative company in the UK. The way that it turns goods produced by local manufacturing companies into global brands is quite remarkable.

Finchley and Golders Green is now a vibrant metropolitan area, with one of the most diverse communities in the UK. I have the largest Jewish population of any constituency in the UK, at some 25% of my electorate. However, living harmoniously alongside that very large Jewish community is a large and growing Muslim and Hindu community. Historically, those communities have not always seen eye to eye, yet our area enjoys beacon status for community cohesion.

It is that community cohesion that has led those communities to cherish their historic rights and freedoms. Many of our faith communities oppose ID cards, albeit for different reasons. The Jewish community opposes them because of their history and experience in Nazi Germany, and the Muslim community does so because of their experience post-7/7 and post-11 September 2001.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) once commented that ID cards had been touted around from Minister to Minister until one was found who was gullible enough to accept the idea. The ID cards were a solution looking for a problem: they were meant to combat under-age drinking first of all, then identity theft, fraud and illegal immigration, and now terrorism. However, they would do little to reduce the numbers of those who work or employ illegally. Employers are already required to check documentation. Illegal employment is due to weak enforcement and poor compliance by both the agencies involved and employers.

As a former banker—and I have to confess that my family are somewhat confused as to whether going from banker to full-time politician is a move up or down—I can tell the House that I have seen at first hand how organised crime can produce counterfeit documents that not even the Government could produce through their official agencies. I have seen instances of identity theft and fraud that have been based on such counterfeit documentation, and that leads me to believe that no ID card would counter those crimes, as organised crime will beat the system.

Moreover, the use of ID cards in Madrid did not prevent terrorism there, and it would not have stopped the bombers on 7/7. In my view, we are right to abolish ID cards, as they shift the balance away from citizen to the state and give the Government access to data that we do not know will be kept secure—and neither do we know how that data might be used.

Sixty years ago, Finchley played a role in abolishing the last ID card system, which was introduced during the second world war. On 7 December 1950, one Clarence Willcock was driving down Ballards lane in Finchley—the very road where my constituency office is based—when he was stopped by the police and asked to produce his identity papers. He refused. He was then prosecuted and convicted. He appealed, and the Lord Chief Justice hearing his appeal said that ID cards were intrusive and undermined the relationship between law enforcement and the people. He was right then, and he is right today. The result was that ID cards were scrapped.

Sixty years ago, a resident of Finchley instigated the scrapping of ID cards. Today, I am pleased that this resident of Finchley will be doing his bit to scrap the latest version of ID cards.

15:28

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate you on your appointment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can already sense you melting into that Chair, and I wish you many years in the role. I can also see the other Mr Deputy Speaker bursting to get on to that Chair, dressed in what can only be described as the best of Deputy Speaker finery.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on a fine maiden speech. He had some remarkable predecessors and he paid a fitting tribute to Rudi Vis, who was very much respected and liked across the Chamber. We have heard some other fantastic maiden speeches, including a fine and passionate one from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). He brings vast experience to the Chamber and I look forward to hearing many more robust and meaningful contributions from him as this Parliament progresses. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) gave a passionate defence of the Welsh language, and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and I are similarly passionate about the Gaelic language. We hope to hear many more speeches on that theme as she makes her contributions in Parliament.

I enjoy the maiden speech season. It is great because we hear all these fine tributes to former colleagues and are given an encyclopaedic tour of the UK’s constituencies. We have several more maiden speeches to hear and I must say that I could hear one every day for the next Parliament if so many are as fine as the ones that we have heard in the past few days; all the speeches have been excellent, and I look forward to hearing some more this afternoon.

I congratulate the coalition Government because they have been as good as their word. The Con Dems have condemned Labour’s hated identity cards to the scrap bin of history and I say well done to the coalition Government. Is it not bizarre, even in these days of political cross-dressing, that it has taken a right-wing Conservative Home Secretary to scrap perhaps the most anti-civil libertarian measure of recent times, which was proposed and introduced by a Labour Government?

[David T. C. Davies]

I hate to give the hon. Gentleman a politics lesson, but he ought to know that right-wing Members of Parliament have always been supporters of liberty and that we have had to defend our liberties from the authoritarians on the left.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I observed with great interest the Conservatives’ new interest in civil liberties when they were in opposition. We must hope that they maintain it in government and do not go back to form, because the Conservatives have not got a great track record on these issues.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just said explains why it is misleading for the Labour party to describe itself as a progressive party?

[Pete Wishart]

I shall leave it to the Labour party to decide how it wants to describe itself, but what on earth were Labour Members were thinking about? What were they trying to do with ID cards? What was a left- of-centre, notionally socialist, party doing introducing ID cards? ID cards were the low water mark of Labour’s anti-civil libertarian agenda and the high water mark of Labour’s attempt to usher in a new surveillance society. Thank goodness the cards have been stopped and Labour has not got away with it.

Listening to the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), one would have thought that they were introducing nice, cuddly, friendly, inexpensive little things that would not bother a soul. The truth is that ID cards would have changed for ever the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. ID cards, and the much more dangerous national register, would, for ever and a day, have put the onus on the citizen to have his information shared. They would have changed the relationship around entirely, so I am pleased they have gone.

Where on earth did these things come from? I wish to be charitable—you know me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am charitable when I can be—so I should say that perhaps they were an incoherent, bizarre, knee-jerk response to the events of the past decade. One can imagine the conversation around the Cabinet table, with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough saying, “Listen boss, I have a new idea that will show that we are actually doing something—ID cards. They will upset the civil liberties brigade, but that plays well with the focus groups. They will certainly wrong-foot the Tories.” One can just picture the enthusiastic nodding of Messrs Reid and Clarke as they thought that they had come up with a cunning plot to get one over on the Tories and seem as though they were doing something. That is what it was all about—I am being charitable to them. They wanted to be seen to do something in the face of the dreadful events at the beginning of the previous decade.

Of course, time passed and the cards did upset the civil liberties brigade, but time also proved that, for tackling terrorism, the cards were as much use as Emu without Rod Hull. They would have done nothing to tackle terrorism. We have seen the events in Spain and Turkey. Fair enough, I accept that, as hon. Members have said, there were convictions based on the use of ID cards, but the cards did nothing to stop those events. The story had to change: the cards could no longer exclusively be about tackling terrorism, but had to be about more than that. Seemingly, they were about tackling identity fraud and illegal immigration and would even help people to play the lottery. They would be not so much ID cards but supercards—the cure of all society’s ills. The problem was that nobody believed a word of it. Despite the ridiculous rewriting of history about what identity cards were and what they were intended to be, everyone knew what they were. It was the difference between the state and the individual.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which we are all enjoying, but does he accept that the ultimate irony in all this is that although ID cards were to remedy all of society’s ills, as he has outlined, they were to be voluntary at first? There was to be an attack on social security fraud, terrorism and criminality, but people had to volunteer for it.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That contradiction was even acknowledged by Labour Front Benchers as being the thing that would do ID cards in. What was the point of them if the scheme was to be voluntary? Could anyone see Mr Terrorist popping off to his post office voluntarily to apply for an ID card? That was never likely to happen. It was a ridiculous idea and the Labour party knew that, as has been acknowledged by its Front Benchers.

Labour persisted with the scheme, but that approach and all the talk about the new things that ID cards would do only further confused the already sceptical public about what the cards were all about. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right that ID cards were quite popular in their early days. At first, about 80% of the public thought that they would be a good thing, but that number slowly went down over the years as the public became familiar with what the cards were to do and as they heard the arguments and saw the costs escalate year after year. What ID cards became for new Labour was not so much some great suggestion that it was bringing to the British people as a political virility signal—something that a dying and decaying Government had to push forward to be seen to do something.

When I was preparing this speech, I had no idea what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say. I did not know whether ID cards were to be dumped or to be the first inclusion in the next Labour party manifesto. Indeed, I still am not sure exactly what the Labour party’s position is on them. We know that it is not voting against the measure tonight. What I have heard from Labour Members so far is that they think that ID cards are still a good idea, but the way that they have described them is like no other description of them that I have ever heard.

I had thought that ID cards would be subject to the same sort of revisionism that has been seen with some of the Labour leadership candidates. I thought that they might go the same way as the Iraq war or Alf Garnett’s immigration policies, but, no, it seems that they are still to be a feature of Labour’s new vision and version to reconnect with the British public. They will be there to try to reconnect with the British public.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Might the hon. Gentleman be being a little harsh on the Labour party? That might seem an odd thing to say, but this idea has rested since time immemorial in the Home Office, which pulled it out yet again in Michael Howard’s Green Paper, which was defeated. There is a long history of the state—the Crown—seeking to number and identify every citizen in this kingdom.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. He has made a better assessment of the functions and uses of ID cards than we have heard from Labour Members.

I come to where we are now. I welcome the Bill, but a few issues concern me and I say this with all sincerity to the Minister for Immigration. I am still concerned that foreign nationals are expected to have ID cards. It might be called a permit or something else, but it seems to me to be quite like an ID card. I wish that the Government would do away with the whole scheme. Why keep an element of a discredited scheme? All I can see is some kind of divisive legacy to Labour’s ID cards if they are kept for foreign nationals. I hope that he will reconsider that.

I want to ask a bigger question. What are we to make of the Conservatives as the champions of civil liberties? That is great, but it certainly does not chime with experience. Throughout the last few decades, the Conservatives were totally illiberal when it came to proposing legislation, although they found a new thirst for civil liberties in opposition. I hope it stays.

I know you will be thinking, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all those Liberals will protect us and make sure the Conservatives do the right thing when they are presented with the first national security brief that comes their way. However, although the Minister for Equalities is part of the Home Office Front-Bench team, most of the senior positions seem to be reserved for our Conservative friends. I wonder whether perhaps the Liberals are not trusted on the key issues for the Home Office; for example, the views of some Liberals on immigration might not chime so well with Back-Bench Conservatives. I am concerned that the Liberals have some work to do to make sure that those guys are kept on the right track. That is their job, because if the Conservatives go back to form, we may be in a bit of trouble. Only recently, the Conservatives opposed the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so the Liberals will have a tough job keeping the Conservative party on track.

But today is not a day to be churlish. There is good news. We have what we wanted—the end of ID cards. It is good riddance to bad rubbish. It was a dreadful, dreadful idea. I still do not know what Labour was thinking about. Now that Labour Members are in opposition, I hope they acquire a thirst for civil liberties again and that the party goes back to what it used to be when its members championed civil liberties.

Let us never again have a situation when any Government propose such anti-civil libertarian measures. Campaign groups have done an extraordinary job in bringing them to our attention. NO2ID and Liberty have been fantastic at informing the British public about the ID card proposals, and I pay tribute to their excellent work. I hope that the Minister for Immigration and the Front-Bench team will look at some of the outstanding issues such as ID cards for foreign nationals

Today is a good day. We have wanted rid of ID cards since they were first suggested. They have not been available for any Scottish services. To people who took out ID cards and want compensation—sorry. They should have at least identified that the cards were controversial before they bought them, and they should not be entitled to compensation. They took the risk of buying ID cards; it was their decision.

Today is good news. Let us make sure it continues, but let us keep watching the Conservatives like a hawk.

15:42

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your new position? I also congratulate the other maiden speakers today.

I did not think I would be following up a line about Rod Hull and Emu in my maiden speech. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I have met him many times and agree with many of the things he said. Following the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can sit together during World cup matches and support England.

I want to say a few words about identity documents. As has been pointed out, I do not believe that terrorists will volunteer to get an ID card. I do not believe that after the public’s initial enthusiasm for ID cards they wanted to be taxed again for more paperwork.

Many supporters of identity cards suggested that they would address illegal immigration. During the election campaign in Keighley and Ilkley, immigration was a big issue. Sadly, that was because many people had lost confidence in the Government’s addressing illegal immigration to this country. At that point, sadly, some people considered supporting right-wing extreme parties, as people in Keighley have done in the past. What was actually required to address the issue was not an ID card, but a strong, robust and sensible position on immigration—capping numbers and making sure that we secured our borders. The good news is that we did offer that, and the public listened and believed us. The two right-wing fascist groups that stood in Keighley were severely trashed.

I would like to compliment the work of my predecessor, Mrs Ann Cryer. I have known Mrs Cryer for many years and, politically, we first met when she was campaigning to save Oldfield school—at the time, the smallest school in the constituency—which the local Labour council was trying to close. She intervened, spoke to the Secretary of State and gained support to save the school. I was a councillor in that ward at the time—I still am, in fact—and many local people appreciated her intervention.

Mrs Cryer campaigned vigorously for the rights of women. At one event I remember attending, there was a significant proportion of members of the Muslim community. They had been segregated into women and men. Ann insisted on only addressing the women in the room if they were to be segregated. It was a powerful statement to the men in the room that the women did not need to be treated in that way.

Members will know of the work that Ann did in highlighting the abuse of young women by men in my constituency, and her work is being continued. Sadly, the abuse is still going on and the work of the police and social services is seeking to address it. The final piece of work by Ann Cryer about which the House will know is forced marriages, which are not to be mixed up with arranged marriages. Forced marriage is a vile activity that Ann fought against for nearly all her time as an MP. I am sure that she will continue the fight in retirement. I offer my wishes that Mrs Cryer has a long and happy retirement.

The family name will of course be kept in the Chamber for some time to come, in that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) has been elected. I met him for the first time in 32 years a couple of weeks ago. He and I went to school together. He was the Labour candidate in the mock elections in 1979 and I was the agent for the Conservatives. [Hon. Members: “Who won?”] Sadly, he won on that occasion. In the same year, his father, the late Bob Cryer, won the parliamentary seat by 78 votes, the first time that Keighley had not gone in the direction of the Government of the time.

I am from the village of Oakworth, and live there. Before I leave the Cryers, I should say that Ann, Bob and John are all from Oakworth and, obviously, they have all become MPs. I have the great privilege of representing my town as well. The first MP for Keighley was from Oakworth. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), is from Oakworth. The son of the local vet, one Alastair Campbell, is also from Oakworth. The Notting Hill of the north, possibly? Or maybe there is something dodgy in the water.

I have listened to many maiden speeches over the last couple of days and many Members have talked about their constituency being the jewel in the crown of the country. They are wrong; mine is. The place I represent has Brontë country: Haworth, the wuthering heights and the wildness of the moors. Ilkley moor looks down on the town of Ilkley, a beautiful place with a great sense of identity. There are also the great towns of Keighley and Silsden. It is an immensely diverse place with great wealth in parts of it. Sadly, there is also great poverty. Keighley Central is one of the most deprived wards in the whole country, to the extent that some people are still using outside toilets, which is a disgrace in the 21st century.

In parts of the constituency, life expectancy is nine years longer than in other parts. Educational attainment is low, particularly among Muslim young men and boys, who are not achieving their potential. Unemployment is high. Drug dealing and drug abuse is a big issue. I have the great privilege of representing a beautiful place which is immensely diverse, with a great populace and huge social issues that need to be addressed. On our estates, there is third-generation benefit dependency. Many young members of our Muslim community are not ambitious or aspirational and do not have the opportunity to break out of the poverty in which they live.

I believe that education and skills are the way forward. To benefit from that—Ann said this and I repeat it—our young people must come to school speaking English. There is a huge issue associated with that, not just in the Muslim community, but in the white community. Understanding of the English language is poor in many of our white working-class areas. That needs to be tackled.

Until a couple of weeks ago, I had the great privilege of being the leader of Bradford council, which is a tremendous honour. Bradford is a place of massive challenge, but also a great city. I put on record my thanks to the chief executive, Tony Reeves, and his staff for the tremendous work that they do, particularly in education and with looked-after children, which is extremely important to his team.

I took on the responsibility of attempting to address community cohesion in Bradford. We were asked how such an academic philosophy can be put into practice. The answer is through an educated work force, decent homes, and people being healthy, having jobs and living in a safe environment. Then, when communities are brought together, they do not simply tolerate each other, but respect each other. I want to aspire to promoting and achieving that during my term as the MP for Keighley.

Finally, I am former Private Hopkins of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and I am extremely proud of that. It is now amalgamated into the Yorkshire Regiment, which gets its new colours next week. I have watched this place making decisions, and sometimes not being able to make decisions, about war. We send our guys and our women to war, and it must be a legal war. I am very much aware of my responsibility in sending those young men and women to war. We must give them the right equipment and, when the conflict ends, look after and care for them.

I support the end of the identity document. I also intend to support the Government in addressing the huge financial deficit in the coming years as the MP representing Keighley and Ilkley.

15:54

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on being elevated to your position? I thank you for giving me the honour of making my first speech in the House on today’s date, 9 June, which has some significance in my locality. May I congratulate also those other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today? They include the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and the hon. Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and for Keighley (Kris Hopkins).

I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Keighley and his maiden speech, because I know that he, as a former leader of Bradford city council, will bring local government experience to the House, albeit from a different political perspective from mine. Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, you need not worry about me undermining the British film industry by giving away any secrets about the demise of the house elves in my constituency, as happened last week.

It is with enormous pride that I stand here, honoured to represent the people of my home town, Gateshead, where I have lived for more than 30 years. In doing so, I am conscious of the fact that I follow in the footsteps of a formidable predecessor, David Clelland, the former MP for Tyne Bridge, whose constituency formed half the new constituency of Gateshead. The other half of the constituency was represented in the previous Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who, I am glad to say, is still with us.

David Clelland was not only an excellent representative of the people of the Tyne Bridge constituency and a first-class Member; he was and remains a personal friend. Having worked with David for more years than I care to remember, first as Labour party colleagues, subsequently together as councillors and, most recently, he as MP and I as deputy leader of Gateshead council, I know all too well the great passion that David has always devoted to representing the people of Tyne Bridge and, in particular, Gateshead. David would be the first to say that his work was both an honour and a privilege. However, I want to place on the record my gratitude and that of the people of Gateshead for David’s contribution, both as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, to making Gateshead an even better place to live.

The mantle of representing Gateshead has now fallen to me. Gateshead is truly a great place, made all the better by the people who live there. The fact that this is a debate on the Identity Documents Bill may be a flimsy pretext for saying that, of course, the people of Gateshead and of Tyneside are very proud of their distinct north-east identity. None the less, it is true—and we do not need any documents to prove it. One of Gateshead’s most famous inhabitants in the 19th century—possibly fictitious, but well known—was a young lady by the name of Cushy Butterfield, whose description in song gives us some insight into the Tyneside males’ mindset at the time:

“She’s a big lass and a bonny lass and she likes her beer.

And they call her Cushy Butterfield and ah wish she was here.”

At the beginning of my speech I mentioned today’s date, 9 June, which has great significance for the people of Tyneside, for it was on 9 June that the people of Tyneside went to Blaydon races, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). And, in the words of the song by Geordie Ridley, the people took the bus from Balmbra’s, a music hall in central Newcastle, and proceeded on their way, meeting many trials and tribulations along the road. I shall return to Blaydon races in due course, but I am here to represent Gateshead.

Yes, it is a town—soon to be a city, I hope—that has had many problems. Having been heavily dependent upon primary industries, heavy engineering and manufacturing, the town suffered all the social and economic problems associated with the decline of those traditional industries, yet the resilience and fortitude of the people of Gateshead simply do not allow for self-indulgent moaning. The former Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, who was spoken about warmly in an earlier speech, once famously described the people of the north-east as “moaning minnies”, but I can honestly say that nothing could be further from the truth.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Gateshead suffered from some of the worst unemployment rates on the United Kingdom mainland. Educational attainment was to say the least poor, if not very poor, and in every social and economic indicator or league table, if it was good news Gateshead was near the bottom, and if it was bad news Gateshead was inevitably near the top. However, the renaissance in Gateshead over the past 20 years has been remarkable, and a testament to the support of the previous Government and, more importantly, to the clear strategic leadership of my colleagues on Gateshead council.

One example is the rejuvenation of Gateshead quays. Where once there stood derelict warehouses and empty factories, now there stands the iconic Gateshead Millennium bridge, BALTIC, the centre for contemporary art, and the magnificent Sage Gateshead, designed by Sir Norman Foster. To the south of the town centre, and just over the border into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, stands Antony Gormley’s Angel of the North. We also have, in the ward that I have represented on the council for 27 years, Saltwell park—a shining example of a Victorian municipal park visited by more than 2 million people annually. These are not just glittering buildings and monuments without substance or purpose—no, they are all internationally acclaimed and recognised, part of Gateshead council’s vision to transform Gateshead. Indeed, the Sage Gateshead, which I know that many Members have visited for conferences over the past few years, has been acclaimed as one of the most acoustically perfect concert halls in the whole world.

With this transformation we have witnessed an unprecedented reversal of fortunes in comparison with the Gateshead of the ’70s and ’80s. From being among the areas with the worst educational achievement, Gateshead is now towards the top on many measures. In almost every aspect of life, Gateshead has been transformed. Education, housing, social care and employment—all have been transformed by the support from a supportive Government and with leadership from a truly inspirational council, but most of all by the resilience, fortitude and hard work of the people of Gateshead themselves.

There is still poverty. There is still hardship. There are still too many lives untouched by change. But to anyone who doubts that Britain has got better since we took over from the Tories in 1997, I say this: come to Gateshead and see what the people here have achieved. Those are not my words, but those of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Tony Blair, five years ago at the Labour spring conference. Indeed, our current Prime Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge that his party had been well received on their visit to Gateshead at the same venue—and yes, I truly would welcome him back to my constituency should he take up my offer to return with his party’s conference in the future.

As I consider the task of representing the interests of Gateshead, it is that record of achievement that I will be defending. Having been deeply involved, as the former deputy leader of Gateshead council, in Gateshead’s renaissance, I know how substantial the changes have been. However, I also know just how fragile this recovery could be. Gateshead’s strength is its people—their intelligence, their hard work and, most of all, their caring and deep sense of community. We are, and will always remain, remote from the economic centre of the United Kingdom and from the European and world markets. In a free-market global economy, Gateshead needs governmental support. In the north-east, more than 30% of the work force is employed in the extended public sector; in my borough of Gateshead that figure is probably closer to 40%.

Like many others in the north-east, I remember all too vividly the social unrest and devastation that was the 1980s: soaring unemployment, poverty, frustration, increasing alienation and a crippling sense of hopelessness. Gateshead, and indeed Britain today, is a far better place, and it is my duty to the people of Gateshead to ensure there will be no return to those bad days. I will play my part. I will speak up for Gateshead and its people. I will ensure that the interests of the people I represent will not be forgotten or overlooked. I know that my former colleagues in Gateshead council will also play their part.

As for the new Government: be warned, I will be watching. My colleagues and I will no doubt scrutinise every single proposal that comes out of Government. Our aim will be to ensure that the social costs of deficit reductions caused by a recession that was caused by the greed and incompetence of bankers and speculators are not simply passed on to the poorest in our communities.

I know that the responsibility of governing is great, and the new coalition will meet its tribulations along the way, but if they follow the example of the Tyneside folk on their way to Blaydon races, they may survive, for a time:

“But gannin ower the Railway Bridge

The bus wheel flew off there

The lasses lost their crinolines

And veils that hide their faces

I got two black eyes and a broken nose

In gannin to Blaydon races.”

But undaunted they went on:

“Now when we got the wheel back on”—

because the wheel does come off occasionally—

“Away we went again

But them that had their noses broke

They went back ower hyem

Some went to the dispensary

And some to Doctor Gibbs

And some to the infirmary

To mend their broken ribs.”

But the bulk of them carried on, and went to Blaydon races.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Gateshead, whom I am very proud to represent.

16:04

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, especially on the day when you take the Chair for the first time. May I say how personally pleased I am to see you in the role?

I should like to start, as is customary, by referring to my predecessor in what was then the constituency of Elmet. Mr Colin Burgon was a Labour MP from 1997 until he retired at the election just gone. It would probably be fair to say to anybody who knew Mr Burgon that our politics probably could not have been further apart if we had tried. This was a man who was well and truly on the left of the Labour party and indeed had a passionate interest, and I believe still does to this day, in Venezuela and Hugo Chávez. However, although we were so diametrically opposed in our politics, I always found him to be courteous and an honourable Member of Parliament who looked after his constituents. During my time as the candidate for the new Elmet and Rothwell constituency, he was more than willing to pick up the phone, discuss constituency matters that may have come my way and return calls—an honourable man indeed.

I was looking through Mr Burgon’s maiden speech and noticed it to be full of historical references to the Elmet constituency, which does not surprise me because he was a scholar of history. Being an engineer, I am little able to emulate such a speech, but I can tell Members that the Elmet and Rothwell seat, as it now is, has had many boundary changes, starting with the Great Reform Act in 1832. I am the first ever Conservative MP to represent the town of Rothwell, which was its own constituency between 1917 and 1950, and I am very proud indeed to do so.

As I said, the constituency started to get some of its boundaries in the Great Reform Act of 1832, and there have been no fewer than 10 boundary changes bringing us up to the recent election. However, many people have stopped me in this place and asked, “Where is Elmet and Rothwell?” The Rothwell bit gives it away, but the Elmet bit does not. It is actually a Leeds constituency, and I like to describe it as the piece of countryside between Leeds and North Yorkshire. Members may be interested to know that Elmet was actually the last Celtic kingdom in England, and I shall draw on that fact later.

It is interesting that I am classed as a Leeds MP, and that is why I felt it appropriate to stand up in this debate to make my maiden speech. We are talking about the abolition of the Identity Cards Act 2006. If identity cards had been in place, they would not have stopped the 7/7 bombings in 2005 in any shape or form. Of course, the people involved came from Leeds, which took a very hard hit, not least in the international press, which described the north of England as some derelict wasteland and asked whether it was any surprise that terrorists came from it. It was described as some sort of third-world country. However, I can assure Members that Leeds is one of the most vibrant cities in this country, and one for which I was very proud to be a councillor for six years while we were governing the city. I am now exceptionally proud to be a Member of Parliament within it.

My predecessor, and his predecessor, my former Conservative colleague Spencer Batiste, who was the MP from 1983 to 1997, were both honourable gentlemen. After what went on in the previous Parliament, we all need to be honourable Members and bring faith back to politics.

As I have said, my constituency is the slice of countryside between Leeds and North Yorkshire. I will probably send my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) into apoplexy by saying that after the boundary changes, the old kingdom of Elmet actually stretches across into North Yorkshire. That causes some concern, because people say to me, “Oh, you must represent me in Sherburn-in-Elmet”, but I do not, because that is a North Yorkshire village and is part of my hon. Friend’s seat. I therefore lay down a marker at this early stage that that may be something to consider.

Many colleagues have offered advice on making a maiden speech and said, “This will be one of the most important speeches that you ever make in this House. It will be the one that is read for time immemorial by every successor you have in the seat, and people might look it up if you go on to greater things.” Nobody reads the third speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but they do read his maiden speech, so I am putting down a marker for anybody who might come along to research my maiden speech: if you go and have a look at my third or fourth speech, you might have a slightly better idea of who I am as a politician, because the maiden speech is a somewhat daunting process, and hopefully, MPs relax as they grow into their role.

I should like to outline to the House two priorities for me in this Parliament, the first of which—increasing job security and job numbers—I hope will be a successful policy of this Government. I am lucky in that although my constituency suffers unemployment, it is not massively affected by it. However, my constituents are very worried about the jobs they are in, which I heard time and again, and about securing the economic recovery and job security.

There are great areas of regeneration in my constituency, and there are some innovative, technological companies, some of which, including the LNT Group in the town of Garforth in my constituency, have excellent apprenticeship schemes. The LNT Group is an excellent company, and gives people real opportunities. Recently, it hired people who had unsuccessfully tried their hand at private business, in small enterprises. Those people were able to find employment with that well-regarded local employer. That is just one story about the companies in my constituency. I very much hope that I can work closely with the Government to ensure that the policies we introduce will benefit all my constituents, as well as the country.

I mentioned regeneration in the constituency. It is a strange constituency, in the sense that the northern part of it is very affluent and has a lot of farming history, and as we move south through the constituency, we move into former mining areas. I will not shy away from the fact that those mining areas were affected, not least in 1994 by the closure of the last colliery, at Allerton Bywater. However, Allerton Bywater as a village is now starting to move forward, and already I am involved in casework with Business Link in Yorkshire that could help to secure 10 jobs in that small village and regenerate it. Such regeneration is important, and those are my key priorities in this first term.

However, I have a long-term aim, and I made it quite clear to my constituents in the election that although it is a promise and something I want to move forward, they will not see any results for a very long time. Indeed, by the time they see results, I may well not even be the Member of Parliament for the area. I am talking about rail links. More than 30,000 people in my constituency, in a major metropolitan city, have absolutely no rail links whatever, after the branch lines were removed in the Beeching review. The town of Wetherby serves a huge number of people in the commuter belt to Leeds who must all travel down the A58 and, latterly, the A1 link road.

However, rail links are not just about allowing those people to travel to Leeds more efficiently and effectively; they will also ease-up the congestion that blights everyone in constituencies on the east side of the city. Therefore, I am laying down that marker. I will be working with Network Rail and taking a keen interest in the high speed rail policy as it moves through the House. Let us be honest, in the economic circumstances, the chances of us getting a branch line rail link built to Wetherby and surrounding villages, just to serve them, are pretty slim. However, high speed rail is a major national project, and there would appear to be opportunities to branch off that line to serve people in my constituency much more effectively and efficiently.

I shall close by drawing on what I said earlier. We need to restore faith in politics, and I think we are making a good start with such a great intake of new MPs, and with returning hon. Members realising that much work needs to be done to improve this place. I just hope that as we move forward in this Parliament, my constituents will be very proud to call me their Member of Parliament.

16:14

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

To avoid any misunderstanding, I make it clear that I am not making my maiden speech—I did that quite a few years ago! I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for his fine speech, and to everyone else who has spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). They will I am sure all make valuable contributions to the House and the parliamentary party.

I have opposed identity cards from the start, and I dispute with the Home Secretary, who gave the impression that the Conservatives hold the high ground, that they—and they alone—have stood against identity cards from the beginning. That is not the position. Inevitably, if we are frank, there have been divisions within the two main parties over identity cards—some being for, some opposed. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to a ten-minute Bill put forward by a Conservative Member, but I shall go back further. In July 1988, a ten-minute Bill was proposed by another Conservative Member, who is no longer in the House, with the purpose of bringing in identity cards. It is interesting to note that the Bill was defeated, even though the Conservatives had a majority, and that not one Labour Member voted in favour. Everyone who voted for the unsuccessful Bill was Conservative, so no high-ground propaganda please, because it serves no purpose. Incidentally, taking part in that Division 22 years ago, in the No Lobby of course, was someone we all know—Tony Blair. I think his views somewhat changed later on.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, in August 1996, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, it was announced that the Conservative Government intended to introduce an ID cards scheme. So, again, there is clear evidence that the Conservative party, at one stage, considered ID cards to be essential. The Conservatives thought that not for dubious reasons, but for the same reasons my party concluded—wrongly, in my view—that ID cards were necessary. My opposition persisted when the Labour Government decided to bring in the cards. Moreover, under a Labour majority, a comprehensive inquiry was conducted by the Home Affairs Committee, and I was the only person on that Committee who voted against the scheme. Conservative Members voted with Labour Members in favour of ID cards in 2004.

I have always taken the view that my opposition is absolutely firm, except for one factor: if I could be persuaded that ID cards would help in the fight against terrorism, I would change my mind, because I believe—I am sure the same applies to all Members of the House—that the security and safety of our country and people must come first. Were there such evidence, I would reluctantly support ID cards. However, as has been said enough times today, there is no evidence that terrorism would be prevented by ID cards. The atrocities on 7 July 2005 would not have been prevented. Reference has been made already to the atrocity a year earlier in Madrid, where more than 100 people were murdered by al-Qaeda, and there is no evidence that ID cards in Spain could have prevented, or did prevent, such atrocities.

As to the argument sometimes put forward that, although identity cards would not and did not prevent such atrocities—I only wish they could have done—they nevertheless helped to bring the culprits to justice, I have to say that there is very little evidence for that. We need to bear in mind, of course, that for years, Spain faced a different terrorist campaign from ETA, but again identity cards have hardly helped in any way.

The police remain in favour of identity cards, but no one is surprised by that. In making his maiden speech earlier today, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a valid point about what happened in 1952, I believe, when a person refused to show his identity card to a police constable. What happened to the person was upheld by the courts and identity cards were abolished.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

No, the person was found guilty; the law was the law. In the judgment, however, the reason why the law was intolerable was given: its maintenance for a security or emergency situation such as war should not prevail in peacetime. It was the Churchill Government, elected in 1951, who then did away with that law.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, and I never agree on economic issues, but we tend to share certain views on civil liberties. He is right in what he says about the Churchill Government, and I am sure that the Attlee Government would have done the same, had they been re-elected in 1951. We are going back a long time, but I am not aware that the Conservative Opposition in the 1945 Parliament argued for the abolition of identity cards. I am glad that those cards were abolished; I did not want to see them come back after half a century.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Winnick]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to move on to function creep, which is another factor. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the point was made that when identity cards were introduced in 1939—and rightly so in the circumstances of those days—there were three reasons for doing so: conscription, national security and food rationing. By 1950, there were no fewer than 35 stated purposes as to why an identity card was necessary, one of which, incidentally, was the prevention of bigamous marriages. We have not heard an argument in the recent debate that ID cards are necessary for that purpose.

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry to intrude on an Attlee versus Churchill argument, but the hon. Gentleman should perhaps remember that Clarence Willcock was a Liberal candidate, and when asked to explain what he did, he said:

“I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing.”

That is a clear precedent. Had there been a Liberal Government at that time, ID cards would definitely have been scrapped.

[Mr Winnick]

The chances of having a Liberal Government in 1950 were as remote as having a Communist Government, but be that as it may; the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

It has sometimes been argued that biometrics provide an additional important difference from previous identity cards in Europe, but when evidence was given by experts—their expertise was not in doubt—before the Home Affairs Committee, considerable technical doubt was thrown over the extent to which biometrics would necessarily always be reliable. As for the national identity register, I have listened over the years to the arguments as to why it is necessary and all I can say is that, again, I have not been persuaded. It is suggested that such information is necessary for national insurance and passports and therefore why should we worry about it for identity cards, but surely the difference is that, although the other documents are not the subject of any controversy, identity cards are, because in the main they are one step too far, which remains the view held by many people in this country.

I am not arguing—it would be a foolish argument—that if identity cards had been introduced into Britain, we would have become a sort of semi-police state. That is absolute nonsense, but I do believe that they would have been an infringement of civil liberties. When we look at other European countries and fellow members of the European Union that do have identity cards, we find that they are certainly not police states. Some have a very dubious past, but we are very pleased that they are now no less democratic than we are. They have a different history, and our history—one that I want to see maintained—suggests that in peacetime we should not have identity cards, as they do not do what they are supposed to do. I wish that the whole issue had not been raised either by the Conservatives or by Labour over the past 22 years.

I have many differences with the Conservative Government. Only yesterday I gave an indication of my feelings about the cuts: along with my Labour colleagues, I will defend the position of those who are least able to bear the burden. There will be many battles with the Conservative Government, and, as I have said, we will not hesitate to defend the people who sent us here. However, I am pleased that identity cards are to be abolished.

Who knows what may happen in four or five years, but I think it most unlikely that we in the Labour party will employ identity cards as one of the features of the next general election campaign. I want to see the issue buried for good. There is no necessity for identity cards, and I hope that, at long last, both sides in the House of Commons will reach the view held by me and by a number of other Labour Members that we should not have them in peacetime.

16:26

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your magnificent election victory and elevation to the Chair. I am delighted to be able to give my maiden speech today, and pleased to be able to speak in a debate on the Identity Documents Bill, but given that this is my maiden speech, I hope you will forgive me if I drift into one or two other subject areas.

I have enjoyed the excellent contributions made by many maiden speakers today, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has just disappeared from the Chamber.

There is no greater honour, privilege or responsibility than being elected to Parliament to represent the constituency in which I grew up, was educated and have lived for most of my life. Selby and Ainsty is a new seat, which the Boundary Commission had the very good sense to create and, hopefully, will have the very good sense to keep. It is a largely rural seat with more than 100 villages and hamlets covering the area between York, Harrogate and Pontefract in the south. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell that the residents of Sherburn-in-Elmet are more than happy with the current boundary arrangements.

Selby is the largest settlement in the constituency. It is a market town, and although it was originally a shipbuilding town on the River Ouse, its economy is now largely based on agriculture, tourism to our stunning abbey, and its status as a commuter town for Leeds and York. We have significant historical connections with America, as can be seen in the 14th-century Washington window of Selby abbey, which bears the Washington family arms and is believed to have been used as the basis for the American flag, the Stars and Stripes. I urge all hon. Members to visit the abbey to see that wonderful spectacle.

The bulk of the new constituency consists of the old Selby seat. I pay tribute to John Grogan, the former Member of Parliament for Selby, who was the first and last Labour Member to represent the constituency. I have always found him extremely courteous, and he has been an excellent local MP and advocate for Selby both in Yorkshire and in the House. Despite our obvious political differences, he and I share a number of interests. Given that the brewing town of Tadcaster is in the constituency, it is difficult not to be a fan of beer. In fact, you do not get to be my size without being a significant fan of beer. We are both also passionate supporters of Yorkshire county cricket club. He and many other hon. Members—perhaps even including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, although you represent a Lancastrian seat—will be thrilled that the world’s greatest cricket club is riding high again in the county championship. Mr Grogan has expressed an interest in returning to the House and I wish him well in that endeavour, although not too well if he is considering a return to Selby.

I pay tribute to John Grogan’s predecessor, the late Michael Alison, who represented Selby and its predecessor Barkston Ash in the House. The fact that I took an interest in politics is down to him. I saw at first hand, as a child in the 1970s, the help that he gave my parents in attaining a grant to install central heating in our home. Some years later, I had the opportunity to repay that good deed. It was during the 1992 election. I received his campaign leaflet through my door with a hand-written note. I was very impressed, so I called his agent and asked whether there was anything that I could do to help Mr Alison’s campaign in the election, however small. That offer of help was my first political mistake, as the following day around 1,000 leaflets arrived on my doorstep with a note that read,

“Please call the office if you need any more.”

In addition to the Selby district, the remainder of the new seat is referred to as Ainsty. There is not an actual place called Ainsty but, like Elmet, it is an ancient wapentake. The area is made up of four wards from the Harrogate borough and takes in villages west of York, skirting around Wetherby and Harrogate. The area was previously served in the House partly by David Curry, who diligently served as MP for Skipton and Ripon for 23 years, and partly by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who was the only ever Member for Vale of York. I welcome her, albeit belatedly, back to the House.

Sadly, over recent years, we have seen an increase in unemployment and our area has lost many businesses, including chemical factories, the paper mill and the short-lived Selby coalfield. I have personal experience of redundancy and the despair that it can cause, so trying to get people back into work will be a personal priority for me.

Coal mining has now disappeared from the constituency. As the grandson of a coal miner, I was thrilled to receive help from former coal miners canvassing and delivering leaflets in my election campaign, although not all the people from former mining communities have supported my endeavours and candidacy. May I share with Members a quick story that involves a recent family funeral in a village called Grimethorpe. Some Members may know that that is not yet a Conservative stronghold in South Yorkshire, but my cousin approached me to say that it was the first time that he had ever shaken hands with a Tory and that it would be the last. He went on to say:

“thee grandfather would be turning in his grave if he knew tha’ wants to be a Tory MP”.

I would like to think that my grandfather might also have been secretly proud. I know that my late mother would have been.

The Selby and Ainsty seat does its bit for energy production with two large coal-fired power stations: Drax and Eggborough. Drax alone provides 7% of the UK’s electricity needs. It has plans to build three new large-scale dedicated biomass plants alongside the co-firing facility at its existing coal-fired station, which could result in Drax becoming responsible for supplying at least 15% of the UK’s renewable power and up to 10% of total UK electricity. The total renewable capacity could be enough to power 2 million homes, which is the equivalent output of 2,000 wind turbines.

Regular readers of the Selby Times and The Press in York—I am sure that there are many of those in the House this afternoon—will be aware that in the seat there are several controversial applications, including for onshore wind farms and incinerators, which are causing great concern to local residents. A total of 30 turbines are in planning, each over 400 feet high and taller than power station cooling towers. More are being scoped by developers. If all the applications go ahead, the landscape of our district will be blighted by a forest of windmills that will do little to meet our desire to reduce carbon emissions. I agree that wind power should play a part in a mix of renewable sources, but it would be a better idea to install them where the wind blows fairly regularly: offshore.

Residents elsewhere in the constituency face many different challenges, including several unauthorised Traveller encampments, where land has been bought and camps set up without permission. One of them is even masquerading as a caravan sales site, and just below that sales sign there is another sign saying, “Enter at your own risk.” That is not the most welcoming marketing slogan for a supposed caravan retailer. Local authorities must be given more powers to prevent such law-flouting, and I am encouraged by this Government’s proposals to curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission and to create a new criminal offence of intentional trespass. Law-abiding citizens are expected to jump through hoops if they want to build anything in rural areas, and it is plain wrong that certain groups get special treatment to bypass the rules.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of the community in my constituency, and they are the engine room for any local economy. Like everyone, they have been hit hard by the recent downturn. They have been overtaxed and burdened with red tape. There is no better illustration of this than my county council’s decision to ban on health and safety grounds Selby traders from placing an A-board on the pavement outside their premises. In the midst of a recession, I can think of no more ridiculous piece of over-zealous bureaucracy than to threaten small firms with large fines for daring to advertise their wares to potential customers.

There are in my constituency the sites of two of the bloodiest battles ever fought in England: the battle of Towton in 1461 in the war of the roses, which resulted—quite rightly—in a decisive victory for the Yorkists, and the battle of Marston Moor in 1644, where Cromwell’s parliamentarians prevailed. I am not an advocate of a return to civil war, but I am an advocate of civil liberties. Under the previous Government, there was an unprecedented attack on Britain’s historic freedoms, and I am convinced that an ID card would be a further infringement of those freedoms. I promise that for as long as I sit in this House I will fight hard for the interests of my constituents, although my methods may be slightly less bloody than those adopted at Towton and Marston Moor.

I am grateful to have had this opportunity to address the House for the first time, and I thank the good people of Selby and Ainsty for putting their trust in me. I intend to repay that trust with all I have.

16:38

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have been given an opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. Whatever disagreements different Members and political parties may have about how to tackle crime, terrorism and identity theft, we can all agree that they are issues of great concern to our constituents, and it is for all of us to address them. I congratulate every Member who has made their maiden speech today. They were truly excellent speeches, which I must now follow.

Let me begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Geoff Hoon, who represented Ashfield for 18 years. Geoff was a barrister by trade but was born and bred into a long line of railwaymen, and I know that the values he learned from his family shaped his political outlook. Above all, he was determined to put those values into practice as a Minister. He spent six years as Secretary of State for Defence, making him the second longest-serving Defence Secretary to date. Much of that is known about Geoff, but less well known is his passion for pop music and his encyclopaedic knowledge of bands of the 1960s and ’70s. Geoff Hoon was very serious about his music, and, to be honest, he would probably cringe if he looked at the music on my iPod.

Ashfield is a constituency shaped by industry, and proud of it—and those industrial roots have shaped those privileged enough to represent it. Everywhere I went during the election campaign, I was reminded just how large the shoes are that I have to fill—including those of Frank Haynes, who, after years below ground as a miner, represented Ashfield in this House from 1979 to 1992. In doing my research, I learned that Frank was famous for having one of the loudest voices in the House of Commons. When I promised the voters of Ashfield that, if they sent me to Parliament, I would shout up for them, I was speaking metaphorically. Frank clearly promised the same thing, but meant it quite literally. He was loved by many in Ashfield and by many in this House. Everyone tells me how popular he was. His key quality, which I shall always try to emulate, was that he was always himself. I love the image of him asking Margaret Thatcher a tough question at Prime Minister’s questions and calling her “duckie”, which is the legendary term of endearment that Nottinghamshire folk use every day. I am assured that the Iron Lady smiled.

I am the first Member of Parliament to begin serving Ashfield with no local men underground mining for coal. Our most famous sons were from mining backgrounds. They include Harold Larwood, a Nottinghamshire and England fast bowler who left school at 14, before the war, to work in the mines. His statue still stands today in Kirkby-in-Ashfield. D. H. Lawrence was born in the town of Eastwood and was the son of a miner who could barely read. He called Eastwood “the country of my heart”. It is not only the decline of mining that has hit Ashfield hard. I am delighted to be here as the first woman to represent the constituency, because women played a full part in building Ashfield’s prosperity by working in the textile industry, but one by one the textile factories have gone the way of the pits. Yes, new jobs have been created, but too often they do not pay as well or offer the job security of those they replaced, and there are not enough of them.

Ashfield could be forgiven for thinking that its best days were behind it, but my mission in representing the people of my constituency in this House is to prove that that fear is misplaced, because the thing that has seen Ashfield through good times and bad is its sense of community. Indeed, I could say that the big society is alive and well there. For us, that is not a smart phrase invented by those from the leafy lanes of Notting Hill: one can smell it in the novels of Lawrence and see it there today. Every village has its community hub: the Stanton Hill community shop, the Huthwaite community action group, the Eastwood volunteer bureau, the Kirkby volunteer bureau, the Acacia avenue community centre and the Friends of Colliers Wood—I could go on and on. We do not just look out for each other in Ashfield; we stand up for ourselves, too, as those involved in the Kirkby and Sutton area residents associations prove every day by trying to keep the green fields in Ashfield green. D. H. Lawrence might be our historical hero, but it is the local heroes who are alive and well today who I want to support and pay tribute to. We can read about them each week in the Ashfield Chad and the Eastwood & Kimberley Advertiser.

I came from a pretty poor background, and I believe that it is thanks to my party speaking up for people from backgrounds such as my own that I was able to go to university, have a successful media career and today speak from these green Benches. I believe that Governments can and should help to transform people’s lives for the better. Of course it takes individual effort and the support of the family, but there is something else that transforms people’s lives, and that is community.

I know that it is fashionable for some on the Government Front Bench to talk about community, and I am delighted that they have rediscovered the word—along with “society”—but I am not convinced that they really understand it. They have presented a false divide between the big society and big government. I am arguing for an enabling Government who help people to come together and look after their interests. It is not a matter of choosing between society and the state; it is about binding the two together, for then, truly, the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts. The result is an empowered community and a flexible, responsive, enabling state, working together, rather than one replacing the other.

It is ironic that the so-called new politics, which suggests that state and society are somehow opposed and that one can flourish only if the other withdraws, should so precisely mirror the mistakes made by the worst of old Labour, which sometimes gave the impression that the state knew best and should dictate what happened. Underneath its rhetoric, the new politics represents the flip side of the same coin. Its adherents seek to trumpet society at the expense of the state, which the Conservative party says should be smaller as a matter of principle. I do not know whether its supposed partners agree with that, but I guess that we will find out eventually.

It is dogma to suggest that, if we roll back the state, the big society will flourish in its wake. Places like Ashfield need strong communities and strong government. If that means big government, then that is fine if that is what is needed. We do not need big government for its own sake, of course, but we do need strong and active government, for a purpose. After all, were Sure Start or community support officers examples of big government? Is a Government-initiated apprenticeship one?

Today, Ashfield needs a new economic backbone to enable local people to develop their talents and become the D.H. Lawrences and Larwoods of the future. We need it to promote the talents of people who come from Ashfield and ensure that those talents stay in the area to develop its future economic strength.

We know that tough economic times lie ahead. Ashfield can cope with a lot, but it is up to Government to help us. Ashfield is a place with a tremendous sense of community, but we need the Government to help us on the way. Ashfield has a big heart and lies at the heart of England. We will be as strong, vibrant and successful as we were in our heyday, but such a renaissance will happen only with a strong state and a strong society working hand in hand. If hon. Members on the Government Benches cannot see that and make it happen, when we get our chance, we will.

16:46

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your election. It is nice to see so many elections in this place at the moment.

It is a great honour to follow so many maiden speeches, from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who gave a very confident and stylish description of Ashfield and the value of community in that area.

On the subject of ID cards, it is also a great privilege to follow the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). They have been steadfast in their stance on this matter, and have agreed with the Liberal Democrats that ID cards have always been wrong. I am delighted to follow them.

Identity cards have always been a passion of mine. I was a very early member of NO2ID and was very involved in its campaigning. I pay tribute to the work of that organisation—to Phil Booth, for his work nationally, and to Andrew Watson, the eastern co-ordinator.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that the issue of ID cards did not come up in his constituency during the election. In my constituency of Cambridge, one of the largest of the 35 hustings that we held was organised by NO2ID, along with Oxfam and Amnesty International. The subject came up at almost every one of the other hustings that we had.

The ID card proposal also caused me to be involved with Liberty, which was mentioned earlier. I was elected to its national council, partly through my interest in identity cards and my understanding of what was happening. I am therefore delighted that one of the first steps of this coalition Government is to get rid of identity cards, finally.

Why do I oppose ID cards? I have always thought that there are three main reasons why we should not have them: the issues of principle, practice and price. We have talked about the principle, and we have heard how Clarence Henry Willcock, the Liberal from Finchley and Golders Green, objected in 1950. He was the last person to be convicted under the National Registration Act 1939, and his case led to a change in the law.

What was said on appeal is particularly interesting. Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, said that the use of identity cards

“tends to make people resentful of the acts of the police, and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of assisting them.”

That was true in 1952, and it is true now.

That deals with the question of principle, but what about identity cards in practice? They, and the much worse identity register, are part of a complex Government IT project. We know what happens to such projects—they tend not to work very well, they cost too much, there are a security problems, and they are hard to implement. I hear some complaints from Opposition Members, but my comments are not just targeted at the previous Government, because this is a general problem of Government IT projects across the world. Mission creep is also a problem, because one starts off by collecting only a little information and gradually more and more is obtained. That has occurred in too many instances.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On mission creep, is my hon. Friend aware that when this matter and a statutory instrument were being debated, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who is in his place, expressed an interest in using any spare capacity on the chip to store other information, but he was not able to tell us what that information would be? Is that not a good illustration of how mission creep might arise without people realising it?

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed it is, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of the history of that debate, but what he describes is exactly the sort of problem that occurs: extra information ends up being stored and what starts off as—possibly—a semi-innocent project becomes more and more sinister. A lot of work has been done on this by a colleague in Cambridge, Professor Ross Anderson. I pay tribute to his work on that and on summary care records, which also relates to Government IT systems. I hope that hon. Members will sign my early-day motion 186 and persuade this Government not to go ahead with that awful project too.

The price of ID cards was also an issue, and we heard some argument about the exact cost to the public purse earlier. I say to the shadow Home Secretary that it is not just the public purse that matters; we should also care about the cost to all the people who had to buy the cards and would have continued to buy the cards under the Labour Government’s scheme. We are limiting the cost to them as much as we can, as well as limiting the cost to the public purse. As we have heard, there would have been continued costs for them in the form of fines and the cost of keeping the database going.

This Bill is not exactly as I would have drafted it. As a new Member, I certainly would not have written it in this particular style, but I suspect that I will have to get used to that. I would like clarity to be provided on a couple of points as this Bill goes through the rest of its process. We have discussed mission creep, and I am very concerned about overly broad descriptions. We have seen from the previous Government how something that seems fairly good in law can be taken wider and wider until we find that somebody can be convicted for making a joke on Twitter. We must be careful about what we say, and I hope that we will have a chance to explore what “relevant information” means in clause 10(3) and exactly how that is to be controlled.

I would also like to understand more about clause 4, in particular subsection 2(b), which makes it an offence to use documentation for “ascertaining or verifying” information about somebody. I wish to understand exactly what that means. If I were to take a family member’s passport to someone else to prove who they are, would that be an offence? I have concerns about that, given how the provision is drafted. We should explore that in Committee, when I am sure the Government will make it clear how I have misinterpreted that and why I should not worry.

The other issue that should come up in our discussion is identity cards for foreign nationals—or any other such term that we might use. I disagree with some of the comments made about that, because I consider that such cards are discriminatory. We should be getting rid of all these identity cards, whoever they are for in this country. They are discriminatory and they involve the same problems that we have discussed: they do not work very well, and they involve the same problems of cost, practicality and keeping a database secure. I hope that this Government will examine that issue, either later during the passage of this Bill or in a future Bill.

Someone who did buy an identity card has asked me what now happens to it and to the money that they spent. That is a fascinating issue, and I should be interested if the Government were to work out what the cost would be of maintaining the entire system and all the back-up systems to service the 15,000 people in that position. That involves issues relating to interaction. [Interruption.] If, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is suggesting, it is free, that would also be useful to know.

I was interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s line that no changes should be made when a new Government come into power, and that it is somehow wrong ever to change anything that has happened. I seem to remember Gordon Brown changing a few things when he came into office in 1997, and that affecting decisions previously made on tax changes. We cannot have a system whereby Governments cannot change decisions made previously for fear that they might affect people inadvertently.

In general, I support this Bill and I am delighted to see it, because it is a wonderful start of real liberal values in this new coalition. It is a real start on rebalancing the relationship between the citizen and the state, and I hope that it will be the first of many acts of a reforming, progressive Government.

16:54

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election and on the fact that you are sitting in the Chair. I wish you many years as a Deputy Speaker of the House.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He reminded me that that is where I first joined the Labour party when I was a student. It is also where I first met and heard a speech by the Secretary of State for International Development and where I met the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). All of them are now in the Government and one of them has my old job as the Minister for Europe. The hon. Member for Cambridge gave a very intelligent speech, and I am sure that he will make a huge contribution to the House in the years to come. Cambridge has always been a swing seat and I congratulate him on making sure that he kept it for his party at the last election.

We have had some magnificent maiden speeches. In fact, it should be compulsory for older Members to come and listen to the kind of speeches that we have heard. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who is just about to leave the Chamber—I am not trying to stop him—has not only made a wonderful maiden speech, but already covered himself in glory by having been on the victorious side in the tug of war between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The cup is displayed in the Tea Room, I think. I am not sure what it is to be filled with, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you, he and all of us will join in ensuring that it is emptied.

I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) as a member of the national executive committee of the Labour party. When I first heard her speak, I knew that she would become a Member of Parliament, but I had no idea that she would speak so eloquently in her maiden speech in the House. She made a brilliant speech in which she paid tribute to Geoff Hoon, who was a very good friend to all on both sides of the House—we wish him well in his career. I know that my hon. Friend will be able to make a huge contribution in the years to come. I congratulate her and all the hon. Members who made their maiden speeches and then had to disappear to recover from the great experience of addressing the House for the first time. They were so good that I wish I could rewrite my maiden speech and give it again, but that is probably against the rules and even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your new powers would not enable me to do that.

Let me concentrate on the Identity Documents Bill and recognise the presence on the Labour Front Bench of the former Minister with responsibility for ID cards, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). She appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the last Parliament and, in her own style, gave us important information as to why the scheme would be successful when it was fully implemented. I note that the Opposition’s position is not to oppose what the Government propose to do tonight, and we are right not to oppose them, because the proposal was clearly a Conservative manifesto commitment. Together with their coalition partners, the Conservatives command a large majority in the House, as we saw in yesterday’s votes. The Government have decided that their first home affairs Bill should be on ID cards, and it is right and proper that we in the Opposition should accept the will of the people.

I hope that as the Bill proceeds through Committee some of the comments that have been made by Opposition Members will be taken into account. There are three areas that I want to raise with the Minister, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box. His official title is the Minister for Immigration, but I know that he is covering the Front Bench for the rest of his team today. It must be very pleasant for him to sit in the Home Office with the permanent secretary and all those fine people bearing in mind what happened to him in opposition and I wish him a long stay at the Home Office.

When the Minister winds up, if he is to do so, will he answer a few factual points that would be of value to the House in making its decision tonight? First, can he give some clarity as to the number of identity cards that have been issued so far? The figure of 15,000 has been given. I am afraid that I do not know what the process is—are cards still being issued, or did that stop with the election of the Government? Of course, the Government aim to stop the cards, but is the process ongoing? Will the number reach 15,000-plus? It would be sensible to stop the whole process immediately even though the House has not yet made a decision, because it would be completely unfair for members of the public voluntarily to get identity cards that we shortly after take away from them. If the Minister could give us clarity on that point, I should be extremely grateful.

[Steve McCabe]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be useful to seek clarity for people whose applications may be in the system? They may have already paid. What will happen to them? We heard earlier that they will not get their money back.

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely. We need to know the numbers in the system, but as the Home Secretary made it clear that money would not be returned, I do not think we need further clarification about that.

It would be helpful to know how many foreign nationals have received what are no longer to be regarded as identity cards. The Home Secretary said that that process would continue and we understand the reasons why, but if there is to be differentiation of foreign nationals and those of us who are British citizens, we need to be clear about it. Looking at some of our previous debates, we see that one of the criticisms the Government made when they were in opposition was that there was differentiation of foreign nationals and British citizens. Presumably, we now have a completely different process, but no doubt the Government will continue to issue those cards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who told me he would have to leave the Chamber, mentioned a Home Affairs Committee report from a previous Parliament when I was not the Chair—it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)—although I think the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) may have been a member of the Committee at the time. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed election as Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Unopposed election is a good form of democracy, although unfortunately it did not apply to other Select Committees. I wish him well and I hope that he will take to his new chairmanship some of the excitement of serving on the Home Affairs Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North made great play of the fact that he was the only member of the Select Committee to vote against identity cards, and that all its other members—I now see from the list that they did not include the hon. Member for Monmouth, although there were other Conservatives—voted for them. The overall conclusions in chapter 6 of the report are clear. Even then the Committee said, in paragraph 280:

“However, the introduction of identity cards carries clear risks, both for individuals and for the successful implementation of the scheme. We are concerned by the lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme and its future operation and by the lack of openness in the procurement process. The lack of clarity and openness increases the risks of the project substantially. This is not justified and must be addressed if the scheme is to enjoy public confidence and to work and achieve its aims in practice.”

Although I do not have to defend the decision of a Committee that I was not chairing at the time, it is worth noting that even at that stage the Committee registered concern about some aspects of the scheme.

In the Committee’s report on the surveillance society, published in May 2008—when the hon. Member for Monmouth was a member and an important participant in the Committee’s deliberations—we again raised concerns about data and data loss. We have heard an unequivocal statement from the Home Secretary that every bit of data will be destroyed at a suitable time, when Parliament has its view and the Bill becomes law. I am concerned as to what happens to the data between now and then. Although I do not seek a ticket to the ceremony for the destruction of the data that have been gathered so far, I am sure someone in the Home Office press department will be thinking up something suitable. Simply cutting up an identity card will not be good enough for the coalition. After the impressive press conferences given by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that we have seen so far, we expect something more for the destruction of the data. I just hope they will be kept safe until then.

In our report on the surveillance society in May 2008, we pointed out our concern about the huge amount of personal data that were being retained. The former Minister with responsibility for identity, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, was very good when she gave evidence before the Select Committee and was clear that she was absolutely satisfied that the data were safe. But we conducted our review at a time when, as the Home Secretary said, a lot of discs were going missing. We were very concerned, although we of course accepted my hon. Friend’s assurances; one always accepts the assurances of a diligent Minister when he or she appears before the Select Committee, especially someone as erudite as my hon. Friend. Our concern remains that there are a lot of data still being held and this matter needs to be addressed.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee. I suggest to him that if we were unable as a Parliament to look after our own data on the activities of MPs, it will be difficult for the public to have any confidence that we will do a better job with their data.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right; we have to be very careful with data protection and the way in which we look after data. We have not had a lost disc for some time; at least, not for the last three weeks, which is pretty good. The last major loss was several months, if not a year, ago. Maybe the civil servants and others with responsibility for all this will ensure that no further discs will be lost in the future. I hope that we will have assurances about how that will be done.

In conclusion, although the Home Secretary made a terrific case against identity cards—she is always very good at putting the case—the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. Speeches from people such as me should be relatively brief; that is why I will not take up my full allocation of time.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea as to the position of the Labour party now on ID cards? We understand that Labour will not vote against the Bill. Will ID cards be part of the programme of the Labour Opposition?

[Keith Vaz]

I look forward to finding out when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch replies to the debate. Until the election, we were very much in favour of ID cards. When she replies, she will tell us. I am trying not to second-guess my hon. Friend, who is pretty good at her job. I will let her speak for herself and tell the House what she thinks the official Opposition’s position is.

I hope that we will tread carefully in the next few weeks and that we will take forward the suggestions that have been made. I know that it is in the nature of new Governments to feel that they should do things very quickly and urgently and it is obviously up to the Government what legislation they put before the House. But I hope that they will take advice from former Ministers who have been involved in these issues and will read carefully the reports of the Select Committee in the last Parliament.

17:08

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I join in the warm welcome you have received this afternoon. It is hard to believe that 25 years have passed since we first fought socialism in south Wales. My congratulations to you.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in a debate that is close to my heart, one that has been a long time in coming. I have been passionately opposed to identity cards and to the national identity register for a number of years. However well intentioned a Government may be towards safeguarding our identities, data and personal information, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The 2006 Act did not reach its logical conclusion and was not implemented to its full potential but it set out an alarming framework that would have led to the sort of society in which I do not think many of us would want to live.

The shadow Home Secretary taught me much today about how to defend the indefensible. The best form of defence is attack. I am a new student of the politics of the Chamber and I am grateful to him for teaching me that lesson. However impressive his presentation was, it could not get away from the sad fact for him and the Opposition that the policies that they implemented and the Act represented by them was flawed, unwelcome and an infringement of the natural rights that we as citizens should expect to have. It represented a dangerous reversal of the burden of proof between the individual and the state.

No longer were the Government there at the behest of all of us, governing with our consent. The logical conclusion of the Act was that ultimately we would have to prove our own existence. Why do I say that? Because in the Act was the presumption of accuracy—the presumption that all the information and registrable facts that could have been entered on that register were accurate. If it recorded the fact that I was Mrs. Robert Buckland, I would have had to prove that I was not. What an absurd, almost Kafkaesque situation that would have been. I can assure the House that I am Mr. Robert Buckland, and it would be ridiculous to have to prove that.

Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in his excellent speech, I pay tribute to the campaigners of NO2ID. They worked assiduously, with great enthusiasm and conviction. I pay tribute to all that my local group in Swindon, a non-party political group of concerned individuals, did. They organised petitions, campaigned on the streets and sought to persuade legislators in this place and more widely of the error of that policy. They succeeded in moving public opinion considerably on from where it was only five years ago. It is a significant achievement, which was recognised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Home Secretary, in a thought-provoking and intelligent contribution, as we would expect from him.

The issue gives rise to strong emotions and passions. In an intervention, I suggested earlier to the shadow Home Secretary that the national identity register was unprecedented. We will have to agree to differ on that. It is, in my view, entirely unprecedented because of the sheer number of registrable facts that would potentially have had to be entered by the individual. No other country in the world had attempted that, and the Government, in their gradual withdrawal from the rather grandiose suggestions at the beginning of the life of the 2006 Act, seemed to recognise that there was an inevitability about the danger of trying to create a super-database—one database trying to deal with all that information.

Reality dawned a little too late on the previous Government and their attitude to data retention. It is not just a matter of Kafka or George Orwell. There was an element of low farce in the implementation of the 2006 Act. The Act received Royal Assent on 30 March 2006 and immediately repealed the parts of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 that made it a criminal offence for a person to have a false passport or immigration document in their control. Sections 25 and 26 of the 2006 Act made it a criminal offence for a person to have a false identification document in their custody or control. In other words, the successor provision dealt with and covered the lacuna or loophole that would have opened up with the abolition of the relevant parts of the 1981 Act. That is all well and good, but unfortunately a mistake was made, because the commencement order that brought the new provisions into force was not passed until 7 June 2006. More than two months went by during which no criminal offence of having a false identification document existed in England and Wales. Clever lawyers—better lawyers than me, perhaps—brought that matter to the attention of certain court proceedings, and I know of at least one set of proceedings that came to an undignified halt because of that alarming loophole.

I said low farce, but the situation was more serious than that, because it meant that, potentially, people went undealt with by the criminal justice system for the serious offences—let us not forget—of possessing false identification documents, including passports, for which custodial offences would normally and quite properly follow. I am glad to see that no such danger arises from the Bill before us, because the provisions in section 25 of the 2006 Act, on the criminal offences surrounding the possession of false documents, have been retained, and the transitional provisions are carefully worded to ensure that no such loophole ever opens again. The 2006 Act was yet another sad example of legislation passed without due consideration for those who have to operate it. A number of people who work in our criminal justice system had their hearts in their mouths when they were considering prosecutions brought in that two-month—nine-week, to be accurate—period.

The arguments that were deployed in favour of the identity card scheme shifted like the sands of time. We started with an argument about benefit fraud. From my experience of dealing with benefit fraud over a number of years, it is axiomatic that most of it occurs not because of false identification documents, but because of wrongful declarations about living status. That argument went by the wayside. We heard an argument based on immigration, which also went by the wayside; and then the argument became a credit-card argument about convenience—a one-stop-shop offering people access to services. None of those weak arguments stacks up when we balance them out with fundamental freedoms and liberties, and that is why I am delighted that this Government’s first act is to bring forward a Bill to repeal the 2006 Act.

The 2006 Act represented government at its worst: overweening, over-ambitious, arrogant and out of touch. We now have a chance to redress that balance. I look forward to the death rites being pronounced upon the 2006 Act, and I will play my part, however small, in making sure that that is done.

17:18

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on being elevated to your post. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on his maiden speech—[Interruption.] I apologise. I am not sure what the parliamentary term is for a second speech, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his almost-maiden speech. I should have known by how assured he was that, in fact, it was not his first speech.

I am here to contribute to this debate because I believe in identity cards and think it quite wrong to back away from something for which I have campaigned on behalf of my constituents for the past 10 years. I predict that, whether the current Government or a future Government are in place, we will be back here within five years, because of the way the world is developing: it is becoming a smaller place, ID fraud is increasing exponentially, and in the first quarter of this year we saw a 20% increase in ID fraud cases and prosecutions. As a result, our constituents will be demanding a new way of securing, and being able to prove, their identity. We can call that system ID cards, or anything we like—but we will be back here arguing the case, because the world will not stand still while we procrastinate or talk about freedom in the terms that we have heard today.

Another reason why we will be back here is that our partners in the EU and internationally will demand that we come back. They will not accept our scrapping the second generation of biometric passports, because they will require ever greater and ever more solid proof that we can substantiate our identities in our passport system. We can make as many stands at the beginning of a Parliament as we like, but these practical problems will arise.

I support ID cards because my understanding of the words “freedom” and “liberty” is very different from that of many Members of this House. My understanding comes from a constituency where people work hard for very little and are frightened of crime and antisocial behaviour. They fear crime more than they are likely to be victims of it. For them, freedom lies in community and in the ability of the police, the Government and the state to protect them as individuals. That is why, in all the consultation I have done in my constituency—and I have done much over the years—they overwhelmingly support ID cards.

It is, in my view, wrong to talk about wanting to tighten up the immigration system so that we know who is in this country unless we have an ID system. Nobody has been able to explain to me how we will be able to tell who is here without such a system. Nobody has been able to explain to me how we will get rid of NHS tourism without some way for people to demonstrate their right to access those services. At the moment, the NHS is ill equipped to be able to carry out the function of understanding and pursuing who is entitled to NHS treatment, because of the ability to create fraudulent documents. As somebody who spends hours every week on immigration casework, I still cannot tell what is, or is not, a fraudulent document.

For those practical reasons, I think that we will see an inching towards ID cards. I hope so, on behalf of my constituents, who have, in all the work that I have done with them, overwhelmingly supported their introduction. I understand the position of those on my Front Bench—accepting that the parties who won the election clearly made a manifesto commitment to remove ID cards. However, I believe that people in Mitcham and Morden will be disappointed that we have rowed back from this, just as we appear to want to put more controls on CCTV and a DNA database. People want to feel secure and protected. They see that their environment and their world is changing. Simply standing still and not bringing in measures to protect them is not the answer.

17:23

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

May I, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, offer my warmest words of congratulation to you, Sir, on your elevation? I have been well aware of the dignity and gravitas that the Deputy Speaker can bring to important occasions ever since he acted as my best man about 10 years ago—but that is another story.

I also offer my warmest words of congratulation to the Home Secretary and to the other Home Office Ministers. It is fitting that a Government who promised to make law and order a top priority have today introduced a Bill that is about both law and order, and supporting and protecting human rights—real human rights, that is, not the ones that Labour Members sometimes talk about. I have taken a great interest in that matter through my membership of the Home Affairs Committee and in my work as a special constable with the British transport police.

I have heard all sorts of claims about the benefits of ID cards, and we have heard some of them today. We have heard about how they would defeat terrorism, prevent people from claiming access to benefits, solve criminality and all sorts of other things. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) came out with a new one when she talked about NHS tourism. I tried to bring that issue to the attention of Health Ministers in the previous Government on several occasions and was assured that there was no problem at all, so at least we are getting somewhere if the Opposition now accept that there is a problem. The hon. Lady also talked about illegal immigration, but perhaps she did not hear the Home Secretary’s speech, which made it absolutely clear that people coming into this country will still require a form of identity document—not the ID card, but another form of identification. That issue therefore does not even begin to arise.

There was a gaping hole in the argument that the previous Government advanced, which was that the cards were always going to be voluntary. That, of course, meant that they would have been ineffective, because the people who fiddle their benefits and break the law would not have applied for them. Everyone could see that glaring hole in the argument. There would have been some argument for having ID cards—although I would not have supported it—if they had been compulsory, but that was not suggested, or at least it was not talked about openly.

My personal view is that if ID cards had been introduced in a voluntary form and the programme had continued, somewhere along the line it would have become compulsory to have them. Otherwise, there really would not have been much point in them. There have been times when, working as a police officer, it has been hard to ascertain someone’s identity. Had they had an ID card and been compelled to carry it at all times, that would have been quite useful, but the previous Government were not willing to say whether it would be compulsory to have one, and if so, whether it would be compulsory to carry one at all times and on all occasions.

I could have foreseen the cards being rolled out on a voluntary basis at first, and then, when the take-up had reached about 60% or 70%, the Government making them compulsory. They would then have had the problem of whether to enforce the law strictly and ensure that people carried them all the time. I suspect that there would have been all sorts of civil disobedience, with protestors deliberately going out of their way not to carry ID cards and the police not being terribly enthusiastic about prosecuting a lot of otherwise law-abiding students for a minor infringement of the law. Prolific criminals would not have carried the cards, and we would have spent thousands of pounds dragging them before the courts and fining them 75 quid or so, which they would never have paid. Then somebody in government would have said, “Hold on a minute, this is outrageous. The Daily Mail journalists are ringing me up all the time saying that we’ve got this law and nobody’s obeying it, so we’ll have a target. We’ll tell the police to go out and prosecute a lot of people.” Then, a lot of pensioners and otherwise law-abiding people who had unfortunately forgotten their cards one morning would have been stopped and fined large sums of money. The whole thing would have been chaos, because this country is just not ready for it. I am glad that we have got rid of it.

It was something of an anomaly that although the Labour party talked about human rights rather a lot, they gave us a so-called Human Rights Act that in my opinion was nothing more than a spurious means for all sorts of people involved in terrorism and on the fringes of criminality to sue the Government for large sums when their “human rights”, as they put it, were not respected. At the same time, all sorts of law-abiding people were having their liberties infringed in all sorts of ways, one of which was the introduction of ID cards.

I say to Members such as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who was so passionate about the matter, that we on the right of politics have always believed in liberty, and we do not separate social liberty from economic liberty. I do not believe that we can have a truly libertarian Government when half our gross domestic product is being spent by the state. I look forward to my Front-Bench colleagues introducing further Bills that will reduce state interference in our lives socially and economically. As we have a great big happy family now, with people whose views are as diverse as mine and those of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I say to Opposition Members—even the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), with whom I have served on the Home Affairs Committee for several years—that they should come and join the true libertarians on our side of the House, and we will continue to cut red tape, look for ways of reducing costs and support real human rights and, most importantly, liberty for all British people.

17:29

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I take this opportunity to welcome you to your elevated status in the Chair? I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for their maiden speeches, and welcome the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers to the Dispatch Box.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill for three reasons, the first of which is basic principle: I believe in a country in which the state is accountable to the citizen, not the other way round. ID cards would reverse that relationship through the national identity register, a central database that hoards vast amounts of personal data on every citizen and that is open to the sprawling arms of Government, who would be able to widen access still further by order, not primary legislation. In addition, the database is run by the state sector, which has an appalling record on safeguarding our personal data. Despite all the spin from the previous Government, they planned eventually to have a compulsory ID card regime: they would not rule out making it impossible to renew or apply for a passport without one.

My second reason for supporting the Bill is that ID cards simply cannot, will not and could never do what it says on the tin. They were proposed in the aftermath of 9/11, initially as a preventive counter-terrorism measure—not any old kind of counter-terrorism measure—yet we know that ID card regimes in Germany, Spain and Turkey did not and could not stop the 9/11 bombers who were based in Hamburg, the Istanbul bombers in 2003, or the Madrid bombers in 2004. Next, it was said that ID cards would stop benefit fraud, yet as we heard earlier from the Home Secretary—persuasively—most benefit fraud involves lying about personal circumstances, not identity. It was then claimed that ID cards would help to tackle illegal immigration, which is an equally spurious reason—it was scarcely credible given that under previous plans, foreign nationals would not need an ID card for the first three months of any stay.

Last year the Government changed tack altogether and tried to sell ID cards as a way to help young people to access services. A cost of £30, with a potential fine of £1,000 if they move home or marry and forget to tell Big Brother, is the last thing the average young Briton needs today, which helps to explain the very low take-up. However, in retrospect the most extraordinary thing is the long journey that ID cards have travelled from security panacea to friendly service provider. This is a veritable chameleon of a project that seeks to hide its real nature with every change in presentation.

My third reason for supporting the Bill is cost, and we have heard plenty in the debate about the billions of pounds it would cost to maintain and run the scheme. Although the future cost of ID cards was always much higher than the previous Government could ever bring themselves to admit, there is a further point to make: the flawed design and inherent vulnerability of the database to fraud, as attested by expert after expert, represent a massive contingent liability that this Government and the taxpayer should relinquish at the very first opportunity.

In sum, ID cards are intrusive, ineffective and ludicrously expensive. This is Labour’s great white elephant of a project that has been left lumbering around Whitehall, and Britain can well do without it.

17:34

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I, too, congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent elevation and successful election? May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and all other hon. Members who have made maiden speeches this day? Having done it so recently myself, I well recall how nerve-racking it is.

I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to make a couple of points, the first of which is the concern of the people of Dover and Deal about ID cards. Surprisingly, during the election campaign, this issue was often raised on doorsteps in my constituency. People said, “Look, the thing with ID cards is they are a bit of a continental thing. Not so long ago—65 or 70 years ago—we were opposing people who wanted to come to Britain and impose that kind of regime on us, and we are not very keen on that.” We believe in freedom, democracy and liberty; and we care strongly about that.

We also feel that the ID cards were very expensive. Would it not have been a better use of Government resources to have improved and strengthened border control in this country? People in Dover are very clued up on these issues. Many of them work for the UK Border Agency and often say, “The thing is, studies by the London School of Economics show there are about 863,000 or so people in this country unlawfully. They do not seem to have ID cards.” They say, “There’s not much point in having ID cards if they’re voluntary, and if they’re compulsory it would simply be unacceptable. It would be better to secure our national border security.”

I note that the previous Government were reducing our border security at Dover. Immigration officers were being fired, and the idea was to replace them with less experienced officers. Many people in the local UKBA office came to me expressing serious concern, and I hope the current Government will review that situation and perhaps consider better ways forward. The previous Government did other things that people in Dover were concerned might weaken our border security. That is important. It is not just about illegal visitors, but about human trafficking, drug running, and guns and weapons coming through our borders. It is about preventing terrorists from getting into the country. It is an issue not just about illegal visitors, but about national security.

I listened with great interest to the shadow Home Secretary when he said that the ID cards scheme was voluntary, that 15,000 people have applied for one, and that it would be unfair on those people because they were volunteers. I have had an e-mail from a constituent, Naomi, who works for the UK Border Agency. She wrote to me saying:

“I am a very disgruntled immigration officer from the Dover area…As a staff member of the Home Office, I was actively encouraged to apply for my ID card, which I duly did...Had I not worked for Home Office (Immigration) and been based mainly in juxtaposed controls, I would not have bothered with it. I was told that the Home Office would not contribute to us getting our cards, but they wanted us to get them.”

We have heard from the shadow Home Secretary that this was a voluntary scheme, but it seems to me that some public sector workers might have been less volunteers and more volunteered. It would have been wrong to impose a flagship Government scheme on public sector workers and to have volunteered them for that kind of thing. It would be wrong in principle for that to have happened. During her winding-up speech, I hope that the shadow Minister will explain whether it was truly a voluntary scheme, as regards people in the UKBA and, no doubt, other public sector organisations, or whether they were volunteered. It would be wrong, for a bit of spin and public relations, to have volunteered people for something that they did not want, because they already had a passport, driving licence and all the other required identification that make ID cards completely useless and unnecessary.

17:38

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I add my heartfelt congratulations to those expressed by others on your elevation to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also add my congratulations to all those whom I have heard make their maiden speeches today. I well remember how awful mine was. By contrast, theirs shame me. Fortunately, the height of these Benches prevents the world from seeing that one’s knees are trembling, and mine certainly were—my mouth was dry and I have never dared read the speech again. I hope that the section of the Common’s files are burnt down. I can express only my admiration for the maiden speeches. Certain things said had a theme that related to the Bill that we are debating today, as well as to the purpose of maiden speeches.

I am proud to be in this House with a large number of new Members who were elected to represent distinctive constituencies. They will judge the national interest on behalf of those they represent. That is no easy task, unless they always follow the guidance of the Whips. In fact, it turns upon Members sometimes, because the making of law and the holding of Governments to account is what we are involved in. The judgment involved in creating criminal law, which is behind the Bill before us, is a very solemn responsibility.

I have always maintained that the function of this House and the history of this nation is the long march of everyman to safeguard liberty. It was not easily won, but it was accomplished, as is seen in the changing nature of this House from first being merely the King’s House and then an oligarch’s House in the 18th century to the early stages of the 1832 Reform Bill—even if the Deputy Prime Minister is not as familiar with his history as he might have been—and then to the great achievement of Disraeli’s Reform Bill of 1867, from which we became a free people. John Bright, whose statue stands outside this Chamber, on his annual visit to Birmingham all those years ago asked why Englishmen should be slaves in their own country. That is what led to the 1867 Bill. The majority of people in England did not have the vote at that time—an Englishman in Canada had it, as did an Englishman in the United States, South Africa and Australia—but they had it after 1867. That is the heritage for new Members, and I maintain that the main reason we are here is to defend that liberty.

Sat on the Front Bench is the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who saw what the power of a misdirected state could do when an assault was made on the integrity of this House. When measures are brought before this House by the Executive, supposedly to protect our liberty, we should be mindful. That is where the great difficulty comes—the clash of loyalties between “the urgency of now”, to quote an American President, and the urgency of the issues that sometimes confront us.

We make much of playing across the House and there has, of course, been an aggrandisement of the state in some of the pettiest of ways. In the face of an emergency, rushed through—in less than half an hour, I believe—was the infamous section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. That happened because of the threat of war at the time. That legislation was done away with by Douglas Hurd and the then Conservative Government in 1989, but similar provisions were re-formed in the new Bill, saying that anyone, including the Crown—even the gardeners in the royal parks—who released any information had committed an offence. That was it. It created a great dampening rug over British society. It was as if knowing the number of teaspoons in the Ministry of Defence would somehow reveal to enemy forces our readiness for war, as the numbers employed by the Ministry could be guessed. That is an example of the sort of nonsense that went on, showing how difficult it was to do away with secrecy.

This is where the identity cards issue comes in. We have looked at how it came about. It was in a sense a continuation of what had happened in the first world war through a national registration system. It ceased immediately at the end of the first world war, but in 1945 it did not cease. It suited the socialist Government at the time, who believed that this would somehow enable them to plan better. That was what was really behind it. That was when we saw the “reason creep” that we now see in the Identity Cards Act 2006 that we are about to abolish. It crept and crept, and then a perverse citizen—glory be to God for dappled things!—challenged a policeman. Of course he was rushed to court, and of course he was found guilty. He appealed, but the Lord Chief Justice is also tied by laws, the laws that we make, and the man was guilty. It was a prima facie case: he had not been prepared to show his identity card. But the uproar in public opinion created huge agitation, and the incoming Churchill Government did away with the law. So our history is important when it comes to these matters.

I saw examples in the 1980s. I must speak very cautiously, however, because we have security anxieties in this country—there is the Northern Ireland situation, for instance—but we have done terrible things in terms of that central principle of the liberty of the individual. We all know about 42 days and 96 days, and the outer reaches of arresting people without their knowing the offence with which they are charged. It took the judges of our land a long time to find that that was improper, although the requirement for every citizen to know who accuses them and with what they are charged is so basic to our common law. We are, in a sense, the custodians of that common law and of that noble tradition. I am thinking not just of England but of Scotland, and the declaration of Arbroath. These islands are the centre of that liberty.

The original Bill—that monstrous Bill—was introduced because we were in a panic, or rather the Government were in a panic. We have a press that heightens and dramatises every incident, and we have almost lost our character in the way in which we respond. This city was bombed—indeed, this Chamber was bombed and destroyed—in the war, and I believe that 20,000 people were killed in one bombing incident.

I come from the west midlands, which includes Coventry and Birmingham, and other Members represent other industrial centres around this island that were bombed. Hundreds died—hundreds. So serious was it that the national Administration did not want the figures to be known in case they resulted in widespread panic. Those are the difficulties involved in the judgments that Governments must make, but I am no sympathiser with Governments who introduce measures for putting information on central databanks like that of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which we cannot get at.

I can only think of a young man who had some difficulties, and the attempt to extradite him to the United States. What was his offence? He had accessed the national security computers at the Pentagon. That is now serious in our world—very serious—but if one individual living in London, or wherever, can access that information, who cannot access a national databank? That is what this is about. The very first principle of what I call civil liberties but what is now called human rights—secondary, tertiary and so forth—is the autonomy of the citizen, which is what that impinged on.

No one doubts that the action was mandatory, and the reasons given changed frequently. Whatever new emergency arose, this was the answer to it. Michael Howard presented a Bill to deal with benefit fraud, and Peter Lilley—is he in the House of Lords, or is he still here?—did for it in the Cabinet. That is why the Conservative sense of liberty is something to be proud of. Front Benchers panic, and Back Benchers are the brake on that.

The Labour party failed abysmally. I give credit to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)—it is true that he opposed these measures throughout—but do not doubt that Conservatives also opposed them throughout. We watched the dancing princes of new Labour as they asserted that the very life of the nation was threatened, but we are still here. The test of the life of the nation being threatened is part of the Human Rights Act, and they trampled all over that. It is not the Human Rights Act that matters. What matters is what we, a sovereign Parliament, hold to be appropriate.

I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) sitting there. He had the most distinguished of predecessors, who is missed because he forensically and quietly argued the case for liberty. So did my friend from Grantham, Douglas Hogg. That case was argued across the House. We had right on our side. The conversion of my party to remembering and asserting those rights, freedoms and liberties is expressed in the first legislation to be brought to the House in this Parliament. I commend the Government for that. It is testament to something important that this House is on the move again.

17:51

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the distinction and honour that the House has seen fit to give you. It is a signal honour and I am absolutely convinced that you will perform your functions accordingly.

I thank those who have made their maiden speeches today, and must say how impressed I have been with them. Having given mine only a couple of days ago, I all too well recall the nerves in doing so. I also congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill, on the honour of her appointment and on the appointment of the Home Office team. This Bill is signally important because it will repair some of the damage that the Labour party has done to our civil liberties. On the liberty of the individual, Winston Churchill once said that those who ignore history—those with short memories—will be condemned to repeat it. Thanks to 13 years of Labour Government, since 1997 no fewer than 404 acts or forms of behaviour have become unlawful. Human rights have been damaged by 13 years of Labour. It may have introduced an Act calling itself the Human Rights Act, but it has damaged human rights in this country. People do not feel as secure or as safe as they have done historically. That is the responsibility of Labour following its governance of this country.

When identity cards were introduced in 1918, they were a knee-jerk reaction; the country was deeply concerned with the war situation. The Government recognised that they needed to be removed as soon as the situation improved. Identity cards were reintroduced in 1939. The mistake was that, after the war ended in 1945, identity cards were allowed to continue apace. That resulted—the case has already been alluded to in the Chamber—in a famous episode where a man in the street, when challenged by a police constable, refused to show his identification papers. He is recorded as having said to the constable, “No, I am a liberal.” What he was indicating was the illiberality of having to show, on the demand of a constable in uniform, identification papers just on mere suspicion. I am given to understand that the grandson of that man is now one of my hon. Friends newly elected to this Chamber, and that is a signal distinction. That incident led to a case that has been alluded to, which went before the High Court of Justice, where the matter was explored in some detail and the public were, of course, outraged. That led, under Churchill’s Government, to the abolition of identification cards, and rightly so.

Criminals today—and, I am sure, historically as well—do not apply for identification cards if they are voluntary. The previous Labour Government said they wanted a voluntary scheme of identification cards, but the reality is that a voluntary scheme would simply mean that the criminals and those disinclined to follow the law would not apply for them, yet those inclined to follow the law would feel increasingly obliged to carry them. It is what is referred to in the military as mission creep, and elsewhere as function creep. I understand that one of the methods by which the previous Labour Government were going to introduce those identification cards was via airports and airlines. They were going to have airside workers carrying these cards first. Trade unions and airlines expressed concern that this voluntary scheme would become impractical and that it would eventually be required to be compulsory.

As we have seen, that has happened in many historical cases, such as with the discontinuance of the use of cheques. They have not been banned, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to use a cheque, and there is pressure to discontinue them entirely. On Sunday trading, too, it has been said that, although Parliament as then assembled was careful not to make the new law compulsory, the safeguards have been eroded, so that those employees who would otherwise have chosen not to work on a Sunday have felt increasingly obliged to do so, whether or not that is a legal requirement. There is every indication that if identification cards had come into existence there would have been exactly that kind of mission creep, or function creep. Some people might have found it increasingly difficult to go into work, especially in certain lines of work, if they did not have a card.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in essence, he is explaining that the last Government were working on the shameful premise of, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t have one”? That alone is a reason why their measure must be killed off tonight.

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We heard from another of my hon. Friends about how a constituent of his working in the port at Dover was already feeling under pressure to acquire one of these identification cards. There is every reason to believe that that attitude would have become extremely damaging in the longer term. Criminals, however, would have ignored all of this.

The card’s security measures are not impregnable either. In recent years, I have prosecuted a number of criminal cases in the Crown courts in England involving the fraudulent misuse of identification documents, usually passports. Passports are now quite sophisticated documents, but even all the sophisticated apparatus designed to protect their integrity can be circumvented without particularly highly specialist care. That is because it is often the naked eye that is used to determine the veracity or otherwise of a document. Many court cases have resulted from such situations.

There is no substance to the Labour argument. We have now a kind of Big Brother watch in this country, and Labour’s attitude that one is guilty until proven innocent has paid into the lack of security and lack of integrity in our system. I pointed out to the shadow Home Secretary, when he was in his place, that in a press release on 27 May, the head of the TUC backed the coalition Government’s proposals. Brendan Barber said that

“identity cards were a costly folly…and would have been an unwelcome intrusion into people’s personal liberty…Scrapping identity cards is an important sign that the new Government is committed to safeguarding civil liberties.”

When the shadow Home Secretary first became Home Secretary, he announced that ID cards would no longer be compulsory, which gave the distinct impression that he had not been much in favour of them in the first place.

I am delighted to support this Bill as the first measure that Her Majesty’s Government are bringing before the House. The compulsion by stealth was a feature that would have been completely deleterious to the interests of the people of this country. The cost was another factor altogether. Some £800 million will be saved over the next 10 years by abandoning this absurd and costly scheme. It is interesting to note that Labour Members are not taking a stance against the Bill. Perhaps that is because they understand that the cost-benefit analysis has not worked out. There is no substance to the Labour argument, and there never was. I am delighted to support this measure.

18:02

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) in congratulating all those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. Like him, I remember making mine about a week ago. At the time, I was unsure whether I was more nervous about making the speech or about having to wait so many hours to make it. So I offer my congratulations—and, in some ways, my commiserations —to all those who have had to sit here today waiting for their time to come.

I also want to echo the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) when he congratulated the team who put together the NO2ID campaign. They did superb, ground-breaking work at an early stage in making use of some of the social media sites. As a user of Twitter and Facebook myself, I think that they did a super job in bringing people together and creating a cohesive campaign. It is ironic that some of those same social networking groups have had questions raised about data protection and the data that they hold on people. My core problem with identity cards has always related to data protection.

When the legislation was first introduced in March 2006, I had an instinctive feeling that it was the wrong thing to do, as I am a believer in small government. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North mentioned function creep. That and the Big Brother state added to the feeling that this was yet another system that the previous Government were using to gain more knowledge and control over all of us. It is interesting that it moved to being a voluntary scheme, following the initial proposal to make it compulsory. I congratulate the Home Secretary and the entire ministerial team on using one of our first Bills to get rid of this vile piece of legislation.

I look at the matter quite simply. My decision to speak today is based on my conversations over the past few years with residents in my constituency of Great Yarmouth. I have spoken to tens of thousands of people, and I was wracking my brains today as I worked through the pros and cons of the argument. I wanted to play devil’s advocate and produce a strong and positive case for identity cards, yet I cannot remember any Great Yarmouth residents asking me when they could get theirs. Not one person has told me that we should make it compulsory, or that we should hurry up its introduction.

Residents of Great Yarmouth said many things during the election, but I struggle to remember anyone asking, “Will you please make sure that, if your party is successful and forms a Government, you keep the identity card legislation? I am very much looking forward to getting my card.” That is not a conversation that I recall, although I wait to be corrected by any resident who does recall it.

A very long-serving Member of this House who is no longer here gave me some advice earlier this year. I was told that, if I was fortunate enough to be elected, I should ensure that I know why I am speaking on an issue in the Chamber, and why I am voting on it. I was told to be aware of the positive impact that any proposal would have on the lives of my constituents and the country. I cannot think of a single thing about the Identity Cards Act 2006 that is beneficial, and so can see no reason to support it. For that reason, I support its abolition.

Given that my residents in Great Yarmouth do not want identity cards, what is the economic case for them? The figures that I have seen show a set-up cost of around £450 million to bring the scheme in, and that operating it over the next 10 years would cost something like £4.1 billion. We heard at Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today that the interest charge alone on our national debt will cost us around £70 billion a year or more, so it seems to me that we simply cannot afford such a hugely expensive scheme. I have not met anyone among my residents of Great Yarmouth who wants the scheme, although I appreciate that some Opposition Members might have a different view. It is an expensive folly, and I cannot see why we should get involved in something that we simply cannot afford.

From the perspective of what is good for my residents and what they want, it is clear that they do not want identity cards. Given also that we cannot afford them, why would we consider them? Is it a question of civil liberties? Earlier, one hon. Member mentioned that other countries have identity cards, but is their use forced on those countries’ populations? What would be the benefit for us?

I do not know about other Members of this House, but I have a passport. I also have utility bills and a photocard driving licence. I have credit cards—unfortunately!—and lots of other proofs of identity. I know so many people who also have lots of different proofs that I started to wonder why I would want an identity card as well. What benefit would I get from having one? Again, I cannot think of any.

Would having identity cards make us safer and protect us against crime and terrorism? Even the now shadow Home Secretary and his predecessors—Charles Clarke among them, I think—have admitted that the identity card scheme would not do much to prevent terrorism. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary himself said a while ago that he regretted the emphasis that had been put on the card’s usefulness in that regard.

The reason for that, as was noted earlier this debate, is that the card was supposed to be voluntary. Why would a person considering committing any sort of crime, such as fraud or an act of terrorism, go and get an identity card voluntarily? That is beyond me but, as a new Member, I am sure that Opposition Members will enlighten me in the hours to come, but I cannot see the benefit.

Certainly, I cannot see that having an identity card would be the first thing on the mind of a person looking to commit a major fraud or act of terrorism. I do not believe that such a person would think, “I can’t commit this crime because I have an identity card and the authorities might find out who I am.” At the same time, we have also heard that modern electronics such as those involved in computers, printing and so on are so advanced that it would not be difficult for anyone who is criminally minded to find a way around the system, falsify the documents and create a false identity card. That would give us another problem and a real issue to deal with, because a black market would thus be created whereby people make fraudulent documents to sell to people who want to commit other crimes.

Some of my local residents in Great Yarmouth have concerns about antisocial behaviour. Our local police are working hard to improve the situation and some of their thinking outside the box has done a phenomenal job. They have also cracked down on under-age drinking. We all want that to happen, and we have heard much talk of that across the House and in the press over the past few months. A substantial black market in creating false identity cards would receive a hugely beneficial financial boost from under-age drinkers who want to obtain such cards in order to buy alcohol. That shows that we could be walking a hugely dangerous tightrope in future, and I have not yet got too far into dealing with worries about a Government who have a database that contains 50 pieces of information about everyone in the country.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Given that the hon. Gentleman said that he has a passport—I presume that he also has a driving licence—what information that would be kept on his ID card is he so worried about the state holding?

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it gives me the opportunity to deal with that matter. As I said, I do have a driving licence—a photocard version—and a passport. That is one reason why I do not need another piece of identification to prove who I am. I say that despite the favourite independent organisation of all of us explaining to me recently over the phone that it could not answer a question until it had confirmed who I was—it does that by a return call. That happened two weeks ago, but I have not yet heard from that organisation—perhaps it will pick me up on the cameras tonight and realise who I am.

My concern relates to the holding of that database. Hon. Members should be frank about the fact that over the past few years a number of Government bodies and other organisations have lost data and had data corrupted. The idea of that kind of data being held does worry people. My core point is that my residents have never asked or begged me for any of this and I do not think that they particularly want to waste such an amount of money on ID cards, leaving aside the fact that they would then have to pay for the pleasure of having a card at a time when they are under economic pressure.

There are other ways of helping people, particularly youths, who might want to have an identity card to make things easier for them. The police force in Great Yarmouth has come up with a fantastic scheme, which I shall be inviting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or one of her Ministers to come to see some time this year—I hope that one of them will visit. The police are working on a voluntary scheme, which is sponsored by a commercial organisation, to allow young people to have a local identity card that they can use in various outlets and gain points, as happens with supermarket reward cards. Those young people are, thus, encouraged to go to school and to improve their behaviour because they can gain points that give them access to do other things. That carrot is being used, as well as the stick.

That local scheme is not about holding identity details; it simply allows those young people to have a reward card. Such an approach could play a large part in moving things forward. It is a small-scale local scheme, worked out by local people and our local police force, to deliver a positive local end product. It is not a great big national scheme of huge expense that creates more bureaucracy and involves another set of forms that those who decide voluntarily to take it up have to fill in, get back and go through, and all so that we all have another card in our pocket.

I simply do not see the benefit of the identity card. I can see huge risks ahead of it in terms of the data, the black economy and encouraging crime, rather than discouraging it. I cannot see how the card would be a good investment of getting on for £4.5 billion-worth of our money. Therefore, I am delighted that this Bill is being introduced to abolish it and I will give the Bill my full support.

18:14

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

As this is the second time I have had the honour to speak in the Chamber this week, I am very grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am particularly grateful to be able to speak in this debate to take part in rejecting the Identity Cards Act 2006 and the proposal for identity cards introduced by the previous Administration. Many Government Members have spoken on this issue and it is telling that the Opposition Benches are entirely empty of people prepared to defend what the previous Government had planned to introduce. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing which way the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) votes in the Lobby.

There are three solid reasons to support this Bill to abolish the prospect of identity cards. Those reasons tell us a lot about the Government formed in the past month and have given me great hope regarding their strength and underlying motives for the years to come. The first reason, which has been touched on, is the cost of the ID card scheme. The official estimate of £800 million was bad enough, but independent experts came up with another estimate of £20 billion for the total cost of the scheme. Given the current state of extremely tight national finances, the idea of spending £800 million on such an unnecessary scheme is something that we should reject.

What is more, I clearly remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) trying to argue, when we proposed abolishing ID cards to save money, that that would not save money because the cost would be borne entirely by those forced to take up the cards. That says an awful lot about the attitude of anyone who could say that, because whether the cost would have been £800 million to the Exchequer or £30 to everyone in the country, it would eventually have been borne by the same people—the taxpayers. It was greatly to disregard the taxpayer to put forward a scheme that clearly was not going to work, as several of my hon. Friends pointed out, with so little regard to its cost.

The second reason why it is such good news that the scheme is being abolished is the risk involved. I clearly remember the then Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at the Dispatch Box about three and a half years ago and admitting to the whole country, with his hands shaking and his papers quivering, that two data discs containing information and bank account details for every single child in the country had been lost. I also remember the national outrage that followed. That demonstrated—I hope that we do not have to demonstrate it again—the danger of keeping sensitive and private information all on one huge database in this age when it is so easy to transfer information electronically. That danger, and the contingent liability that comes with holding that information is a great risk not only in an extremely practical sense in that it can be lost—we all know that data discs can be lost and get into the hands of national newspapers—but because holding it in one place can be extremely risky.

The final and most exciting reason why this is the first Bill that the new coalition Government have introduced is that it reveals the faith in human nature of the Government who have put it forward. The fact that some think that the way to solve crime and to regulate our society better is to have an enormous state database and to force everybody to hold a card in their pocket is extremely revealing of the view of human behaviour held by those wanting to make such laws. We must understand that people are all individuals and are all different, and that society is best organised by the people in it coming together rather than by the people at the top telling them what to do. That is an extremely strong principle that we on the Government side hold dear. That is demonstrated in the fact that the rejection of the Identity Cards Act is the very first Bill being debated under this Government. On those bases alone, I should be in favour of a Bill to reject identity cards. The situation is best summed up by the now shadow Chancellor, who obviously understands the costs. I rest my case on a statement he made before—for some reason—he changed his mind. He said:

“I don’t want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card.”

I could not put it better myself. I commend the Bill to the House.

18:20

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many congratulations on your elevation to that position.

Unlike me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have not had the privilege of sitting through the entire debate. We have had the opportunity to hear from a number of colleagues who made their maiden speeches. First, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) told us that it was not Gosport but God’s Port. She told us that Portsmouth is close to Gosport, but as someone who grew up in Portsmouth and went back and forth on the Gosport ferry on Saturday afternoons, when my mother made sure she got us out of the house for recreation, I have fond memories of Gosport from a slightly different perspective.

The hon. Lady spoke in glowing terms of her constituency and spoke up strongly for the future of HMS Sultan, urging her Government to think carefully about the impact of their decision on her constituents. Like many speakers, she mentioned identity cards and I shall turn to that issue when I have congratulated other speakers on their comments.

The hon. Lady was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who was not making his maiden speech. He was Home Secretary when the Identity Cards Bill was first published and he eloquently explained some of the original thinking behind identity cards. He highlighted the fact that the issues the identity card system was set up to deal with will not go away. He particularly bemoaned the passing of the second generation of biometric passports, which I shall touch on later in my comments.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). I would say that his criticisms applied equally to driving licences. On the basis of his comments, perhaps the Government’s next policy will be to abolish them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made his maiden speech, but with his background and experience we can look forward to many good and knowledgeable speeches from him. He gave a spirited history of his constituency and of municipal investment in Birmingham. He spoke of the benefits of Labour investment, particularly in the decent homes programme. He also highlighted the many problems that remain to be tackled in his constituency, especially unemployment and the lack of affordable family housing. There is no doubt that in him we have a strong champion for Erdington in the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke movingly about manufacturing in his constituency and his desire to see it improve. Unbeknown to me, Gloucester is famous for making health and aerospace products, but particularly for making ice cream. We look forward to hearing more from him. He has a strong commitment to his constituency—even the shirt on his back was made by his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) is a fellow Co-operative Member of Parliament. She warmly acknowledged the work of Martyn Jones, particularly his success in ensuring that money from dormant bank accounts went to good causes. Her thoughtful and moving description of life in Clwyd now and in the past will remain with me. We look forward to many eloquent speeches from her.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly paid tribute to Rudi Vis. On the Labour Benches, we join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging Rudi’s contribution to the Chamber. We pass our condolences to his family.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of another predecessor in the seat—Baroness Thatcher—about whom we may not share the same level of agreement. He then spoke about identity cards. It was heartening that, despite the fact that Members were making maiden speeches, several of them commented on identity cards.

We then heard an amusing speech from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). If I were being mean, I could talk about cheap oratory, but he talked about identity cards as being anti-civil liberties. Were he in his seat, I would ask him if he has a passport and I will touch on that. He talked about Emu and Rod Hull. I was not sure whether we were hearing from Emu or Rod Hull, but we had a good time listening nevertheless.

We heard from the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who was generous in his tribute to Ann Cryer, his immediate predecessor in the seat, and he rightly highlighted her work on tackling the abuse of young women by men and on forced marriages. He also talked about the many illustrious sons of Oakworth, his home village.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who we thought at a number of points was about to burst into song, as he quoted from “Blaydon Races” and gave a tour of the international venues in his constituency. I have no doubt that as we go to many conferences over the years, we will remember that speech.

The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is the first Conservative to represent the town of Rothwell, a constituency that apparently has had 10 boundary changes. Whether there is more to come from the Government and whether the seat will stay in anything like the same form are matters for a future debate.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who rightly highlighted the muddle and inconsistency of Government policy on the issue. I will touch on some of the other points that he raised.

The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) spoke in glowing terms about his constituency and paid warm tribute to his predecessor, John Grogan. He wondered whether his grandfather, a miner, would have been proud of his grandson becoming a Conservative MP. I am sure he would, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman.

We then heard a very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). She spoke warmly about her predecessor Geoff Hoon, a former Defence Secretary and Chief Whip. She spoke about literacy and the sporting tradition in her constituency and she was proud—quite rightly—to be the first woman to represent Ashfield. She spoke movingly of a real sense of community in her constituency and about the legacy of the mining traditions.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), although this was not a maiden speech. It is heartening that a number of new Members are already contributing fully to debate in this House. He spoke quite a bit about the 1950s. It is worth saying that, in terms of identity cards, the 1950s were quite a long time ago. We are talking today about a very different programme that was proposed by the last Government and is being opposed by this Government. We had a number of history lessons on that but the identity card system was rather different from now, as is—I would say to the hon. Gentleman—this place is from academia. Academic debate is all very well but government, in which he now plays a part, has to deal with practical realities. We wait to see how the Government will cope with those realities on this issue and others.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) helpfully reminded us of previous parliamentary scrutiny of identity cards, a number of points from which were taken on board by the last Government as they developed the policy over time.

We then heard from the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), which took me back to one of my first public meetings on the issue. He opposes ID cards on the basis that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I suggest that the Government would do very little if it took that to its ultimate extreme. I went to South Swindon in my early days as Minister responsible for identity cards and met NO2ID. After we entered the room and found that, seemingly, there was nobody there to oppose ID cards, we looked out and realised that the three or four people outside were the demo. As a result of that meeting, the local newspaper—the redoubtable Swindon Advertiser—stopped carrying quite so many letters from that organisation. Members have praised NO2ID today; it was relatively small in number, but it was effective, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough acknowledged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke movingly about the sort of freedoms that her constituents expect, including the freedom to live peacefully in their community. She felt that ID fraud was an important issue to be tackled, and that it was something that her constituents wanted to see tackled. That was one of the reasons why she has been such a strong supporter of and advocate for ID cards over the years. She is right that there is a demand still, and there will be greater demand in the future for the improved personal security that ID cards represent.

Let me make it clear to the House that we have not abandoned the policy of using fingerprints or having a proper database to back that up. The policy of our Government was clear and remains so. However, we have to recognise the reality that we did not win the general election—nor did the Conservatives, but with their friends the Liberal Democrats, they form the Government. We recognise that and the will of the people. In opposition, although we will attack, we also need to recognise when the Government have put forward a view and want to get that through. Sometimes we will not oppose just for the sake of it. I will return to some of the issues later.

We heard from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) largely what we would expect to hear from him. He is giving lessons to many new Members. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) spoke about the state being accountable to the citizen. We all agree with that, though perhaps not about the ways in which we would achieve it. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) spoke about trafficking, where I would counter that fingerprints make a difference. In that regard, we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) gave an eloquent history lesson about civil liberties, as he sees them, and ID cards over the years. We then heard from the hon. Members for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock).

It has been interesting to listen to a debate dominated by newer Members who spoke eloquently and with enthusiasm. However, it is easy to make a speech from the Back Benches with energy and enthusiasm, but as those on the Government Front Bench, the Home Secretary and her colleagues will learn—or, in many cases, do not need to learn—the challenges of being in government are quite different. They have to examine the facts in detail and consider the problems of national security that they must deal with.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

When the ID card was first launched last year, does the hon. Lady recall that at the launch in the north-west, the Minister forgot her own ID card? If she could forget, what chance would the rest of us lesser mortals have had in the brave new world of ID cards?

[Meg Hillier]

That rather proves my point. The law as it stood and still stands is that no one is required to carry their national identity card. [Hon. Members: “What is the point?”] The chorus of approval for that comment from a sedentary position suggests, perhaps, that the Government may be proposing a compulsory scheme. It is important to remember that as the law still stands, there was never a requirement to carry the card. It is easy to make cheap debating points, but that was an important part of the scheme. Like previous Home Secretaries and the most recent Home Secretary, I did not want to see a card demanded of people. That was never in the Act and would never be a requirement.

Section 14 explicitly ruled out the possibility that anyone would have to show a card to access any public service. It was important that we won the trust of the public and let them buy into the scheme if they wished, so that they could see for themselves the benefit. The British passport is not a compulsory document, yet eight out of 10 British citizens choose to have one, and it has an important resonance and role.

There were three main reasons or broad themes for introducing identity cards. It is understandable that many Members will think that there were mixed messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said, that is a fair point. It seemed at different times that there were different reasons. In fact, if one goes back and reads the speeches made on two attempts to give the Bill a Second Reading—a general election interrupted—by the former Member for Norwich, South, Charles Clarke, who was then Home Secretary, terrorism was not mooted as the main reason for identity cards, but because of the events of 11 September, that question was often posed in the media. The debate was often hyped in that way.

Protecting the public was one of the reasons for introducing identity cards. It allowed people the option of locking their identity firmly to their fingerprint and thereby helped to reduce the risk of ID fraud for those who chose to take up the option, as I did and as my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench did.

[Mr Blunkett]

As I said earlier, my hon. Friend deserves great credit for her work on this matter. Congratulations, by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker.

From the end of 2001, we were constantly asked about terrorism and whether an identity card of some description would help, and we constantly indicated that that was not the prime concern. However, MI5 made it explicit and put on the record that more than one third of those people who were known to be associated with international terrorism used false and multiple identities. MI5 would have been helped in its struggle to protect us by having a system that was verifiable and authenticable in a way that the existing system is not.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my right hon. Friend who, from his own, special perspective, proves my point exactly.

There was a second point, convenience, which was a key contributor. Eight out of 10 people already have a passport, but we were keen to improve its security, and the little plastic card was an additional convenience factor and something that those who were keen to have one very much took up. They wanted an easy, convenient thing that one could slip in one’s wallet and, yes, forget. Perhaps some hon. Members have more organised lives than mine, but one would not normally carry around one’s passport. People indicated that they were keen on the convenience of the plastic card. It was one thing that made the card popular with those who chose to take it on.

The third main issue is that the card was a travel document within Europe. Indeed, for £30, it was not only a travel document, but a passport-plus, because it allowed travel, plus that more secure form of ID to which I have referred. For the four out of five British citizens who have passports, that is fine, but there was also an issue about those who do not.

I do not have time to deal with all the nonsense, to be frank, that came out in today’s debate, but there was some discussion about a huge Government Big Brother database being built like no other. I am tempted to ask how many hon. Members present have a British passport, and what on earth they think happens to the data that they hand over when they receive one, because that information is held on a database. It has been held on a database ever since passports were introduced, and I recommend hon. Members visit the database records in Peterborough, where they will see paper records from 1916, microfiche records and more up-to-date records. Of course, if one has a safe and secure passport, and one wants it to become a proper document that makes British citizens first-class citizens in the world, one needs a back-up database; and we proposed putting fingerprints on passports, so it was important to ensure that the database was more secure.

That is why we proposed three databases that could not be downloaded or looked up. In time, with a reader machine, as many new hon. Members may not be aware, one could have taken the card and—by checking against the register and the database, with no information going to the person to whom one was proving one’s identity—just proved one’s identity. There would have been no need for bits of paper going to a back room to be photocopied and possibly stolen, and no need for bills in different names, which is a challenge for many people. There would have been just one card, involving just the individual and their fingerprint. That would have put the citizen in control of their data. That was our vision, and it is still the vision of this Opposition.

So, the database already exists. My question to the Minister, who is now responsible for passports, because they have been thrown into the mix with immigration even though they used to have their own Minister, is what will happen to the passport database and to the passport? If we do not introduce fingerprints on to passports, we risk British citizens becoming second-class citizens in the world. They will have to pay for visas as countries demand more security, and we also risk having a much less secure document. The Government use the curious phrase,

“halting second generation biometric passports”,

which are those with fingerprints, so will the Minister clarify that?

There is Tory muddle on this issue, and I have some further questions. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of fingerprints in general? [Interruption.] Clearly, many hon. Members want to give me their fingerprints. Very nice. We have foreign national identity cards, and people who come to this country provide their fingerprint for inclusion on that database, which was going to be part of the same database. People applying for visas abroad have their fingerprints taken before they arrive in the UK—an important security measure that I hope that the Minister, with his immigration hat on, agrees with. If the Government are in favour of fingerprints in those cases, then why not for British citizens too? Why are British citizens being denied this right?

The Government are also in a muddle on costs and savings. Cards would have been funded by fees. If someone paid £30, they got a card; if they did not pay £30, they did not. That seems a fair-minded transaction that did not involve lots of money from the general taxpayer. Yes, there were set-up costs, which would have been recouped, but the £4.75 billion total cost was paid for not out of taxation but out of fees over a 10-year period. No cards, no fees—and no money to spend on other things.

Perhaps the Prime Minister should be told this, because in September 2007, in an online question and answer session with The Daily Telegraph, he said:

“A future Conservative Government will…Scrap the ID card scheme, saving £255.4 million in the first three years.”

Where is that number now? It seems to have shrunk to £84 million. Worryingly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister went on to say that they would use those savings to provide extra prison places, so that is another Government policy gone.

Let me quickly explain who will lose out through this. Current cardholders will lose out, and it is mean-spirited of this Government not to compensate them. Sending out two letters to cardholders will cost at least as much as it would to give them a credit for a passport. Moreover, the convenience factor has gone.

This Bill is a symbolic gesture, as the Home Secretary said. The Government have not had time to look at the detail and the consequences. It is ill thought out and mean-spirited, and it has a worrying disregard for the security of the passport. I really do hope that the Minister has some proper answers as he risks the safety of the British public.

18:41

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

It is a delight, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair, which I am sure you will adorn for years to come.

For some of us, this debate is an exciting occasion. Those of us who have campaigned against the ID card scheme since the day it was introduced by the previous Government regard it as not just a duty but a pleasure to be able to lay it to rest. On a personal note, in the 13 years that my party spent in opposition, I rebelled only once against a three-line Whip, and that was to vote against ID cards, so it is a particular joy to be at the Government Dispatch Box to get rid of them. I advise Labour Members, particular new ones, that for Opposition Members occasionally to rebel against their Front Benchers can be very rewarding. Let me also say to my own hon. Friends that for Government Back Benchers to do the same thing is completely reprehensible.

Scrapping the ID card scheme shows the clear intent of the coalition Government to roll back the intrusion of the state and to return personal freedom and control to the individual citizen. This Bill is a major step on that road. Bringing the Bill before the House at such an early stage of the new Government signifies the importance that we place on creating a free society and on cutting unnecessary expenditure. The Bill is also about trust. It is about the people having trust in the Government to know when it is necessary and appropriate for the state to hold and use personal data, and it is about the Government placing their trust in the common-sense and responsible attitude of the people. The previous Government’s ID cards scheme and the national identity register, which lay at its heart and which was its most reprehensible part, failed on both counts.

The indiscriminate collection, use and storage of vast amounts of biographical and biometric data belonging to innocent people is not a role for the state. People do not want the state keeping information on the basis that in some far-off and speculative circumstance it may be of benefit. The lack of public trust in the scheme was reflected in the very low numbers coming forward to buy the cards. I suspect that that also reflects—the shadow Home Secretary may reflect on this—the knowledge that a new Government would drop the scheme.

[Meg Hillier]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady did not leave me enough time to give way to her, as she overran her time.

Let me start with what the shadow Home Secretary said. He gave a completely bravura performance. It was entertaining and funny, and it was particularly good from someone whose heart, I felt, was not really in it. I do not believe that he is a fully paid-up member of the authoritarian tendency on the Labour Benches. The fact that his speech was so good disguised the central incoherence in it. He said that he wanted ID cards to be voluntary, and his speech also contained a long, passionate passage about how they would be effective in the fight against terrorism. He can either hold the view that we need compulsory ID cards to fight terrorism, or he can hold the view that we need voluntary ID cards, but he cannot hold both at once. He knows as well as I do that a voluntary card system would have no effect on terrorists, criminals or benefit fraudsters, who would not sign up to a voluntary scheme. That was the central incoherence in his speech.

May I correct one example that the right hon. Gentleman gave? He said that France had a national identity database. It does indeed have a national identity card scheme, but the cards are issued, and the accompanying register held, at local level. There is no single French identity database, so he was wrong about that.

Like others, I pay tribute to the many good speeches that we have heard. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) that it was a privilege to hear his magnificent speech in favour of freedom and Parliament’s essential role in defending it. I now move on to the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who made their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) gave a stirring defence of naval tradition of which I believe Lord Palmerston, one of her distinguished predecessors, would have been proud. It was a delight to hear the maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who will clearly be a strong champion for Birmingham, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who gave us a fascinating and educational tour ranging from Piers Gaveston to Harry Potter by way of Beatrix Potter.

I sympathise with the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who said that the size of her constituency was 240 square miles. Until a recent boundary review mine covered 220 square miles, so I know that she has a lot of travelling to do over the next few years. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in using this occasion to pay tribute to Rudi Vis, who died last week and was a friend to many of us on both sides of the House.

I was delighted to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) that the village of Oakworth is the Notting Hill of the north in providing a tightly knit group of massive political talent. I was also educated by hearing from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) that the most famous running of the Blaydon races was on today’s date, 9 June; I will store that fact away. Similarly, I learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) that Elmet was the last Celtic kingdom in this country—another fascinating fact for everyone. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) told us that he is the grandson of a miner. He might not know that the Government Chief Whip was a miner himself, so if I were him I would concentrate on emphasising that fact. It could be career-enhancing.

To stay with mining, it was a delight to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) make her maiden speech. I was delighted to hear that the big society is clearly alive and well in Ashfield. Many of us will have woken up with her on many occasions when she was on GMTV, and it is a great privilege to have her here in the House in person.

There were also speeches from those who were recently elected but were not making their maiden speeches. It was a particular delight to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), both of whom are clearly great new fighters in the House for liberty and freedom. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) gave a fascinating speech, and I can assure him that the current Home Office Ministers will not try to strong-arm their staff into buying identity cards.

I wish to address some of the specific points that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and other hon. Members made. I was slightly shocked to hear the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) say that the British passport was easy to forge. As a former Home Secretary, he knows that it is actually a secure, high-integrity document and very difficult to counterfeit or forge. I do not believe that when he was Home Secretary he told the House or anyone else that it was easy to forge.

In response to an intervention, the shadow Home Secretary made a point about the biometric residence permit and minority communities. It is clearly nonsense to suggest that the permit, which has to be held by people who are living in this country because they want to work here, could in some way be used to revive the sus laws. He knows as well as I do that no one is required to carry it with them at any time. Frankly, it is an insult to the police to suggest that they would behave like that.

Many interesting points were made by the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). In particular, he speculated on how we might destroy the national identity register when the time comes. I suspect that the Home Secretary, other ministerial colleagues and I might bend our minds to find the best and most dramatic way of striking that blow for freedom.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailed questions, including one about the number of cards that had been issued. As of 27 May 2010, the number of ID cards issued was 14,670. He also asked what is happening now and whether people can still apply for a card, and therefore waste £30. We have adopted a common-sense approach to that, so staff at the Identity and Passport Service inform any potential applicants that it is the Government’s stated intention to scrap ID cards, and then ask them whether, in that light, they want to reconsider going ahead with the application. The Government have taken a common-sense attitude, but I have heard some anecdotal evidence that some journalists are desperate to be the last person to buy an identity card so that they can write an article about it. I am not sure whether any normal citizens, as it were, are continuing to apply.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about biometric residence permits. Since 25 November 2008 the UK Border Agency has issued 188,000 residency permits. The attempt by the previous Government to rebadge those as ID cards for foreign nationals, in an attempt to make more acceptable a scheme that was clearly unacceptable to the British people, was pretty disingenuous, and it clearly failed.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens when people have applied but not yet received a card. When a person has made an application but payment has not been made, they are informed of the coalition Government’s policy and the introduction of the Bill, because we want to save their time and money, and we request that they hold off their application pending the outcome of parliamentary consideration of the Bill.

The decision to scrap the scheme is mainly about stopping the state snooping into the lives of innocent people. We would have introduced the measure even if we were not saving significant sums of money by doing so, but a lot has been said in the debate about the expense. Even though this measure is a matter of principle, it is a happy coincidence that in putting our principle of freedom into practice, we are saving the British people hundreds of millions of pounds. The previous Government planned to spend £835 million on ID cards over the next 10 years, even after they had stripped out the costs that they were loading on to the IPS.

The previous Government claimed, as shadow Ministers have today, that the whole scheme would cost nothing, because the money would be recovered from charges. I have got news for those former Ministers: it is the British people who would have paid those charges. Whether the Government take money from people as a charge or a tax, that is still taking away people’s money. By that measure, this Government are leaving in the pockets of the British people £835 million that the previous Government would have extracted for their terrible scheme.

[Mr Blunkett]

I would accept the Minister’s point if he were announcing this evening that there will be a substantial cut in both the projected and the existing charge for the passport. Is he proposing that?

[Damian Green]

No, because I am talking about the ID card scheme, which is a separate scheme. The former Home Secretary—like all the other former Home Secretaries and former Home Office Ministers—seems not to get the point that if we charge someone for something they have to give us some money, and their money is taken away. What makes it worse is that the previous Home Secretary, at a press conference, memorably called this level of saving “diddly squat”. The British people will disagree that it is not worth saving £835 million of their money. [Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, “You’re not saving it.” No we are not: British citizens, the British people, are saving it. I find it extraordinary that they cannot understand that if somebody has to write a cheque to the Government, they lose that money and the Government get it. They do not regard that as a saving, but other people do.

I shall deal with some of the other caveats that have been raised. Liberty, a pressure group for which I have a very high regard, talks about the biometric residence permit, and is worried that we will continue with it as an ID card for foreign nationals. I hope that I have laid that fear to rest: it is a completely different scheme under a completely different law. It is not mentioned in this Bill because it is covered under EU, not British, law.

May I say what a pleasure it is to be a Home Office Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and reading a Liberty brief on a Government proposal that it describes as “hugely welcome”? This is a first, certainly in recent years. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made the good point that all the major parties in the House have a spectrum, with some at the authoritarian end and others at the civil liberties end. I can assure him that the civil libertarian end is now in the ascendance in the Conservative party, and given his long, honourable and principled opposition to ID cards, I wish him success in driving out the authoritarian tendency that took over the Labour party under the previous Government.

It is also clear that there are some civil libertarians new to the House in other parties as well. I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who made the point that he is not happy with the wording of clause 10—a point that I dare say we can, and should, take up in Committee. I know that he is very knowledgeable about such matters. I am delighted to have Liberty’s support on this Bill, but I am also pleased to join others, on both sides of the House, who have paid tribute to NO2ID—a campaign whose meetings I have addressed and supported over the past few years—and I am delighted to hear that he was a leading member of it in Cambridge. I will discuss with him the details of the other parts of the Bill reintroducing previous parts of the ID cards Bill that are necessary. I know that others on the Conservative Benches have worries about that too.

Beneath all the arguments about cost, second generation biometrics and biometric residence permits, we have before the House a matter of principle. A functioning national identity register would be the biggest intrusion into the privacy of the British people that the British Government have ever devised. Just because technology has transformed how the Government can use our personal information, it does not mean that a sensible Government will go down that route. In all eras of technology, the principle that the state should serve the citizen, and not vice versa, is a good one, to which Governments should stick.

The bigger the capacity to collect and share information, the greater the danger to privacy and therefore freedom. That is why the Government are acting quickly and decisively. We want to avoid further spending by the taxpayer and to dismantle the scheme at the minimum cost to the public. We want early destruction of the personal data held on the national identity register and of the register itself, and we want to bring an end to the practice of the state gathering data on its people simply because it has the power to do so. Instead, the Government should be held accountable to the people they represent, and should justify their actions in the key areas of personal freedom and liberty. The Bill is a statement of the coalition Government’s new approach. It is just the first step in our commitment to rolling back the database state created by Labour and restoring the civil liberties of the British people. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

identity documents bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Identity Documents Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8 July 2010.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Question agreed to.

petition

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

19:00

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I offer my good wishes and congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new role.

In presenting this petition, I pay tribute to Mr. Brian Aitchison, a Portsmouth resident who has done so much to support the victims of Equitable Life’s maladministration in his home town and elsewhere.

The petition states:

“The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.

I am very pleased to present the petition, which I hope will ensure a speedy resolution to this grave injustice.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the constituency of Portsmouth North in the Hampshire region of the U.K. regarding the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s reports on Equitable Life,

Declares that the Petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying in full with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000833]

Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Fraud)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

19:01

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank Mr Speaker for allowing me this evening’s debate. It is pleasure to see you in the Chair on what I think is your first day. I believe that this is the first time that I have addressed the Minister from the Opposition Benches, and I am very pleased to do so. I assure him that it will not be the last time that we will be engaged in these conversations.

From this Adjournment debate on alleged fraud in the Wirral hospital trust, I am looking for three things. First, I am sure that I am not exceptional in the number of constituent cases about alleged fraud that I refer to the relevant authority. In every case I have passed on, whether it be to the Department for Work and Pensions or to the Department of Health, I have never had a satisfactory reply that I could then refer to my constituent. I would not disclose the information, but if I had such a reply, I could say that I had been able to read the papers and assure constituents that they were mistaken in alleging fraud. I could say that a proper investigation had been carried out and we could leave the case there. As I say, however, that has never occurred. One thing I am looking for this evening, then, is for the Government to consider the particular role in which elected representatives sometimes find themselves in handing to the Government alleged cases of fraud, yet never being able satisfactorily to report back to their constituents.

Secondly, I have tried to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in order to gain the information that Wirral hospital trust denied me. I was refused on the basis that disclosure of the information would provide me with sensitive personal information such as the name of the person against whom the allegations of fraud were made. However, given that everybody involved in the case knows the name of the doctor, although I have never used it in public, it seems somewhat farcical to use the Freedom of Information Act in this way to prevent my gaining access to reports that have been commissioned.

Thirdly, this saga has been going on for a long time, and I have no intention of letting go of it, so I hope that the Minister might be able to advise me on the next best steps to take to resolve the issue. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to remind the House of what happened.

All too long ago, one of my constituents was sitting in the surgery at their doctor’s. The doctor was engaged in a telephone conversation with one of his patients, who turned out to be a private patient. During the conversation, for reasons that I cannot possibly explain, the doctor assured the person that they had been treated as an NHS patient although they were being charged as a private patient.

I started to look into the case. I asked both the primary care trust and the hospital trust—Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust—to investigate. I had a meeting with the hospital trust at which the chairman and the senior directors were present, as well as the locally based official who was in charge of countering fraud in the health service. At that stage the doctor admitted that, as a result of an error, he had put through as NHS patients about 180 patients whom he was charging as private patients, but who were being given tests as NHS patients.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Field]

I will give way in a moment to my good and hon. Friend from a neighbouring constituency.

The doctor admitted that that had been an error in all cases, and repaid money. I asked, through its chairman, whether the trust—on the basis of the core of cases of private patients being fed through the NHS—would examine other procedures in the hospital to establish whether any of those 180-odd patients had had scans or X-rays, and whether the doctor had again forgotten to declare that they were private patients when ticking the forms assuring the NHS that they were, in fact, NHS patients.

[Ms Eagle]

My right hon. Friend has raised an issue that affects all of us who represent constituents in the Wirral, which is served by the hospital concerned. Does he think that this individual case of fraud involving an individual doctor raises issues about conflicts of interest that may well resonate in other areas of the NHS, and does he agree, on the basis of his experience of this case, that there are general rules that all Members should consider applying more generally throughout the NHS to avoid such financial conflicts of interest?

[Mr Field]

I strongly agree, and I hope that at some stage the medical profession will give serious consideration to how the interface between the public and private sectors might be policed in the context of health.

As the fraud officer present said that it was quite reasonable to undertake the next stage of the inquiries, I left the meeting, only to find that later the chairman of the hospital trust and her senior executives had said that no such investigation would take place, and that I would not have access to their reports on this case of alleged fraud unless I was prepared to sign a document saying that after reading the information I would never use any of it in public debate. I was not prepared to sign such a gagging clause.

I appealed for access to the documents concerned under the Freedom of Information Act. Because the hospital trust is not known for its efficiency, it applied to block my appeal under the wrong section of the Act. When I appealed to the commissioner, he had to point out to the trust that if it wanted to block my original appeal it would have to use another part of the Act, which of course it then did.

I then appealed to the tribunal, which ruled that I should not have access to the document, or documents, because if I had such access I would gain sensitive personal information to which I was not entitled, such as the name of the person against whom the allegations were being made. As at every stage everyone who was in that room has known the name of the doctor concerned but none of us has made it public, it seems bizarre that it was on those grounds that I was denied access to the counter-fraud report which is alleged to have been undertaken.

Since the attempts to grapple with that individual case of fraud, the same hospital trust has had to repay more than £1 million to what was the primary care trust but is now Wirral Health, because it was found to be fiddling its accident and emergency figures. Quite how that came about and how it was decided that the fraud amounted to £1 million-plus I do not know, but that money has been repaid. I allege that there is a culture of fraud in that hospital trust, which is not being taken seriously by the chairman and the directors of the trust. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

One last point concerns the Freedom of Information Act. I am well aware that the Government have their own legislative programme, but I would be grateful if the Minister would take back the fact that there may be problems in two respects where MPs refer fraud cases to the administration for investigation. One is the one that I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. As elected representatives, we are never put in a position to report back fully to our constituents. Obviously, we deny them any sensitive personal information, but we cannot say that we have read the relevant papers and we would like to be able to assure them that their concerns about fraud are unfounded.

Secondly, I took up the case only because a constituent referred me to a case of alleged fraud. The doctor admits that somehow in 180-odd cases he happened to tick the wrong boxes, claiming the people concerned were NHS patients, rather than private patients. It seems wrong that I am denied access, as the elected representative of an area, to the counter-fraud allegations that have taken place.

There are two issues, and I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on them with his colleagues, although he may wish to comment on them in the debate. The case has dragged on for some time, but as I have said— I know the Minister is convinced of this—I am not going to let it go yet. I would be interested to hear how the Government think that we might take the case forward to a successful conclusion. I wait to hear what the Minister says.

19:12

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I add my congratulations on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is warmly welcomed by me and I imagine by many right hon. and hon. Members.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on securing the debate on detecting and dealing with fraud in Wirral NHS foundation trust. I know from the research that I have done that he has had a long-standing interest in the case. In certain areas I can appreciate his frustration as a constituency MP seeking to represent the interests of his constituents and to get to the bottom of a problem. Fraud in the NHS is totally unacceptable, but before I move to the specifics of the case that he has raised, I would like to explain the processes and institutions involved in the detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud in the NHS, although I promise to keep it brief.

Fraud and corruption in the NHS is dealt with by the NHS counter-fraud service. Since the NHS anti-fraud initiative began in 1998, counter-fraud service investigations have led to 551 successful prosecutions, with a 96% conviction rate, 773 civil and disciplinary sanctions and the recovery of more than £59 million in cash. Under “Secretary of State Directions”, all NHS bodies nominate a local counter-fraud specialist, who reports to their director of finance and works with counter-fraud service staff.

Because of their independent status, foundation trusts are not, however, bound by Secretary of State directions. Clause 43 and schedule 13 of the standard NHS commissioning contract, under which foundation trusts operate, regulate anti-fraud requirements and mirror those in Secretary of State directions. Local counter-fraud specialist staff investigate allegations or suspicion of fraud. Where fraud is suspected, all appropriate disciplinary, civil and criminal sanctions are sought.

Through a quality assurance programme, the counter-fraud service works to ensure that all NHS organisations apply the highest standards to their anti-fraud work. A self-assessment process, managed by the counter-fraud service, helps NHS organisations identify and improve any areas of weakness. The assessment rated trusts on a scale of 1 to 4, with level 1 indicating that adequate performance had not been met and level 4 demonstrating that the organisation was performing strongly. In 2009, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust achieved a level 2 rating, indicating that its performance was “adequate”. The counter-fraud service is continuing to work with the trust to improve its performance and to ensure that it meets the highest possible standards.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has been concerned about this particular case of alleged fraud since 2007, when a constituent anonymously alleged that fraud was being committed by a general practitioner. The allegation was that the GP was using NHS blood service facilities at Arrowe Park hospital for his private patients but not declaring them as such. The case was first referred to the primary care trust by the pathology laboratory manager in January 2005. Following some initial inquiries, the PCT referred it to the trust local counter-fraud specialist in January 2006. The trust began its investigation in March 2006.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the trust’s chief executive in March 2007, asking what actions had been taken to investigate such a serious allegation of fraud. The trust explained that an investigation had taken place. The trust’s local counter-fraud service was provided via a contract with Deloitte. This is common practice among NHS trusts.

In the report into the case, published in October 2007, the investigation found that while there had been inaccuracies in the documentation, there was insufficient evidence that the GP had intended to defraud the hospital. The GP accepted that he had made mistakes, but refuted any suggestion that he had intended to deceive or mislead the trust. The investigation report concluded that there was insufficient evidence on which to charge and prosecute the GP concerned. The investigation reached this decision partly because of a lack of clear instructions to GPs on how to complete referral forms, and partly because of the potential ambiguities on the forms themselves, such as a lack of a declaration on the form.

I understand that the GP repaid the money to the trust for the work done and that the trust chief executive wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to explain the outcome of the investigation. Separately, between December 2007 and February 2008, the Mersey internal audit agency investigated concerns over the use of NHS services on behalf of private patients. The review found no evidence of fraud.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has met representatives of the trust and the counter-fraud service to discuss his concern that the investigation was not sufficiently robust. It is vital that hon. Members and the public have full confidence in the ability of the NHS to identify and root out any examples of fraud. So that I may satisfy myself and the right hon. Gentleman—I hope—that the original investigation was indeed sufficiently robust, I will ask the departmental sponsor at the Department of Health in Whitehall for the NHS counter-fraud service to work with the managing director of that service to review this case and report to me directly on their findings. I will then write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.

The second issue concerns the right hon. Gentleman’s requests for information on the investigation. I understand that on 30 November 2007 the trust offered him a copy of the investigation report subject to a confidentiality agreement, which he rejected. While accepting the good intentions of the trust, this offer was, to my mind, a mistake. While the trust’s intention was to be as helpful as possible, it was required to protect the GP under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I have noted the right hon. Gentleman’s observations about the workings of that legislation vis-à-vis the work of Members of this House in pursuing their constituency duties, and I will certainly give him a commitment that I will pass on his concerns to my relevant ministerial colleague, so that this can be looked at. I make no other promise or commitment on that, but I do give an assurance that it will be passed on to be considered, without any ties as to what the ultimate decision might be.

In January 2008, the right hon. Gentleman submitted a freedom of information request to the trust, asking for information on the investigation. Legal advice was sought by the trust. It was advised that it was legally required not to comply with the right hon. Gentleman’s request, as the release of the information in question would have been considered personal and in breach of the legislation that I have just mentioned. However, it was felt appropriate to disclose limited information from the investigation report that dealt with improving trust practices, such as the weaknesses in procedures that had been identified.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman then sought the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office on this matter. The commissioner upheld the trust’s decision not to provide the GP’s sensitive personal data, and advised the trust that it should not take any further steps in relation to the request. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Information Tribunal, which also found that the trust had acted properly on the matter.

I understand that, at that point, the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the trust’s original proposal to sign a confidentiality agreement, so that he could see the original report. However, following the decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the trust was legally unable to disclose that information. As I said, I feel that it had been a mistake to make that offer to the right hon. Gentleman.

I wholeheartedly share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about any possibility of fraud in the NHS. If there is ever any suspicion of fraud, it must not only be investigated thoroughly, but be seen to be investigated thoroughly. That is why I have asked the responsible Department of Health official, in conjunction with the NHS counter-fraud service, to review this case and the investigations that took place. I hope that that will clearly demonstrate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government and I take issues of fraud in the NHS very seriously indeed. When it is committed, it must be rooted out. Equally, when an innocent party is accused, they must have every opportunity to clear their name. When the review is complete, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with its findings. I hope that he will be satisfied with that approach to what has been a long, complex and sometimes perplexing problem.

Question put and agreed to.

19:24

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 9 June 2010

Energy and Climate Change

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Ministerial Corrections

Industrial Diseases: Compensation

[John Mann]

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many claims for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been settled in (i) Bassetlaw, (ii) Leigh, (iii) Doncaster North, (iv) South Shields and (v) Morley and Outwood constituency; and how many such claims in each such constituency were settled by each firm of solicitors.

[Official Report, 2 June 2010, Vol. 510, c. 20W.]

[Charles Hendry]

The number of claims for vibration white finger (VWF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that have been settled in Bassetlaw, Leigh, Doncaster North, South Shields and Morley and Rothwell constituencies settled by each firm of solicitors is shown in the following tables as at 23 May 2010:

The Department is unable to provide data for Morley and Outwood as this is a new constituency and the Department does not have a breakdown of these figures.

[Charles Hendry]

I am depositing in the Libraries of the House tables detailing the settlements made by each firm of solicitors as at 23 May 2010 for claims for vibration white finger (VWF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that have been settled in Bassetlaw, Leigh, Doncaster North, South Shields and Morley and Rothwell constituencies.

The Department is unable to provide data for Morley and Outwood as this is a new constituency and the Department does not have a breakdown of these figures.

Petitions

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Petitions

Wednesday 9 June 2010

Croydon FC

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Petitions

The Petition of the supporters of Croydon FC,

Declares that there have been talks with Croydon Council for many years about providing security of tenure for Croydon FC at the Arena, South Norwood, as well as talks about the destruction of the playing fields to the south of the Arena as a result of their use as a place to dump spill from the construction of Croydon Tramlink, and that no progress has been made with these talks.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask Croydon Council to bring the discussions with Croydon FC to a positive conclusion for both parties and for the South Norwood community.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 7 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 41P.]

[P000826]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport:

The issue regarding Croydon FC’s tenure at the Arena, South Norwood is a matter that should be resolved by the Local Authority and Croydon FC. Government cannot get involved in the local decision making process.

In respect of the playing fields situated to the south of the Arena, under planning guidance, local authorities are required to protect all open space which communities need. For this reason, the dumping of spill from the nearby Tramlink development should be dealt with as a priority by the local authority.

Crystal Palace FC

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Petitions

The Petition of football supporters,

Declares that The Football League should exercise discretion in its application of its rules that has led to the 10 point deduction from Crystal Palace FC, and notes that unlike other football clubs penalised after seeking administration Crystal Palace FC was placed in administration against its wishes, and notes that Lloyds Banking Group has an important role to play in returning Crystal Palace FC to profitable trading by working on the ownership of Selhurst Park being returned to the club.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage The Football League to consider whether it should remove or reduce the points penalty meted out to Crystal Palace FC, and as a major shareholder in Lloyds Banking Group that it should ask the senior management of Lloyds Banking Group as to what action it is taking to reunite Selhurst Park with Crystal Palace FC so as to aid Crystal Palace FC in returning to profitable trading.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 30 March 2010; Vol. 788, c. 508.]

[P000808]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport:

It is naturally a worrying time for all those associated with Crystal Palace, and of course we understand the frustrations felt—not least by the supporters who remain the lifeblood of the club.

Football clubs remain an important part of the community, and every care should be taken to protect their long-term future through good financial management.

It is for the clubs themselves to ensure they manage their finances well, and for the football authorities to regulate the game to the highest standards.

Government are supportive of the measures that the football authorities have taken in recent years to strengthen the financial regulation of clubs and help monitor club debt. However, the issue of a points deduction is one for the relevant regulatory authority, in this case the Football League, not Government, to address.

We are delighted that an agreement in principle has been reached for the sale of the club and Selhurst Park to the CPFC 2010 Group and we hope this agreement can be finalised quickly to ensure the club can focus on the forthcoming season. The club has a proud history, built on the loyalty of its supporters, and we wish it the very best for the future.

EU Referendum

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Petitions

The Petition of the people of Croydon,

Declares that there should be a referendum on European Union membership.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call a referendum on EU membership at the same time as the next General Election.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Andrew Pelling, Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 348.]

[P000782]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs:

The Petition of the people of Croydon declares that there should be a referendum on European Union membership and requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to call a referendum on EU membership at the same time as the next General Election.

The Government do not plan to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU. However, we are determined to maximise democratic and Parliamentary control over EU decision making. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power or competences from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum before the UK could ratify that Treaty. We will also ensure that any decision by a future Government to join the euro would be subject to a referendum, though we have agreed not to join or to prepare to join the euro in this Parliament. We have also agreed that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the next Parliament.

We will amend the 1972 Act to ensure that the use of any clauses which allow the powers of the EU to expand in future without a new Treaty—sometimes known as passerelle or ratchet clauses—would require primary legislation. Any use of a major ratchet clause which amounted to the transfer of an area of power to the EU will also be subject to a referendum. We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

All of this will ensure that there will be no extension of the EU’s power over the UK without the British people's consent. The UK will continue to be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 June 2010

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

High Speed Rail

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Angela Watkinson.)

09:30

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Betts, and express my pleasure at having secured an Adjournment debate on such an important matter? Colleagues who were here before the election will know that this is not the first time I have spoken about high speed rail in Westminster Hall—indeed, it is not the first time I have secured a debate on the subject. High speed rail is a matter of particular importance to my constituency and my city, as it is to many other parts of the UK, which is why I am a long-standing campaigner for it.

As the years have gone by, the case for high speed rail in the UK has become stronger. In the past five years, the number of passengers travelling on the rail lines has risen by about 40% and freight has risen by 60%. Given the urgent need to tackle climate change by encouraging travellers to shift from air and road transport to rail, the case for investment in high speed rail becomes even stronger. The case for high speed rail relates not only to the new lines that it would create, but to the capacity that it would free up on existing lines.

I was greatly encouraged by the previous Government’s announcement in March of a new line from London to Birmingham as the first phase of a network that would lead to Manchester and Leeds, and thereafter to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Members will recall that that was based on a report by High Speed 2 Ltd, which the Government established a year earlier. It was envisaged that construction would start in 2017, following the completion of Crossrail, and that the network would be opened in phases from 2026. The estimated cost of taking the line as far as Manchester and Leeds was £30 billion.

We seem to have reached a considerable degree of political consensus on the development of high speed rail in Great Britain. That will obviously be necessary because of the long time scale over which any such network will be developed. It will take many decades to build a complete network, which will obviously involve many Governments and, no doubt, many political parties. I welcome the fact that, along with the commitment from my party, there now appears to be a general political consensus on the need to develop a high speed rail network in the UK.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and commend him for his support for high speed rail. Will he acknowledge that, even in the present circumstances, he and his constituents can travel from Edinburgh to London in about four hours, whereas the shortest journey time from Aberdeen to London, only a further 110 miles, is seven and a half hours? Does he therefore agree that a high speed rail link must also ensure that there are fast links to connect to any high speed network that is developed?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to intrude on matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but one of the important aspects of the debate on high speed rail is the need for discussions and co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, to ensure that the network will benefit not only the cities that it serves directly, but places further along the line, even if those places are not part of the network from the start. I will return to that point later. In due course the network should extend to not only the UK’s largest cities, but most major cities. I am sure that Aberdeen would qualify as such.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Edinburgh is terribly important, but so are the English regions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real risk, rumours of which the previous trains Minister did nothing to dispel, that money will be leached from regional and provincial rail networks to fund high speed rail? High speed rail should be welcomed, of course, but we must also remember the needs of many of our constituents who depend on lesser rail networks.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I certainly did not hear those rumours, but his colleague the Minister will no doubt reassure him that she will be able to combine her commitment to high speed rail with the interests of his constituents.

I welcomed the fact that the Conservatives declared in their manifesto that

“a new government will begin work immediately to create a high speed rail line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This is the first step towards achieving our vision of creating a national high speed rail network to join up major cities across England, Scotland and Wales. Stage two will deliver two new lines bringing the North East, Scotland and Wales into the high speed rail network.”

That was an unqualified commitment to start work immediately, not just as soon as possible. I welcome the Minister to the debate and congratulate her on her appointment. I know of her commitment to high speed rail. Indeed, so unqualified was her manifesto’s promise that I am almost surprised to see her here today, as she might have been out on the building sites with a hard hat and a bulldozer, starting work on the line immediately.

The Liberal Democrats were, somewhat out of character, a little more cautious about their spending commitments on this issue. Nevertheless, they vowed to set up

“a UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in public transport like high speed rail.”

In the coalition agreement, the two parties stated:

“We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain.”

However, the agreement then stated:

“Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.”

The prospect of work beginning on high speed rail is not so immediate now, it would appear. By the time of the Queen’s Speech, we were promised a hybrid Bill in due course.

To be blunt, one of my purposes in securing this debate was to test the strength of the coalition Government’s commitment to high speed rail. I have no doubts about the Minister’s commitment, but we need to know whether the coalition agreement means what it says. Did the coalition parties mean what they said in their pre-election manifestos, or was it just pre-election bluster? Will they really push it with the determination and leadership needed, or will they find excuses to delay it until some long-distant date? If the Minister gives the type of commitment that she gave before the election, she will certainly have support across the House for the development of proposals to introduce such a scheme, although the details may of course lead to debate.

I therefore have several questions for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer today. There are quite a few, but there are none that she should be surprised to be asked, so I hope that she will have answers today or at least some time soon. When do the new Government envisage bringing forward the necessary legislation for High Speed 2? I am not suggesting that the Minister should give an exact date, but a hybrid Bill could take years to go through Parliament so we need some idea of how it will fit into the Government’s programme. Does she agree with the previous Government’s assessment, as set out in their document on High Speed 2, produced earlier this year, that

“formal public consultation on the Government’s proposals for high speed rail in the light of HS2 Ltd’s recommended route for such a line should begin in the autumn”?

Does the Minister agree that HS2 Ltd should now begin similar detailed planning work on the routes from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, to be completed by summer 2011 with a view to consulting the public early in 2012? What steps do the Government intend to take to establish a company or other mechanism to deliver the project? What is their target date, in broad terms, for work to start on a new line?

Are the Government still committed to a high speed network that will serve the whole UK, including Edinburgh and Glasgow? I certainly hope that they are. If they are committed to that, do they have any views on the route that such a line should take, and when do they envisage that the line will reach Edinburgh and Glasgow? It will be unacceptable if there is not a commitment from the start that the line will reach Scotland, because high speed rail will bring real economic benefits to the cities and regions along the route, and those cities that are either not directly linked or that have indirect links with the network would certainly lose out.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He suggested the need for a commitment that the high speed network would run to Edinburgh, but I do not recall ever hearing that commitment from the previous Labour Administration before the general election.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The previous Government made it clear from the outset that high speed train services would reach Edinburgh and Glasgow in due course. As the hon. Gentleman should know, I have been pushing for high speed rail for some time. I pushed the previous Government, and I intend to push this Government as hard as I pushed the previous one. If he wants high speed rail to go to places north of Manchester, I hope that he will put the same kind of pressure on his Government as I used to put on mine. I believe that we all want high speed rail to serve the nations and regions of the UK, so let us try to keep up the consensus and the pressure.

As I said, there are real economic benefits for all the communities and cities along the route of a high speed line. Research shows that cutting the journey time between Birmingham and London from 84 to 49 minutes would increase Birmingham’s annual economic output by £1.4 billion, or about 6%. The economic benefits of high speed rail would be more than £10 billion a year for the north-west and about £19 billion for Scotland. In total, 64,000 additional jobs would be created as a consequence.

There is an overwhelming case for extending the line to Scotland, to increase the number of business and tourist passengers travelling not just to and from London, but from the north of England to Scotland. Prosperity would spread much more than if the line were restricted to the south and south-east of England, and the UK as a whole would benefit as a result.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important subject. He will know that my predecessor John Barrett also worked tirelessly on this matter, and I intend to continue his support for it in this Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest argument for extending the high speed rail line is an environmental one? For example, if we manage to drive London to Edinburgh journey times down to two hours 40 minutes, which is eminently possible, there would be a similar switch from air to rail, as happened when the Madrid to Barcelona line opened. That resulted in a 50% reduction in the number of flights between the two cities. If the same happened with Edinburgh and London, there would be 700,000 fewer air journeys between them.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Indeed, there has been increased use of the Manchester to London service as a result of the upgrade to the west coast main line, and we have seen the same with the London to Paris and Brussels services as well.

The point that the hon. Gentleman made about the benefits from reducing journey times particularly applies in respect of cities that are further away from London. The greatest journey time reductions will allow the greatest benefits in environmental and economic terms—and, indeed, in terms of convenience to passengers. That is why I hope that the Government will give a definite commitment to extend high speed rail to the north of England and to Scotland.

As the hon. Gentleman said, environmental benefits will be particularly important. Transport currently accounts for more than 20% of UK carbon emissions, so high speed rail has a role to play in that respect as well. Reducing journey times from London to Edinburgh to just over two hours could result in 80% of the current travel market between Scotland and London being captured by high speed rail. Even at three hours, with a partial high speed rail network, 67% of the travel between Scotland and London could be captured by high speed rail, so there are certainly environmental and transport benefits as well as economic ones.

In that respect, I have two other questions that I hope the Minister will address today or at another time. First, what is the Government’s view on whether the line should run to Heathrow or a connector station at Heathrow, or simply offer a connecting service, as the previous Government advocated? I am aware that there were criticisms of that decision, and I believe that she shared them. Certainly she made such criticisms before she was a Minister, so I would be interested to hear her current view on whether the line should serve Heathrow directly.

I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on whether there should be a link from a new high speed line north of London to the existing line from London to the south-east, France, Belgium and beyond. If there were no link—I hope there will be one—passengers from Scotland and the north would be less likely to use the high speed rail line for journeys to the continent, and travellers from the continent would be less likely to use it to travel north. Clearly, if there were no direct link, there would be less use of those services as well.

I hope that today the Minister can give some indication of how the Government will take the plans forward, and to answer the questions in their entirety, or at least to a great extent. I would like to hear a reiteration of the commitments that were given before the general election. I hope that today we will not hear from the Government any excuses that, because of the financial situation they claim to have inherited—we had all those excuses yesterday in the debate on the Queen’s Speech—they cannot make any further commitment to high speed rail at this stage.

I hope that we will not get that line later this morning. It would be unacceptable for several reasons. First, it should hardly surprise the Government parties that a high speed line would require major expense. If they did not realise that, they should not have made such sweeping promises in their manifestos. Secondly, the spending on high speed rail would, of course, be some time in the future. There will be many years of preparation involving planning, legal and parliamentary approval and so on. We are talking about commitments that will last for 10, 20 or 30 years, and I do not believe that anyone—not even those in the Government parties who make the most pessimistic forecasts—would suggest that the current economic circumstances will last for 10, 20 or 30 years.

Thirdly, the commitments, although large in their totality, are not actually as substantial as many other Government commitments. The cost of a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is estimated at £30 billion spread over 10 years. Compared with many other Government commitments, that is not as expensive as might be thought at first. And, of course, there are the wider economic benefits that I have already set out and the fact that the costs of high speed rail do not all have to come from public subsidy. Some of the public subsidy would be recouped from commercial income from passenger and goods traffic if the traffic projections and estimates are reflected in reality.

On the extension to Scotland, there are issues around the role in linking up services and the financial commitment from the Scottish Government as part of the devolution arrangements. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about what discussions the coalition and her Department are having with the Scottish Government on how high speed rail could be funded in Scotland, and on how it would link up with existing rail services in Scotland.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. The economic, transport and environmental benefits of a working high speed system are well known, but the gap between transport investment in the south-east and London and that in the rest of the country has been growing. It is not just that there is a gap but that it has been growing. Does he think that there is a case for starting to invest in the system not in London but much farther north, and then building south, rather than building north from the south?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend makes a good case and raises valid points. He is right to point out that there has been a concentration of transport investment in the south-east of England. The Scottish Government have a role to play in developing services beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, but, bluntly, it would be wrong for Scotland to pay for the bit from the border northward because, after all, it is part of the same UK-wide service. The same would apply to Manchester and the regions of England as well.

In this debate, I have avoided getting too involved in the exact details of routes, apart from the important exception of Heathrow, and exactly when and where they will start, because the case for high speed rail as a whole is in danger of being undermined by discussion of some of the detail. However, I accept my hon. Friend’s fundamental point: there is no reason why work should start from London and move northward, or why it cannot start from some other city at the same time. Clearly, phasing would allow benefits to be brought to other places en route, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that in due course.

The method of securing funding for a new line also has a bearing on another important issue in this debate, which is the environmental case to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) referred. By itself, high speed rail does not guarantee substantial carbon reductions. Certain arguments and research make that clear. Carbon reductions depend partly on the energy source providing the electricity, how the route is to be constructed and, to a great extent, on the degree to which there is a modal shift from air and road to rail as a result of high speed rail services being developed.

A modal shift can be encouraged by shifting expenditure from new roads to high speed rail, which I support, and by using transport taxation to encourage that shift and raise the funds for public investment in high speed rail. The Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition suggested in its election manifesto that it would raise an extra £9 billion a year from airline and passenger taxation, and if that is taken forward in the agreement between the coalition parties it could provide substantial funds for high speed rail. I am interested in hearing the Minister, or any Liberal Democrat colleagues, respond to that point.

I am sure that the Minister is not surprised that I have asked a lot of questions. I hope that she will respond as far as she can. I pay tribute to her commitment to high speed rail before the election. Like all Ministers, she will no doubt have battles to fight in her Department and beyond to keep high speed rail firmly at the top of the Government’s agenda, and I am sure that she expects me and other colleagues to pursue these matters vigorously if she does not. I hope that she gives us good news today—reaffirms the Government’s commitment to high speed rail and tells right hon. and hon. Members how she will bring it about.

09:51

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport, who will respond to the debate. I hope that she will forgive me, and that hon. and right hon. Members will do so too, if I am unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. I am standing for the chairmanship of an all-party group, the annual general meeting of which is being convened this morning at a time to suit colleagues in another place.

The comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) demonstrate and reinforce a point about high speed rail that Lord Adonis made to me before the general election, which was that everyone wants the stations but no one wants the track. We will all have to manage that in bringing about a commitment made by both Government parties in their manifestos at the general election and in the coalition agreement, which is in the Queen’s Speech and is expected to be delivered.

I shall not repeat any of the sensible questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer. I wish to ask three specific questions on various points.

First, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it would help if, at some point in the near future, she wrote a “Dear colleague” letter to every colleague in the House, setting out in straightforward terms the legislative process and the timetable that the Government intend to pursue, so that we can share them with our constituents? It is a pity that the previous Government brought the project forward just before the general election. We all understand why: the previous Prime Minister wanted to make what he thought was a decent press announcement—he went to Birmingham to make it—but that meant that the process got rather confused. It would help if hon. and right hon. Members were able to share the relevant information with our constituents.

Secondly, on speed, Eurostar goes at 300 kph—186 mph —and those of us who have been on it know that that is pretty fast. High Speed 2 is due to go at 400 kph, which is 250 mph and considerably faster than Eurostar. More straight track is needed for a very fast train, which means less opportunity for mitigation or variation of the route to accommodate settlements, towns or important topographical features. I hope that, at some stage, there will be an opportunity to have an informed debate about what are the cost-benefits of a very fast train as opposed to a fast train, and what is the real benefit of 250 mph over 186 mph, so that we can consider the options between them.

Thirdly, on community engagement, my right hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), Mr Speaker, whose constituency adjoins our constituencies, and I will be working together with our local communities, which are concerned about the possible impact of the route on them. The route runs close to the sizeable town of Brackley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. Will the Government consider complete alternatives to the routes in the consultation, to what extent are they willing to consider mitigation or variation of the existing route, how will they engage with the communities and how can that debate be informed?

It is important to put on the record what the Campaign to Protect Rural England has made clear:

“We welcome the vision of HS2 as a low carbon backbone of a sustainable transport system. By removing fast trains from the overcrowded lines north of London, space will be created for local passenger and freight services too.”

Even campaigning groups such as the CPRE recognise that there are considerable benefits to be had from HS2. However, such organisations have long experience in engaging with Government on issues of this kind. It would help if Ministers said how they intend to engage with our constituents and communities on the impact of the track on individual communities and constituencies.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport proposes to walk the route later in the summer, which seems sensible. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking that, when that happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will engage with colleagues so that we can ensure that, in respect of each constituency or groups of constituencies, there can be positive, constructive engagement between him and local communities on comments people have to make about mitigation or variation of the route?

I would like to emphasise a point made forcefully by the CPRE. It is evident that people are keen on the stations, because those will make linkage between parts of the United Kingdom much quicker and obviate the need for a third runway at Heathrow. There are all sorts of self-evident benefits. However, the benefits are not so self-evident for those who have the track going through their parishes or back gardens.

The benefit to people of a motorway going through their county or area is that it is part of the local infrastructure, and they can join and leave it. There will not be a station between London and Birmingham, so those living in that area will have limited direct benefit from HS2. However, there may be other ways in which communities can be compensated so that damage might be mitigated—for example, undergrounding existing electricity transmission lines on the HS2 route, creating new local rail services and reducing noise from existing roads.

The CPRE suggests:

“Some of the spare capacity freed up on rail lines could be used to create new cross-country passenger services”,

such as a High Wycombe-Aylesbury-Northampton route. It is important that when my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State engage with local communities on the route of HS2 across England they consider the benefits that the initiative and project may have for local communities, so that we see not just clear mitigation, but a clear and immediate local benefit, rather than just a contribution to an initiative for the betterment of the country as a whole.

If we engage constructively and sensibly in dialogue during the coming months and if we all have a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve, that will assist the Government and substantially reduce the risk of numerous judicial reviews. As my right hon. Friend knows, nothing is more frustrating when timing a Government project than various parties feeling frustrated by the process and that they need to go to judicial review.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post and hope that, following our questioning today, she will write to us all in the not-too-distant future with a clear explanation that we can share with our constituents, who are, understandably, worried about the process.

10:01

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on obtaining this timely debate on an undoubtedly important issue. Those of us who use the midland main line—I know that you do, Mr Betts—are well aware of the enormous success of High Speed 1, not least because when we arrive at St Pancras we must fight our way through the crowds disgorged from trains from Paris and Brussels.

The prospect of another high-speed line in the United Kingdom is exciting, and I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that prospect and the fact that the new Government have picked up the previous Government’s commitment to construct such a line. However, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, it will have an environmental price, and he was right to remind us that there will be a trade-off between speed and the environmental damage that that might cause. I urge the Government to examine that trade-off carefully, and to consider whether there are prospects for using existing transport corridors to achieve the same results at a lower environmental cost.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to the difference between this Government’s proposals and those of the previous one for the service to Heathrow. There are serious doubts about whether it is sensible to use Heathrow as a terminus for the high-speed line instead of somewhere that is well served with a link to the high-speed line. It is unlikely that someone travelling from London to Birmingham or Manchester would want their journey to be diverted via Heathrow. That would not make much sense to them. The benefits of serving Heathrow may be achieved in another way by ensuring an adequate link to the airport instead of diverting the line.

I want to take this opportunity, when welcoming the Government’s commitment to high-speed rail, to press them for an assurance that construction of such a line in phases at some time in the future—who knows when it will be constructed?—should not be at the expense of continuing investment in the existing classic or conventional network. Parts of that network are undoubtedly under desperate strain and people who travel on it—often those who commute daily—must stand for much of their journey. Much could be done to relieve their suffering with continued investment in rolling stock, on which the previous Government had made a commitment, and in longer platforms and a generally better service.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is going to the nub of the debate on future investment in the rail service. Given the time required for the development of high-speed rail, I do not believe that it is a threat to regional services. Does he agree that the real choice before the Government and the country is whether to continue with Crossrail or with regional services, and that we simply cannot afford Crossrail at the moment?

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Having served for some 18 months on the Select Committee that considered the Crossrail Bill, I have a personal commitment to its completion. My hon. Friend argued earlier that investment in rail has been skewed towards London and the south-east at the expense of other parts of the country, but that is not an argument for ditching what is an important part of the transport infrastructure in our capital city.

There is concern that high-speed rail may be seen as a panacea. It should not be built at the expense of the investment that the Association of Train Operating Companies argued for to open lines that are unused or used for goods, and the opportunities that would be generated thereby for reconnecting to the rail network communities that are currently unconnected. Above all, it should not be used as a pretext for not continuing the investment in electrification of the main line network.

Like you, Mr Betts, I am keen that electrification of the midland main line should be completed as soon as possible. It is already electrified as far as Bedford, and completion of electrification through to my city of Leicester and to Derby, Nottingham and your city of Sheffield, Mr Betts, will provide considerable positive cost benefits to rail users, and to the economies of the east midlands and your area of south Yorkshire, with a boost to the economy and general environment of those areas. I am worried that even if the second high-speed link is ultimately achieved and goes to somewhere in the east midlands, it will be of little benefit to those who are currently served by the midland main line if electrification of that line has not taken place and there is no link to St Pancras International and High Speed 1.

I doubt whether anyone would oppose investment in further high-speed rail in the UK. There are doubts about whether its fares will be affordable and attract a significant proportion of air passengers who would otherwise pass through Heathrow. My real concern is that it should not draw funding that would otherwise go to the conventional network. It must not lead to postponement of electrification of the existing mainline network, it must not leave rail commuters standing in unacceptable conditions on their daily commute to work, it must not leave unconnected communities that could be connected to the network, and it must not leave passengers and the environment with the prospect of old and smelly diesel traction for many years to come when relatively environmentally friendly electrification is a real possibility.

In brief, users of the existing network are unlikely to be impressed by half-promises of high-speed rail in phases, perhaps a decade and a half away, while they continue to struggle to use an existing network that is overstretched, overused and in desperate need of continued investment.

10:09

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on an informative speech, particularly about the benefits of high-speed rail. I shall look up some of his statistics in Hansard for my own use. My constituency is in the west midlands and includes Birmingham International airport and the national exhibition centre. I shall take account of the comments made this morning, but I shall confine my remarks to the first phase of High Speed 2, for which I am a strong advocate.

Passenger numbers have risen by 40%, and freight has increased by 60% over the last five years. Clearly, there is a big appetite in this country for high-speed rail and the benefits that it can bring, which were so ably outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We need a dedicated high-speed rail line that is independent of the creaking Victorian network, although that network has served us well in the past and continues to do so. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that any improvements or new rail services must not be made at the expense of the existing network. We must ensure that the service improves for those who currently use our creaking commuter network, which should not be neglected in favour of high-speed rail.

We have the prospect of being able to travel from Euston to Curzon Street in Birmingham in 49 minutes. According to my figures, the train speed is 225 mph, although the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned 250 mph; either way, it is fast. We hope there will be a Crossrail interchange at Old Oak Common and we support the idea that Crossrail must go ahead; it is hugely important. Funding for Crossrail and High Speed 2 can be imaginatively secured, with a large proportion of investment coming from private industry or from some form of national infrastructure bank, as recommended by the Liberal Democrats before the general election. I am sure that it can be done and that the benefits can be proved.

We expect this phase of HS2 to start in 2017, and to have passengers on the trains in 2026. That is a long time, and I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who intervened earlier to ask where we should start. If we can get the funding, perhaps we should start at both ends of the line so that it does not take such a long time to complete the network. I am sure the Government will look at that.

It is not all good news. There are many planning considerations and much of the investment in the first phase of HS2 will go on existing railway lines such as the Chiltern line, which will track the A413. I have a particular concern for parts of the Warwickshire countryside in the west midlands. People must be consulted properly, which, for me, means that there is no foregone conclusion—otherwise, it is not a consultation. There must be proper compensation for anyone who suffers as a result of these plans. When a second runway at Birmingham International airport was proposed, a terrible blight was created which in some cases still hangs over residents in the local area. It is important to avoid that blight, as it puts people’s lives on hold and creates more misery than is necessary. On the bright side, according to research by the Department for Transport, which I read this morning, every reduction of one minute to a commuter journey adds £1,000 to the value of a house in the relevant area. Somebody will benefit, although I am not sure who that will be in the west midlands.

The justification for HS2 must be that it is part of a wider strategy. Like the previous Government, this Government are committed to a strong carbon reduction programme. We must show that we will shift people away from the roads and the air and on to rail. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the Liberal Democrat plans, and part of the coalition agreement was that we will move from passenger charges on planes to a charge per plane. That will help in the reduction of carbon.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind comments about my opening speech. I am aware of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy of moving away from individual taxation. However, I think that the Liberal Democrat manifesto also suggested a potential increase in duty, which I welcome. Is that part of the coalition policy?

[Lorely Burt]

I am afraid that it is above my pay grade to comment further on that. The coalition Government will be working on this issue, and the Minister may wish to refer to it in her remarks.

Increasing people’s ability to travel is a bit like Boyle’s law—demand expands in relation to the existing capacity. We have seen that with the motorway network. Every time new roads are built or a motorway is enlarged, traffic increases more than would be expected under normal predictions. We must be careful about that. During the three weeks the Minister has spent in her job, I do not know whether she has given any thought to how we can make it easier for people to travel less. That must obviously be an aspiration.

I will conclude by considering some of the economic benefits that HS2 would bring to the west midlands. In terms of employment, we have probably been the hardest hit of any region. We have a strong manufacturing base, but that has also been hit hard by the recession. On behalf of people in the west midlands, I am looking forward hugely to the airport link. The extension of the single runway at Birmingham International airport will mean huge inward investment, and along with the high-speed rail link to London and the north, that will make the west midlands a central economic hub, which I welcome.

The national exhibition centre will benefit hugely from the fact that High Speed 2 will stop there before moving on to Curzon Street in Birmingham. It is important to get on with this scheme. I am sure that we can use our imagination and ability so as not to damage the existing rail network, which we must work on and improve. High Speed 2 is a wonderful thing, but it is not everything. We must look at the whole picture and ensure that the experience of the rail traveller—whether on High Speed 2 or on local railways—is a good one.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is the last speaker who wishes to be called in the debate. Let me advise him that I intend to start with the contributions of the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am.

10:18

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on the important subject of high speed rail. It is an issue that affects both his constituents and mine due to likelihood that under the current proposals, it will have no impact on them whatever. Historically, UK Governments have failed Wales on rail, and the refusal to provide a timetable for the development of a high speed rail link has put us on the backburner once again.

The last UK Government agreed to electrify the Great Western line to Swansea because of the hard work of the Transport Minister in the Welsh Government. When the previous UK Government announced the scheme, it was supposed to go only as far as Bristol, and only after the intervention of the Welsh Government did they agree to electrify the line as far as Swansea. I understand that the Conservatives have always been coy about sticking to that agreement. Will the new UK Government confirm that that electrification will take place?

Will the Government also confirm that the electrification will go further in Wales, as part of their commitment to support further electrification of the rail network? That would include, for example, the north Wales coast line, the valleys lines and the Severn tunnel diversionary line, as recommended by Railfuture Wales. In Europe, Wales is alongside Albania and Moldova in not having more than a mile of electrified rail track. What more proof do we need that the UK Government are leaving us behind?

More than just electrification of the railway lines, we need a concrete timetable for high speed rail in Wales. The proposal for a Wales high speed rail connection was first put forward by First Great Western in 2005, as part of the package of suggestions that it was making for improved rail services, linked to its bid for the new Great Western franchise. However, we are no closer to having such a connection now than we were then.

The former shadow Secretary of State for Transport, who is now the Minister of State, said only in March:

“Our plans to take high speed rail to the North will boost jobs and investment right across the country and bring particularly strong benefits to the regions. We believe it is essential that the North is not short changed and left out of high speed rail and the major regeneration opportunities it will generate.”

Naturally, I agree with every word about the benefits that high speed rail will bring to those regions, but it cannot be right that Wales does not share in those benefits. At the moment, high speed rail is an England-only project that will be funded from UK money. That cannot be right.

A genuine High Speed 2 network needs to include Scotland and Wales and connect with the south-east of England and the continent, bringing us closer to major international markets and them closer to us, giving us major business opportunities and helping to tackle climate change by reducing short-haul air travel. Otherwise, the UK Government should just admit that high speed rail is really for England only and give us a Barnett consequential, so that we can get on with the job of developing our own network in Wales.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is painting a strong picture of how we need a countrywide network, including Wales and Scotland. Is he aware of the High Speed North proposal by the Harrogate-based engineer, Colin Elliff? That is a real vision for a nationwide network—something that the previous Government did not properly consider. I hope that the new Government will properly consider it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I was not aware of those proposals, but I imagine that the UK Government should be examining them closely, because the key point is that if we are to go for a high speed rail network based on a UK Treasury spend, the benefits should apply to all the nations and regions of the state.

We would like a timetable and costings to be developed for a high speed rail link between south Wales and London, preferably as part of the current scheme but even as part of High Speed 3. Perhaps as a matter of good faith, the work on that could begin at the south Wales end. That would certainly be the far cheaper part of the development. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

10:22

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing this crucial debate on high speed rail. He spoke with real authority on behalf of many businesses and rail passengers in his constituency, and throughout the UK, who recognise the transformative effects that investment in high speed rail will bring: a stronger economy with the creation of new jobs in the construction and maintenance of the new high speed lines; a modern transport infrastructure to match those in the rest of Europe; improved business links between London and the other major cities in the UK; and increased tourism and environmental benefits, with many more journeys being made by rail than by short-haul aviation.

Let me also praise the contributions of the other hon. Members who participated in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby) and the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who spoke eloquently about the need for consultation. There was a passionate contribution from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on the need for a UK perspective on high speed rail and its extension to Wales.

This is a project of genuine national importance, and our task in the coming years will be to work across this Chamber to ensure that High Speed 2 is completed on schedule. The aim of Opposition Members is to fulfil the vision in the Command Paper published this spring—to start with construction of the high speed line between Euston and Birmingham and then to extend it to Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, we see great advantages in expanding the high speed rail network to Edinburgh and Glasgow in due course, subject to consultations with the Scottish Government, as it would involve significant capital expenditure from that source.

In my first appearance as Opposition transport spokesman, I welcome the Minister of State to her position in the Department for Transport. I look forward to our discussions here and in the main Chamber over the coming months. They may be robust at times, but they will never be intemperate. In opposition, she demonstrated a keen commitment to the principle of high speed rail and if that continues in government, she will have our support in the negotiations that she undertakes with the Treasury to secure the financing to make High Speed 2 a reality, on time and on target.

I have had an opportunity to consider “The Spending Review framework” published yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I note that all Departments will be asked to assess and justify their spending priorities against nine criteria, which include the promotion of economic value. In the Opposition’s view, even when those criteria are applied, HS2 is a project of national economic necessity, which must escape the Chancellor’s programme for fiscal consolidation.

I place on the record our appreciation for the work done by former Ministers Paul Clark and Chris Mole, who, sadly from our perspective, were not returned to the House to represent the constituencies of Gillingham and Rainham and of Ipswich respectively. We wish them well for the future. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), will hold the Government to account on their transport pledges in the coalition agreement and continue to advocate the causes that he advanced while in government.

I also pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Adonis, who was one of the most visionary Secretaries of State for Transport that Britain has had in the past 60 years, with a powerful commitment to the role of a revived railway network in boosting economic growth, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, through his strategic support for HS2, building the modern transport infrastructure that a decent, just society requires.

In the Command Paper published in March by the previous Government, we sought to avoid some of the problems in the consultation process for the first domestic high speed link, from central London to Ashford, by consulting on a single preferred route between Euston and Birmingham, rather than the choice of five routes in the first high speed rail consultation process. No route in a project of this significance will be without controversy, which is why there must be adequate consultation of the affected communities, together with consultation on the exceptional hardship scheme for those whose properties may be affected by proximity to the preferred route. We note that the Government have slightly extended the period for consultation on the hardship scheme until 17 June and have introduced a shadow scheme for immediate introduction. We would support both those measures.

There has been strong support from rail passengers, business and local government in the cities covered by the proposed new high speed rail network, because they recognise the real benefits that high speed rail will bring to their cities. For example, journey times from London to Birmingham will come down to 49 minutes, and those from Leeds to Canary Wharf will come down to 90 minutes. Even with regard to the first part of the network, my constituents in Glasgow would immediately benefit, with a reduction in the journey time from Glasgow to Euston to about 3 hours 30 minutes. That makes high speed rail genuinely competitive for business, passengers and tourists compared with short-haul flights from Scotland to London airports.

Some 10,000 jobs will be created in the construction of the high speed line, with a further 2,000 permanent jobs created in line maintenance and operation. There are great environmental benefits, given that high speed rail emits between eight and 11 times less carbon dioxide than air travel. There will be an increase in the freight capacity available by rail. There will be a boost to the west midlands economy to the tune of £5.3 billion a year, and to the north-west economy of £10.6 billion a year. If extension of the network to Scotland proceeds, there will be a benefit of nearly £20 billion to the economy there. As the work of HS2 Ltd made clear, every £1 spent on high speed rail yields £2 in economic benefit to the nation.

I would appreciate it if the Minister of State clarified several points. Will she confirm the Government’s priorities and intentions on the route set out in the previous Government’s Command Paper? Will Ministers commence the consultation on that route, which the previous Government planned to start in October? Are the Government committed to the Y-shaped network that HS2 Ltd proposed in the Command Paper or is that being abandoned for an alternative structure?

Will the Minister outline the time scale that the Government envisage for the commencement of the construction of the first part of the network? My party’s plans were predicated on connectivity with Crossrail and Heathrow Express, with an interchange station at Old Oak Common and fast links to Heathrow airport, Canary Wharf and beyond. The proposed connectivity between Crossrail and HS2 meant that we wanted to complete the construction of Crossrail by 2015 and to commence the construction of the London to Birmingham high speed line in 2017. Do the Government agree about the need to link Crossrail with High Speed 2? Are their plans based on the completion of Crossrail in 2015?

In opposition, the Minister was committed to plans for a high speed rail hub at Heathrow airport. Are those the Government’s plans now? Does the Minister propose to alter the terms of reference or the time scale of Lord Mawhinney’s review into the practicality of a high speed rail station at Heathrow airport?

Can the Minister give a pledge that none of the cities that the previous Government proposed to link through the new high speed network will be left behind or left out? Specifically, does she agree in principle that we need a network that serves the major northern English cities? Does she plan to begin talks with the Scottish Government over possible network extension to Scotland in due course?

Has the Minister’s Department begun work on preparing the hybrid Bill that would need to be presented to Parliament to make the new network a reality in this Parliament? Will she give a pledge today that the Government will commit to the long-term investment required to make the project a success?

The high speed rail project is of genuine national significance, and the Opposition will not play petty or partisan politics with it. I hope that we will be able to work across the House to secure a rail link worthy of a great country entering the 21st century.

10:32

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing a debate on this important topic. For many of the reasons that he so articulately set out in opening the debate, the issue is significant for the future of our transport system, our economy and our environment,

I can assure hon. Members that high speed rail plays a core role in the new Government’s vision for the future of travel in the United Kingdom. I am therefore grateful for the strong support that has been displayed across the parties in the debate, and particularly by the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). That support has been reflected in many speeches this morning, and I welcome the contributions from not only the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I shall address a number of the issues that they raised. As well as supporting high speed rail, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reflected on some of the issues for local communities that might be affected once a route is chosen. I will come to that later.

The Conservatives championed high speed rail in opposition. We transformed debate on the issue in October 2008, when we pledged to start the long process of building a national network. At the time, the Labour Government had dismissed high speed rail as an option, and their 30-year strategy for the railways contained no place for it. Nevertheless, I very much welcome the change of heart that occurred after our announcement and with the appointment of Lord Adonis. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East in welcoming and paying tribute to the work that Lord Adonis did on the issue.

The change of heart from the previous Government signalled the emergence of a broader cross-party consensus on the principle that high speed rail is essential for Britain’s transport system. The new Government’s support for high speed rail was clearly and explicitly included in the coalition agreement. Our programme for government includes the creation of a high speed rail network. Our ambition is the creation of a genuinely national high speed network, although we recognise that that will have to be achieved in phases over a number of years. However, in answer to the questions about that national network, let me say that a genuinely national network of course embraces destinations in the east midlands, Scotland and Wales—the areas that have been specifically highlighted this morning.

Let me take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government’s ambitions for high speed rail do not stop at Birmingham. Although the previous Administration had a change of heart on high speed rail, their focus was still just on detailed plans for a route to Birmingham. It is manifestly clear that we will not reap the full benefits of high speed rail unless we go much further than the west midlands, important though a link to the west midlands obviously is. We want to make progress as rapidly as possible towards the creation of a national network that connects to the rest of Europe via the channel tunnel.

In opposition, both coalition partners emphasised the importance of taking high speed rail to Scotland. It is clear in the devolution settlement that the Scottish Government are responsible for rail infrastructure north of the border. Delivering cross-border high speed rail services and a cross-border high speed rail line would therefore obviously require close co-operation and careful joint working between Holyrood and Westminster on a range of issues, including, of course, funding. That is why, in my role in opposition, I visited Scotland for constructive talks with John Swinney on how that co-operation might go forward. There are extensive and close contacts between the Department for Transport and its counterparts in Scotland. The Secretary of State also looks forward to working with his Scottish counterpart in developing a high speed rail strategy that incorporates Scotland.

Issues relating to the timetable were at the heart of the questions from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The Secretary of State is considering the timetable set out by HS2 Ltd. He is also considering questions relating to the integration of Heathrow into the high speed rail network, which I will come to in due course. He will report to Parliament in due course on the timetable and on how things will be taken forward. However, the intention is to go forward with the consultation as promptly as possible, after that statement to Parliament.

The Government intend to present a hybrid Bill during this Parliament. We also intend to start enabling work by 2015. That is a somewhat more aggressive timetable than that set by the previous Government, but we are determined—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith questioned me on this—to take the process forward promptly. Further work is already under way on lines beyond Birmingham. We will also continue to assess the appropriate delivery vehicles.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I thank the Minister for her answers so far, but may I be clear about one point? She said that she envisaged work starting in 2015, but what kind of work does she mean? Such work would be welcome, but 2015 is quite soon, so perhaps she will elucidate.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the intention is for enabling work to start in 2015. Given that there will be a detailed and expansive consultation process before decisions are made on a route, it would not be appropriate or realistic for me to say exactly what type of work we would intend to start by 2015 and in what locations.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

The Minister has talked about a route going beyond Birmingham, and about Scotland. Do the Government remain committed to the Y-shaped link that was part of the previous Government’s proposals?

[Mrs Villiers]

The previous Government talked about a line north of Birmingham, but had no clear commitment. It was the Conservatives who championed a national network that would bring the benefits of high speed rail to a wider range of areas than was envisaged in the core part of the previous Government’s proposals.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fares, and it is important that the high speed rail line should be affordable for ordinary families. The analysis done by the Conservative party in opposition and by HS2 Ltd under the previous Government makes it clear that the line will be affordable and deliverable with a contribution from future fares revenue, even with fares that are reasonable and broadly in line with existing levels on existing services. We can deliver the line without necessarily assuming that the fares will be unreasonable and out of the reach of ordinary families.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

I thank the Minister for her response on fares, but she did not respond to my question about the Y-shaped link. I am interested in the link not north but east of Birmingham, serving the east midlands, south Yorkshire and, of course, the north-east.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have made clear, our ambition is a national network, and we believe that it is vital to make progress promptly and to ensure that we achieve the benefits of high speed rail as widely as possible. We have also made it clear that merely going to Birmingham is not enough. We need to ensure that other parts of the country share in the benefits of high speed rail. We shall publish details of the timetable in due course.

[Greg Mulholland]

I welcome the Minister to her new job. She is aware that I have been heavily involved in the lobbying campaign for a direct high speed link to Yorkshire, working with you, Mr Betts, and with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in a cross-party campaign with the Yorkshire Post—its “Fast Track to Yorkshire” campaign. The Y shape is not the only way to create a direct link to Yorkshire and the important cities of Sheffield and Leeds, which are the economic hubs of their areas. The High Speed North proposal merits further consideration. May we be clear, and have a commitment that the Government will, when the relevant phase happens, create a direct link to Yorkshire—not a link via Manchester, which does not make sense?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have made it clear that the ambition is to create a national network, and it is of course vital that the north of England, Manchester and Yorkshire should be included in that network. In due course, decisions will be taken about the exact route to be selected. However, as I have emphasised, there is a long process to be undertaken before final decisions are made on the route for new high speed rail lines.

The case for high speed rail is undeniable. It has the potential to make a huge contribution to the long-term prosperity of the country and the efficiency of its transport system, and it can play a crucial role in achieving the goal of a lower-carbon economy. In the next 20 to 30 years, key inter-urban routes are likely to become increasingly congested, with negative consequences for our economy and quality of life. High speed rail could provide a massive uplift in capacity, as well as dramatically reduced journey times.

We have been discussing the areas to be served directly by high speed rail, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a high speed network also relieves pressure and overcrowding on existing railways. It allows more space for commuting and freight services, so it produces significant benefits for passengers and the economy even in areas that are not directly served by a line or station. It will create huge benefits in growth, regeneration and jobs, which will be felt far more widely than in the destinations directly served by new lines and services. I believe that it will provide valuable help in addressing long-standing prosperity differences between the south-east and the rest of the country, and thus create a more stable and balanced economy.

To return to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Leicester South, of course it is vital, in parallel with taking high speed rail forward, to continue a programme of work on upgrading and improving the existing rail network.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

On that point, I would be very grateful if the Minister gave way again.

[Mrs Villiers]

I would rather make a little progress. I have been very generous in giving way, so I will proceed with my remarks for a moment.

We all acknowledge that there is a downside to the proposals—the impact on the environment of the localities through which new lines could go. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury explained, hon. Members have understandable concerns about the potential impact of high speed rail on their constituents. The Government of course recognise the gravity of those concerns. There will be a detailed and inclusive process before final decisions are made about our approach to high speed rail overall, and the route it should follow. I am happy to engage with colleagues and hon. Members during the process. It goes without saying that reducing and mitigating the local environmental impact of high speed rail will always be a high priority for the Government in advancing the project. It will inform our decisions on the selection of the route.

I am happy to take on board my hon. Friend’s ideas on benefiting the communities that may be subject to the environmental impact of high speed rail lines. Ideas are already under discussion about the possibility of burying power lines, and the new Government’s commitment to high speed rail has already brought about a benefit, because it has enabled us to say with confidence that we strongly oppose a third runway at Heathrow. The fact that it will not go ahead provides significant benefits for some communities that may be affected by high speed rail, because there will not be the massive uplift in aircraft noise to which many of them might have been subjected had the election gone a different way and if a Labour Government had been elected and proceeded with their plans. As to existing transport corridors, in assessing the route, the potential benefits of their use will be fully considered. However, that approach is not a panacea. It cannot provide the answer in all cases, but it is worth considering.

We made it plain before the election that we reserved our position on the route that HS2 has recommended. The process of formal consultation on the hybrid Bill will provide extensive opportunities for people to make their voice heard and have their point of view properly and fairly considered before a route is finalised. We also recognise that concerns in that respect are not confined to fears about the future. In some places, the impact is being felt today in the instability of local property markets.

A key goal for the new Government is to press ahead expeditiously, taking on board the continuing consultation, with the finalising of arrangements for an exceptional hardship scheme, so that we can swiftly and equitably give assistance to those who most need it. The consultation is due to end in a week, and we shall look with great care at the respondents’ suggestions in deciding how to proceed.

As part of the work that we are doing to reconsider and review the HS2 proposals on the route, we need to find the right option for connecting Heathrow to the new network. As we made clear in opposition, we believe that it is vital to integrate the country’s only major long-haul hub airport to the high-speed rail network that we propose to build. Lord Mawhinney was asked by the previous Government to assess the alternatives. His review was established against the background of Labour’s policy of supporting a third runway at Heathrow.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, one of the first acts of the new Secretary of State was to agree with Lord Mawhinney an amendment to his remit, to reflect the approach of the coalition. The new Government strongly oppose a new runway at Heathrow, as the Prime Minister confirmed and reiterated in one of his first actions on taking office. Heathrow needs to be better, not bigger. A key part of our programme for improving it is to integrate the airport into the proposed new high speed rail network. That would improve public transport links to the airport, and help to relieve the problems with air quality and congestion in the area by encouraging people to switch from road to rail when travelling to Heathrow.

In response to questions on the subject, we are obviously carefully considering whether high speed rail could be integrated with Crossrail. As a number of colleagues said, integrating Heathrow should also facilitate a major shift from air to rail. Experience in Europe shows that high speed rail provides an attractive alternative to short-haul flights. For example, Air France has completely stopped flights between Paris and Brussels, choosing instead to charter carriages on the TGV rail link.

Maximising the scope for switching from air to rail is an important goal in environmental terms, as high speed trains emit significantly less carbon than aviation. Indeed, the gap between the train and the plane is likely to widen as we proceed with the vital task of cleaning up our electricity generation sources. A further benefit of the air-to-rail switch would be to free up space at Heathrow by providing an alternative to the thousands of short-haul flights going in and out of the airport. That is how we plan to relieve capacity pressure.

We believe also that it is essential to have a direct link between the new domestic line and existing international services on HS1, and we have asked HS2 Ltd urgently to assess the best way to deliver that. It would be a mistake to consider rail only in relation to domestic aviation when it is clearly a viable alternative for travelling to a number of important near European destinations such as Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

In conclusion—

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I am going to conclude. There is a huge task ahead of us as we contemplate delivering an infrastructure project as big as any since the 19th century, when the Victorians revolutionised our economy and our society with the nation’s first railway network. It is worth remembering that Britain’s first, and so far only, 68 miles of high-speed track owed much to the unlikely combination of John Prescott and Michael Heseltine. As we press forward with realising this great ambition, I hope that we can continue to count on cross-party support.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have given way on a number of occasions. I am now going to conclude.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister is indicating that she will not give way.

[Mrs Villiers]

I have no doubt that there will be difficult times ahead, not least in relation to decisions about the route and how we mitigate and reduce its impact on surrounding communities and the landscape. However, I firmly believe that future generations will thank us for displaying determination and persistence in delivering this crucial upgrade to our transport system. We need to inject some of the long-term thinking that transport policy has so often lacked in the past. The new Government are determined to rise to that challenge and deliver the high speed vision for Britain’s rail network—one that could have a transformative impact on our transport system, our economy and our quality of life.

10:53

Sitting suspended.

Transport (South Devon)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

There are many reasons why the people of south Devon, and of Torbay in particular, need better transport links. Coach, rail, sea, cycle and road vehicle transport all suffer from under-investment. Our main transport link with the motorway network is the A380, which is dualled between Telegraph Hill and the Penn Inn roundabout, and is then single lane between Newton Abbot and Torbay.

Torbay is the 40th largest urban conurbation in the country, and the only settlement of such a size with a single carriageway link road to the trunk road system. The resident population increases by 50% during the summer peak with the influx of holidaymakers. Many arrive in the area frustrated and angry as their inward journey is marred by congestion and delay between Newton Abbot and Torbay, and many leave early as a result. Torbay relies heavily on tourism for its livelihood and future prosperity. Its economy is one of the most difficult in the country, with the widest gulf between average earnings and house prices and some of the worst wards in the country in relation to indices of social deprivation. A recent shocking statistic is that 40% of Torbay’s children are now brought up in households living below the official poverty line. Reviving Torbay’s economy, therefore, needs to be at the centre of everything that the Government and the local authority do.

Research has shown that our biggest single drawback is our lack of connectivity, which is a serious disincentive to inward investment and a blight on regeneration. The south Devon link road, or Kingskerswell bypass, is vital to overcoming that problem. It will overcome many local problems of congestion, pollution and rat-running, thus creating a more sustainable quality of environment.

Torbay council and Devon county council have worked together to promote the scheme, and have so far committed some £6 million to achieve the necessary consents and funding. Both councils see the road as one of their highest priorities. The scheme is ready to proceed as soon as the funding is made available by the Department for Transport: there is a valid planning consent, the land acquisition and side-road orders have been served, and a public inquiry was held in October 2009 to hear objections. The inspectors’ report should have been, or will shortly be, presented to the Minister for confirmation.

The two councils have put the project out to tender and agreed on one bidder who has met all the quality criteria and, importantly, is within budget. Subject to funding and confirmation of orders, we are ready to start in the autumn. The cost of the scheme is £130 million, and the first spend of £8 million is anticipated in 2010-11 in accordance with the regional funding allocation. The road remains a top priority in the region. The application for full funding approval has been submitted to the DFT, and discussions with officials indicate there are no technical shortcomings in the submission. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

The history of the project has been fraught with delays and can be traced back to the early 1950s—to well before I was born. I cannot imagine any area the size of Torbay that has had to wait as long for a proper link to the country’s main road network. In 1951-52, a dualled carriageway was first included in the Devon country development plan. By 1959, a public inquiry had determined the actual line of the proposed road, but then Devon county council sought to change the proposed line and suggested an alternative route. In 1974, a revised three-lane dualled carriageway plan was suggested by the outgoing Devon county council. By 1976, having completed stage 1 of the Torbay ring road, the highways authority made a submission to the Department for Transport for the trunking of the A380 road in its entirety.

In 1976, at the end of another public consultation, Devon county council announced its preferred route. In 1981-82, the county council submitted its preferred route to the Department for Transport, with an application for 100% grant aid funding. In 1987, a public exhibition was held, following which an updated submission for grant aid was made together with a revised submission for the trunking of the A380 from Exeter through to Torquay.

In 1989, a Government White Paper entitled “Roads for Prosperity” included the trunking of the A380 between Exeter and Torquay together with the proposed £26 million scheme to dual a new two-lane carriageway. In 1990, a traffic survey on best value and an audit had to be carried out before the proposed scheme could go forward to draft order stage. In 1994, another national report, entitled “Trunk Roads in England Review”, was issued by the Department for Transport. It still included a proposed Kingskerswell bypass as a priority scheme in the national list.

In 1995, the Government announced that they would not be able to keep their commitment to the trunk road programme, and in a report entitled “Managing the Trunk Road Programme” the A380 was dropped from the priority list and transferred to the longer-term programme for the trunking of roads. In 1996, the Government de-trunked the A380 and transferred responsibility to Devon county council. In 1997, Labour won the general election, all road building was put on hold and it was decreed that existing infrastructure had to be exhausted before a new road could be considered. Two years later, the no-roads policy statement was reversed with an announcement by the then Deputy Prime Minister.

There have been at least three significant historical changes determining the decision-making process and the financing of roads since then. There have also been a couple of self-inflicted delays resulting from local government reorganisation: in 2003, Torbay left Devon to become a unitary authority, and in 2005 Torbay voted to have an elected mayor. None the less, most of the delay has been well beyond our local control. The road should have been built by now and should be playing its part as our route out of recession. At worst, it should be under construction, with the prospect locally of better times ahead; but it is not and now we hear there may be yet another review. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me how many projects are being reviewed and what their total value is? How much will the Department want to cut from this total, and will priority be given to schemes that are more advanced?

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I should like to add my support to this scheme, because the road in question, the A380, passes through my constituency of Newton Abbot. Indeed, Kingskerswell bypass is in my constituency. Having this road would significantly improve the lives of my constituents in economic terms. Moreover, it is a key road and a key artery between Torbay hospital and my constituency, and many of the plans the primary care trust has made are predicated on the existence of that bypass.

[Mr Sanders]

The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point on behalf of her constituents and those across south Devon.

Let me turn to other forms of transport that impact on south Devon’s economy and quality of life. Three years ago, the last Labour Government promised an additional 1,300 carriages across the country, of which 647 have already been brought in or are on order. The remainder have now been put on ice, after the Department for Transport was told to slash £683 million from its budget as part of a raft of in-year savings totalling £6.2 billion. Of the 1,300 carriages, First Great Western was due to receive 52, but only 12 of those were destined for services in the south-west. Their future was threatened when the Transport Secretary said that each project must be rigorously re-assessed to ensure that it offers value for money for taxpayers. Under the previous Government, the plans for new carriages had been delayed and mired in review following the announcement of the electrification of the main line between London and Swansea. There is uncertainty over the allocation of new rolling stock. What is the status of the carriages promised to First Great Western in the south-west, and where should representations be made to argue the case in favour of providing extra rolling stock? What is the Government’s overall strategy for railways in the south-west, and do they still consider Torquay and Paignton to be mainline train stations?

Finally on rail, the introduction of fast train services from Paddington to Paignton via Westbury rather than Bristol is good, but will more services be forthcoming?

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I am grateful to him for giving way, because in fact there are three constituencies that would benefit very greatly from this proposal. My own constituency, which covers Brixham and much of Paignton, lies downstream from his, at the other end of the A380, and as he has mentioned we have very high levels of deprivation in our constituencies.

I would also like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the great problem that we have with housing. Time and again, the objection made to further housing development in our area is that there is insufficient infrastructure to support it. The roads have reached complete gridlock. Given that lack of adequate transport is one of the greatest obstacles to reconstruction and investment, what mechanism is being used to assess which projects should receive funding, and are these very important factors of reconstruction and investment being taken into account?

[Mr Sanders]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I am sure the Minister will respond to that very important question. She is absolutely right. I often think of my constituency as being the “end-of-the-line” town, but the Brixham area of her constituency, which I think is the largest urban area in Totnes, is very much the end of the line and does not even have a railway line. Road transport is therefore particularly important in getting from Brixham, Paignton and Torquay to the rest of the country.

I should also mention the poor coach services from Torbay to the main centres of population. The journey times are off-putting and often, the slowest part of any coach journey is the first or last seven miles between Torbay and the dual carriageway at Newton Abbot. In the past, we have enjoyed ferry services between south Devon and the Channel Islands, and beyond. Even our cyclists in Torbay are poorly served, its having fewer miles of cycle lanes than most urban areas of a similar size.

We have been waiting for six decades to enjoy the transport links that the rest of the country takes for granted. My constituency records the lowest household incomes and highest household debt in the United Kingdom. We have been, and remain, the unemployment blackspot of the south-west region.

Better transport links are our road to recovery. Two Select Committee reports—the Communities and Local Government Committee report on seaside resorts, and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on tourism—support that view. Both concluded that better transport links are essential if such seaside areas are to improve their economic well-being. As for those who oppose such road improvements, I simply ask them why there are no campaign groups asking for the removal of existing bypasses.

There is a huge opportunity here for the new Government to demonstrate their commitment to the south-west region with immediate delivery of a fantastic scheme that would be a huge credit to all involved, and would fundamentally regenerate Torbay and the surrounding area for years to come. There is political unity on this issue among all parties in south Devon: Torbay council, Devon county council, Teignbridge council, and South Hams district council. All the key players, including small and larger businesses, know that this project is critical to our future success, be it the tourism industry, manufacturing or services.

In my 13 years as a Member of Parliament, I have observed business after business trying to grow locally, but in order to expand they have had to leave the area, citing the lack of transport links as the reason. Inward investors who are prepared to invest in jobs and in improving the area are being put off by the very real barrier that is the final seven miles into my constituency.

It was in 1951-52 that people started to talk about this project, for which there were plans by the end of that decade. Surely we will not have to wait another decade for another decision that will allow the project to go ahead.

11:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing a debate on the important topic of transport in the south Devon area. I am aware that he has campaigned tirelessly for transport improvements in Torbay and the surrounding area since his election to Parliament in 1997. If I may make a partisan point, it is good to see him back in the House.

I also very much welcome the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) to their places in this House. I note that all three Members spoke with one voice today, which I suppose is a demonstration of coalition politics in action.

As the coalition agreement makes clear, we believe that a modern transport infrastructure is important for a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. We are determined to make the transport sector greener and more sustainable, with tougher emissions standards and support for new transport technologies. The coalition agreement also makes clear that tackling climate change is one of the biggest challenges that we face and that a wide range of levers will need to be used to cut carbon emissions. Transport policy will clearly have a major role to play, given that carbon emissions from transport are still rising.

With that in mind, the Department for Transport is committed to reforming how decisions are made on which transport schemes to prioritise around the country, not least so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised. Of course, particularly given the current fiscal constraints, we need to ensure that any new transport infrastructure is affordable and offers value for money. Those two issues—the reform of how decisions are made and the review of all planned Government expenditure—mean that today I will not be able to be as helpful to my hon. Friend as I would like to be.

I turn specifically to the issues affecting south Devon. As my hon. Friend will know, the area is currently served by two main roads running south-west from Exeter: the A38, for which the Highways Agency is mainly responsible, and the A380, which is the responsibility of Devon county council. The area is also served by the railway line that he referred to, which runs between Exeter, Newton Abbot and Paignton, and between Newton Abbot and Plymouth. Both the lines to Paignton and Plymouth have daily services running to London, Bristol, the midlands and the north, as well as local services to Exeter and beyond, which also stop at a number of other smaller stations.

My hon. Friend asked me about the status of Torquay and Paignton rail stations. The Department for Transport does not classify stations as “mainline” or otherwise. However, Network Rail classes both Torquay and Paignton as category C stations—that is, they are important feeder stations—and further definition is included in the station champions’ “Better Rail Stations” report.

I know that my hon. Friend has been very active in campaigning for more through trains between Torbay and London Paddington, and I am delighted to confirm that, from December 2010, one additional through service each way will be provided on that route. The current service provides for a 7.30 am train to arrive at Exeter at 10.12 am. The new service will provide an earlier fast train service to Exeter and Torbay, with arrival at Exeter at 9.30 am and at Paignton at 10.6 am. The aim of this new early train service is to strengthen business links between the west country and London. It will also help to boost tourism, which I know is an issue that my hon. Friend takes very seriously indeed.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Although speed is clearly crucial for my constituents, through whose area this railway passes as it runs down the coast, we absolutely need this railway for tourism. There has been a lot of concern in the constituency that the money to support the line, which I know is one of the most expensive lines in the country to maintain, will not be forthcoming. I would be grateful if the Minister considered the issue of tourism, and therefore the impact on the local economy, when he makes decisions about money being invested in that particular railway line.

[Norman Baker]

I should say that decisions on rail investment are not for me to make in my particular portfolio. However, I can say that the Government are entirely seized of the importance of tourism to the south-west and that that factor will be taken into account in making any decisions about transport infrastructure and any other issues relating to Government investment.

The new train service that I referred to will allow business passengers to travel from London and do a full day’s business in Torbay, as well as cater for people on holiday who prefer not to change trains, which was the point that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot made.

Rolling stock was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. As far as that is concerned, the Department for Transport has recently signed a deed of amendment with First Great Western. That ensures that there will be ongoing funding for 30 vehicles that would otherwise cease to be funded by First Great Western itself. I hope that he will accept that that is good news for the rolling stock for the area.

The Government want to see rail prosper and we certainly value the rail links to the south-west. We do not have individual strategies for each part of the country, but the strategy for the network as a whole is set out in the Department for Transport’s high level output specification document. It is focused on improvements in safety and performance, and, crucially, on providing more capacity.

We made it clear in the coalition agreement that we will grant longer rail franchises, giving train operators more incentive to invest in better services, rolling stock, stations and perhaps even enhancements to the network. We want a better deal for passengers, with fair pricing for rail travel and the rail regulator as a powerful passenger champion. We also want to see Network Rail being made more accountable to its customers, both the train companies and—frankly—ultimately the public at large.

Given the upcoming spending review, we are unable to commit today to any further immediate improvements to rail services elsewhere in the south Devon area. However, we will monitor the current usage of rail services and re-evaluate them in the light of the emerging financial situation.

My hon. Friend is also concerned about the road network. I acknowledge the importance that he and others attach to the A380 Kingskerswell bypass scheme, also known as the south Devon link road, and his strong view that it is key to supporting the regeneration of Torbay and the surrounding area. I also note the scheme’s long history; it goes back to 1951, which is, I think, before either of us was born.

The scheme’s promoters—Devon and Torbay county councils, with the support of the other councils to which hon. Members have referred—have made the case for the bypass to the Department. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, progress is well advanced. The view expressed is that the A380 is an important link to south Devon and that the congestion between Penn Inn and Kerswell Gardens affects the business and commercial needs of Torbay throughout the year, as well as the tourist trade in summer.

I understand that the promoters have developed the scheme in recent years on the strength of the priority given to it by the previous Government within their regional funding allocation process. However, any new Government will naturally have their own views on which major schemes should be supported by Government funding, and I am afraid that we will need to consider the scheme in the light of the tough spending review to come. After the public inquiry in July 2009, as my hon. Friend knows, an inspector’s report on the scheme orders was submitted to the Secretary of State for a decision. Given the current uncertainty about funding, we must consider such decisions carefully and will be making a statement on the subject shortly.

It should also be acknowledged that considerable opposition exists alongside the local and regional support for the scheme, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. I am sure that he is aware that several well-organised campaign groups have expressed opposition, including the Campaign for Better Transport, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Kingskerswell Alliance, which is made up of residents of Newton Abbot and Kingskerswell. Those groups believe that Devon and Torbay should be considering more sustainable alternatives that have less impact on the environment.

[Mr Sanders]

Can my hon. Friend mention one road-building scheme that has had no objections at all?

[Norman Baker]

I am not aware of any, but it is only fair in a debate of this nature to reflect the comments both for and against the scheme received by the Department, as I hope I am doing. There are strong views on the scheme, and it is important to listen to both sides of the argument, as I am sure my hon. Friend, as a fair man, would acknowledge.

In addition to those issues, we must also consider the wider funding position and what it means for the affordability of a £130 million road scheme. As we are all aware, the current fiscal situation means that we must consider carefully future funding decisions on all transport schemes across England and Wales.

My hon. Friend asked what mechanism is being used to assess which projects should receive funding. As I mentioned, the Government have committed in the coalition agreement to review how decisions are made on which transport projects will be prioritised. We are at the start of that process. Until that is complete and the spending review is concluded, we will not be making any funding approval decisions. I made that point clear in a recent letter to Nick Bye, mayor of Torbay, who wrote to me about the Kingskerswell bypass.

The hon. Member for Totnes asked how many projects are being reviewed and what their total value is. The Government are reviewing all funding approvals made by the previous Government from 1 January 2010, and we hope to conclude that review soon. Additionally, all schemes granted conditional approval or programme entry by the previous Government will be reviewed as part of the spending review. There are 42 such schemes, and the total requested Department for Transport contribution is about £1.5 billion. However, those schemes will not necessarily be given priority over schemes that have not received any previous funding approval. Pending further discussions with our Treasury colleagues, we are not in a position to say how much the Department will want to cut from the total. That is what the spending review is for. However, no one should assume that schemes prioritised under the previous Government’s regional funding allocation process will be funded to the previous published levels.

Finally, in response to my hon. Friend’s question about prioritising schemes that are more advanced, as is this particular road scheme, I am afraid that, for the reasons that I have given, the Department can offer no guarantees. However, I can confirm that priority will be given to projects that align with the Government’s priorities and are affordable.

I understand fully my hon. Friend’s desire for a positive decision on the funding for the Kingskerswell bypass, not least because of how much time has passed since 1951. However, the sad fact is that many other local authorities around the country are in a similar position, wondering what the future holds for their planned transport schemes. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government need to consider all funding commitments carefully.

As with all other major local transport schemes, the Department can offer no particular assurances at this point regarding future funding, but I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that, as part of our wider spending review, I will consider carefully the case for the funding of the Kingskerswell bypass and take into account the comments made today by him and hon. Members from nearby constituencies.

11:24

Sitting suspended.

Child Poverty

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Despite the current economic uncertainty, Britain remains one of the wealthiest nations on earth. It is therefore to the lasting shame of successive Governments that our country has one of the worst levels of child poverty in the developed world and one of the worst in Europe, with poverty rates worse even than those of the former communist countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—a point I have already made in an intervention on the Prime Minister.

According to the charity Barnardo’s, in the UK there are 2.8 million children living in poverty before housing costs are taken into account, which I gather is the previous Government’s preferred measure. However, Barnardo’s tells me that that figure soars to 3.9 million after housing costs are taken into account, according to the 2007-08 “Households Below Average Income” report, published last year by the Department for Work and Pensions. I was shocked by the following disturbing extract from the “Hard Times” report published by Save the Children in 2006:

“One third of British children are forced to go without at least one of the things they need, such as three meals a day or adequate clothing.”

What should the new Government do now? Well, here is one thought that Barnardo’s has put to me:

“The poorest families in the UK are struggling during the recent economic crisis and are very likely to bear the brunt of forthcoming spending cuts. Barnardo’s proposes pragmatic, cost-effective solutions to redistribute money to the poorest families without the Government spending a single penny extra.”

Save the Children told me:

“It makes financial sense to end child poverty—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates it costs the taxpayer £25 billion a year.”

Putting to one side the obvious reasons why a civilised society should not tolerate child poverty, Save the Children then makes the financial case for ending it:

“In the long-term, huge amounts would be saved from not having to pick up the pieces of child poverty and associated social ills.”

I therefore invite the Minister to have a meeting with Save the Children, Barnardo’s and the other charities that do so much work to help children, to discuss what needs to be done. Working together, as a big coalition of people with shared interests, makes sense. It would make further sense if there were a permanent standing committee, for example, involving Government and those organisations, to help with formulating policies and strategies, in the spirit of joined-up government across all Departments. I also seek a pledge from the Minister this afternoon that there will be no delay and no dilution of the provisions set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010, including measures on the poverty reduction target and setting up the child poverty commission, which are a matter of urgency.

Child poverty issues are usually even worse for households with one or more children with a disability, and for single-parent families. Today, I shall combine strong criticism primarily of the last Labour Government with a reminder to the Conservative party that the situation has not arisen in the past 13 years but was inherited from when it was last in office. Successive Governments should hang their heads in shame. Generations of young people have been let down.

My message to the new coalition Government is this: quite simply, we must do better. Abolition of child poverty in the lifetime of the present Government must be the target. Whatever the economic issues facing the country, it simply cannot be right in a civilised society to have children living in conditions that are deemed to be below the official poverty line.

I recognise that this is all relative. What is described as poverty in the UK is not the poverty that can be found in third-world countries or in the slums of some overseas cities, where obscene wealth and grinding poverty are physically close to each other but worlds apart in terms of quality of life and life expectancy.

That said, I was deeply shocked by a poster I saw in a church in Colchester last month. It prompted me to table early-day motion 39, which states:

“That this House is deeply concerned at the content of posters issued by The Children’s Society and displayed on church premises which state ‘A vital project that is helping feed, clothe and assist in finding destitute children somewhere safe to live will close on 30th September due to a lack of funds; when it does, hundreds of poverty-stricken families will be left to fend for themselves’; and calls on the Government to hold urgent talks with The Children’s Society to avoid the closure.”

And this is Britain in the second decade of the third millennium.

Much was expected of new Labour in tackling child poverty. I do not doubt for a minute that it had sincere intentions, but the stark reality is that it failed, and failed big-time. I cannot speak of child poverty at first hand. I grew up in a family environment in which I did not want for food, clothing or housing. My wife and I were able to provide for our four children. I am now a grandfather and grateful that my two grandsons and my infant granddaughter do not experience the child poverty that so many children experience. However, I have been involved in political life in my home town for 40 years or so, and have experience of working on a local newspaper; and as every MP can vouch through work in his or her advice bureau, we know child poverty when we see it.

As word spread that I had secured the debate, I received considerable background briefing from different organisations concerned with tackling child poverty. That so many exist is proof of the seriousness of the situation. I cannot possibly in 15 minutes do justice to what they told me, but I hope I will be able to convey the importance of their concerns. I place on the record my thanks to those that have contacted me: Barnardo’s, Save the Children, the Children’s Society, the National Childminding Association and the Child Poverty Action Group.

The Children’s Society told me about the good childhood inquiry, the report of which was published last year. I shall quote one telling comment from its briefing to me:

“One of the most striking things about the evidence received from children was how frequently they mentioned their basic needs. Over 5,000 children filled in postcards about their lives and the three topics they talked most about were ‘friends’, ‘family’ and what was termed their ‘material needs’.

Their comments on this subject were mostly about the importance of having a home, a bed, clothes, warmth, food and water. Interestingly, far more children talked about material ‘needs’ such as these than mentioned material ‘wants’ such as money and possessions.”

I look at life as though it is a jigsaw—lots of pieces need to come together to complete the picture. It is not enough to talk in isolation about education, health, employment and so on. We must look at the whole picture, and if any of the pieces are missing, which tragically is the case for children living in poverty, that young individual will struggle throughout their life, with the guarantee that their life chances will be considerably less than those for a child from a household that is not lacking in the necessities of life; and they will have a shorter life expectancy as well. Why should nearly 4 million children be so grossly disadvantaged? It is not their fault.

As we know with a jigsaw, the first pieces that need to be put in place are the corners and the edges. For our children, the corners and the edges of their jigsaw of life are a decent home. Successive Governments have also failed to deliver that over the past 25 years, with the ending of the building of council houses for families. Oh for the return of the days when local councils built family houses—houses fit for purpose, built to Parker Morris standards—not today’s cramped dwellings with paper-thin dividing walls, which in any event are inadequate in number to deal with the worsening housing crisis. If we addressed the shortage of truly affordable family houses to rent by the resumption of the building of public housing, as was the ambition of successive Labour and Tory Governments for broadly the middle 50 years of the 20th century, excluding the war years of 1939 to 1945, that would help us dramatically on the road to the abolition of child poverty.

It is interesting that post-war Conservative Governments built more council houses than Labour Governments. Indeed, the Thatcher Government built more council houses than the Blair and Brown Governments combined. I contrast the last 13 years with the inspirational Labour Government of Clement Attlee, who in 1945 set about tackling the housing crisis after six years of war. If it can be done in those circumstances, why can it not be done today? After all, if new Labour could fund an illegal war in Iraq, then housing British families should have been affordable.

As a nation, we would do well to revisit the Education Act 1944. It was not about education only; it put forward an holistic approach to the health, welfare and general well-being of the child, of which the universal provision of school meals was an important part; its authors were determined that the child poverty of the 1930s should be a thing of the past. It is perhaps an indication of Britain’s divided society—the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1997—that even in a relatively prosperous town such as Colchester at least two primary schools have breakfast clubs, so that children who would otherwise start the day without a meal have one.

I hope that my debate will encourage the new coalition Government not to let their planned cuts in public spending further damage the life chances of another generation of children. Even in a recession and an era of cuts, expecting children from less well-off backgrounds to experience a further lowering in their living conditions is simply not acceptable.

I observe in passing what I consider to be the silence of the Church on child poverty. I sense that churches collectively, with notable exceptions, are too comfortable, and that the missionary zeal for tackling inequalities in society—and not only child poverty—is something they do not want to get involved in.

As a penultimate point, I pay tribute to the late Professor Peter Townsend, the joint founder of the Child Poverty Action Group, whose work over more than 40 years did so much to highlight the plight of children in this country. I knew him when he was at the university of Essex; from its inception in 1964, he was one of its first professors. Indeed, for a time he lived in the same part of Colchester as me. A tribute to him was published in June last year by the university of Bristol, where his name lives on in the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research. That tribute included this observation:

“He had brief hopes when New Labour arrived, and especially after Tony Blair pledged to eliminate child poverty in 1999. In the end, however, he was left bitterly disillusioned”.

In conclusion, I trust that all Members will accept an open invitation from the Child Poverty Action Group to attend the launch of the group’s handbook on Tuesday 6 July at 10.30 am in the Jubilee Room. MPs will have an opportunity to discuss with folk from CPAG how to help end child poverty in every constituency in the land. Surely, ending child poverty is not asking too much of the new Government.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on making so many valid points about the poverty of children. Does he agree that the Government’s commitment to providing an additional 4,000 health visitors through the Sure Start scheme would be a significant step in the right direction?

[Bob Russell]

I welcome anything that will help eliminate child poverty and promote the welfare of children. I also welcome the inclusion in the coalition Government agreement of the pupil premium, which will help children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

May I say what a pleasure it is, Mr Betts, to serve under your chairmanship? This is the first of two debates this week on child poverty and poverty in general. In securing this debate, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) continues with a subject that has been of interest to him for a number of years, and I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter today.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we must do better. Poverty is the most important factor in predicting a child’s life chances. Effectively tackling the causes of poverty and inequality in Britain is at the heart of our coalition Government’s agenda, and I welcome the opportunity to reiterate to him and the other Members here today our clear commitment to helping the millions of children who still live in poverty. I give the clear and I hope unambiguous assurance that there will be no delay and no dilution in our commitment, and I refer him to section 14 of the document issued by the coalition that pledged to end child poverty by 2020.

I know that this is an emotive subject. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions and I shall attempt to cover them in my response; however, if there is anything that he feels has not been dealt with properly, perhaps we can discuss it separately.

Over the past 13 years, we have seen ever more being spent on the benefits system, even outstripping inflation, in an attempt to move people above the poverty threshold. The Labour Government were nothing other than well intentioned; there is no question about what they were trying to achieve, but their policies simply did not work and did not deliver what was needed to deal with child poverty. As the hon. Gentleman said, many people felt disillusioned as a result.

The figures speak for themselves. The previous Government’s approach did not work because they did not do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, which is tackling the root causes of poverty. The gap between the richest and the poorest is at its highest since records began. At best, the previous Government’s attempts to tackle poverty stalled, despite their spending some £85 billion a year on benefits and tax credits.

The simple truth is that there are 800,000 more adults in poverty now than there were in 1998-99. Instead of the number of children in poverty having been reduced, it has increased by 100,000 over the past five years, and 2.8 million children are now living in poverty. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the definition of poverty and asked whether it should include housing costs. The Prime Minister has asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to consider that matter in his independent review, which will report before the end of the year.

It is clear that the old way is failing. We need a new vision, a new approach to tackling poverty and giving children a better start in life. I am sure that that was one of the hon. Gentleman’s main passions when he first came to this place, as it was one of mine. That new approach is what I intend to set out today.

It is not enough to tackle the symptoms of poverty; we must tackle the underlying factors that make it a seemingly intractable problem. They include entrenched worklessness and economic dependency, family breakdown, educational failure, addiction and debt. Those are the drivers of poverty—finance is only one aspect. If we are to deal with the persistent poverty and multiple disadvantages of some of the UK’s most vulnerable families, we need to fight poverty in its broadest sense, and I suspect, judging by the feeling that I got from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, that such a view lies behind his call for this debate.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of joined-up government, and I could not agree with him more. If we are to take on this complex and multi-faceted problem, we need to ensure that we tackle all the different facets of poverty so that we break the cycle of disadvantage and deprivation and give all children the same opportunity to flourish and excel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned Sure Start. We have clear coalition policies on taking Sure Start back to its roots to increase the effectiveness of its outreach services, and to uphold our commitment to early intervention. We know that Sure Start has a critical role to play, and we want to make it work harder.

We want to ensure that more children have the advantages of a good education, which is critical to improving stalled social mobility, and that is where the pupil premium comes into play. By making some £3,000 available to each pupil who falls into that sector, we will be making a significant financial contribution to schools. We will also give schools the autonomy to use that money in the way they think is best. We will end the couple penalty in the tax system that jeopardises the future of too many children, because we know that stable family life is an important way of addressing child poverty.

We will also introduce wide-ranging welfare reform, as was set out in the Gracious Speech, through the work programme, which will be more effective in helping people into work and so out of poverty. At all points, we will ensure that work pays. All parts of the House now accept that helping people back into work is a basic principle of tackling poverty.

The hon. Member for Colchester talked about the importance of a holistic approach, and I could not agree with him more. We are on the same page of the book in that respect. Clearly, such a programme to address child poverty needs to work across the board, which is why the Prime Minister, working in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has announced the establishment of the Social Justice Cabinet Committee. Such a group gives us the opportunity to bring together people from across government to tackle these seemingly intractable problems. Its one mission will be to consider social justice in this country.

[Bob Russell]

The Minister may not know the answer to this question immediately, but if so, perhaps she can find it out for me. Will the organisations directly involved in tackling child poverty be part of the arrangement she has just described?

[Maria Miller]

The organisations the hon. Gentleman mentioned will have a critical role to play in pulling together the strategy on child poverty that we need to develop by March 2011. With regard to the constitution of the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, it is early days yet. Certainly, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts back to our team and put forward his suggestion, because it has great merit.

The Social Justice Cabinet Committee will consider the causes of poverty and how we can make a difference to the lives of thousands of children. The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing—an issue in which he has a passionate interest—and particularly the role of councils in ensuring that good-quality housing is available for families, thus giving children the stability and good accommodation that can make such a difference to their lives. A Cabinet Committee such as the one that will be constituted can tackle an issue such as that, as part of a holistic strategy for dealing with child poverty. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we share his view that that is the only way to make a real difference.

Let me turn to how we plan to go forward in practical terms. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have sat in this Chamber many times, hearing Ministers talk in abstract terms about what they may or may not do, so I should like to tell him about some concrete things that we will be doing. We will set up the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, which will provide a holistic, cross-government approach on this issue. Under the Child Poverty Act 2010, the Government will publish a strategy to show how we will meet the goal of ending child poverty by 2020. The first such strategy will be published in March 2011. I know that the organisations the hon. Gentleman mentioned—Barnardo’s, Joseph Rowntree and Save the Children—will be making important contributions to the development of that strategy. I look forward to meeting those organisations in the coming months to ensure that we have the full value of their experience and expertise in this area, because only by doing that will we come to the right answer.

The simple truth is that the previous Government fell short on the progress that was needed on child poverty. That is why our new approach needs to be implemented quickly, if we are to reach the ambitious targets set out in the 2010 Act. Over the next nine months, I shall work with colleagues across government to ensure that we have a robust child poverty strategy in place. We want to tackle not just the symptoms of poverty but the root causes, so that we can say that we have the strategy on child poverty that both the hon. Gentleman and I know this country needs.

Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Let me explain the protocol to new Members in the Chamber. If a Member wants to intervene, it is up to the Member who is speaking to give way. If a Member wants to speak, they have to get prior permission from the Member whose debate it is and the Minister; I hope that they would let me know as well.

16:27

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Betts, and let me say that I am glad to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise a key concern facing the people of Liverpool—namely, the urgent need to build a new Royal Liverpool University hospital. The Royal is an excellent university teaching hospital and a leading regional centre for diagnosis and treatment, deploying cutting-edge technologies such as digital histopathology, interventionist radiology and PET-CT—positron emission tomography-computed tomography—advanced scanning.

The problem is that the existing hospital, which was built in 1972, has major structural defects. Its mechanical and electrical infrastructure has major faults, it has design flaws and its internal and external fabric is failing. The trust is rated excellent for clinical services and for financial management. It has a gifted and committed staff, but that cannot overcome the problems of a deteriorating building.

In March, following years of intensive scrutiny, the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) visited the Royal to announce a new £45 million replacement hospital, a private finance initiative, to be built on the same site. The possibilities of refurbishment had been costed and rejected on the grounds that they offered poor value for money. The approval was confirmed in writing by the Treasury and by the Department of Health, which issued an approval letter. The trust is to fund £130 million of the £451 million capital cost, so it is planned that most of the funding should come from the private sector.

The proposal has been assessed for many years. The outlined strategic case was approved in 2006. It has been subjected to intensive scrutiny again and again locally, regionally and nationally, including by the Department of Health and the Treasury. It has met stringent tests for affordability and for value for money. That process has indeed cut costs, by about 32%, and the current proposal for 637 beds constitutes a 34% reduction in the number of beds outlined in earlier plans. Construction at the hospital, which will lessen both the hospital’s energy use and its carbon footprint, is due to start in 2012 and be completed by 2016. A competitive process to identify a suitable private sector partner is now under way. All that planning has now been thrown into doubt by this Government’s current spending review and their threatened draconian cuts.

I want to make it very clear that replacing the Royal is about providing front-line health care for the people of Liverpool and the region.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree with me that many people from south Liverpool also rely on the Royal Liverpool University hospital for acute health services and that a failure, at this late stage, to agree to rebuild the Royal and to let that project go forward will leave the entire city—not just the north of the city—having to obtain its health services in a deteriorating building that is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century?

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend and her intervention shows why this issue is so very important.

The city has taken major steps forward in recent years, yet Liverpool remains the poorest local authority; in total, 67% of its population live in the top 10% most deprived localities in the country. Ill health is related to poverty. Industrial diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, which are connected with the shipping industry of the past, cause deaths and incapacity today.

Although health standards have improved significantly during recent years, there is still an unacceptable gap in life expectancy between Liverpool people and those in the rest of the country. Women in Liverpool, Warrington and Hull have the lowest life expectancy for women in the country, at 78.8 years. Women in England as a whole can expect to live until they are 81.9 years old. The longest-living women in England are to be found in Kensington and Chelsea, reaching 88.9 years—a disparity of 10 years with women in Liverpool. Liverpool men have the fourth lowest life expectancy in the country, at 74.3 years, compared with a life expectancy of 84 years for men in Kensington and Chelsea and of 77 years for men in England as a whole.

Mortality rates are too high. The number of deaths from heart disease in Liverpool is 31% higher than the national average; the number of deaths from cancer-related diseases in Liverpool is 36% higher than the national average; deaths from causes that are amenable to health care in Liverpool are 42% higher than the national average, and deaths from conditions attributable to smoking in Liverpool are 57% higher than the national average. It is a chilling fact that for every 100 new cancers diagnosed in the rest of England, 130 new cancers are diagnosed in Liverpool.

Although that situation is related to long-term poverty, deprivation, the city’s industrial legacy and individual lifestyles, the new hospital, with its proposed high-tech facilities and single rooms, which would help to reduce the spread of infection, is essential to improving people’s health.

Despite its high incidence of cancer, Liverpool is the only major UK city without a comprehensive cancer centre. Following the Cannon and Baker report, a cancer centre linked to Liverpool university’s department of cancer studies should be built at the Royal and that project should be progressed with urgency.

The new hospital will contribute to the alleviation of disease by building on Liverpool’s strengths in the biochemical sector, already a major contributor to the local economy, by adding £1 billion gross value added and employing 6,000 people. In doing so, the new hospital will help regenerate the city. It will enhance important diagnostic research and life sciences, with increased collaboration between the university’s leading medical school, the internationally renowned Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the biomedical industry.

Companies such as Eli Lilly, Novartis, MedImmune and Bristol-Myers Squibb already work with the Royal. A new biomedical campus is planned on site and it will be integrated with similar facilities, expanding research, improving diagnosis and developing new health-related products. That campus will create additional jobs in Liverpool, as Liverpool increasingly becomes a global leader in this sector. The new hospital will also make a major economic impact. Building the hospital itself will create 1,600 jobs, with the local economic benefits reaching £240 million.

It is very sad that, with the Government’s draconian spending axe hanging over us, we still await a decision on the Royal’s future. What is at stake? Primarily, the new hospital is about the well-being of the people of Liverpool and the region, too many of whom experience unacceptably poor health. Everyone, irrespective of wealth, is entitled to good health care. There has been a great deal of investment in health services in Liverpool in recent years, which is why we have seen improvements in people’s health. But the key issue of the need to replace this major hospital remains outstanding and it is acutely important. The developmental hospital is important for Liverpool’s ongoing regeneration. Liverpool is a city transformed, but too many of its citizens have not yet reaped the benefits. And now, in this fraught economic climate, new challenges have emerged.

A rebuilt Royal will bring all the people of Liverpool essential state-of-the-art health care, fit for the 21st century. Linked with primary care, it will make a real difference. The current proposal is mainly private finance initiative-funded. It does not lean heavily on the public purse. It has been subject to stringent scrutiny, ensuring value for money, and that process is continuing.

The city council has already made strong representations and I want to praise Councillor Joe Anderson, the leader of the council, and Councillor Paul Brant, an executive member of the council, who have taken the lead in speaking up for the health needs of the city. Any delays, cutbacks or cancellation would deal a major blow to the people of Liverpool, with consequences for the whole region.

On 31 March 2010, the Liverpool Daily Post reported statements made by the then shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). Following some general comments that he made about the proposed scheme at the Royal, the Liverpool Daily Post said:

“And he turned the tables on Labour, by insisting the Tories were committed to protecting NHS budgets, while the Government”—

that is, the Government at that time—

“was plotting to slash capital spending by half.”

Asked about the Royal development, the right hon. Gentleman, now the Secretary of State, replied:

“The Conservatives have been clear about the need to protect NHS budgets, including capital spending, so we can support this project.”

I ask the Minister to confirm that that pledge remains real. I also ask him to implement it without delay, give this front-line service the green light and enable the people of Liverpool to benefit from the first-class health facilities that are so important for their future.

16:38

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this debate on the future of the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust. I know of her long-standing support for the rebuilding of the Royal Liverpool hospital and it is apparent, just from looking at the number of Labour Members from Liverpool who are here today, that they are showing their interest in and concern about the provision of health care services in their constituencies and in the broader area of Liverpool and the Wirral.

I also pay tribute to the NHS staff across the whole of Liverpool, who do such an incredible job of caring for hon. Members’ constituents throughout the city and the surrounding area. Those members of staff do a fantastic job, day in and day out, with little recognition or thanks from people. I want to place on record my gratitude for their tremendous work and that of NHS staff in the rest of the country.

Before I come to the specifics about the Royal Liverpool hospital, I would like to set out the Government’s approach to the reconfiguration of local NHS services mentioned by the hon. Lady as part of her argument. I believe passionately that local decision making is essential to improving outcomes for patients and driving up quality. This Government will do more than just talk about pushing power to the local level; we will actually do it.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has identified four crucial tests that all reconfigurations must pass. First, they must have the support of GP commissioners. Secondly, arrangements for engaging patients and the public, including local authorities, must be further strengthened. Thirdly, there must be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning any proposals. Fourthly, any proposals must take into account the need to develop and support patient choice. To be clear, that means that forced hospital closures that do not have the support of GPs, local clinicians, patients and the local community should not occur.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am interested to hear the Minister’s enunciation of Government policy, but does he agree that in this instance we are discussing the much-needed replacement of an existing hospital that is required by practitioners and the local authority?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will come to that in due course, during the latter part of my speech. In light of some of her comments, particularly about cancer services, I wanted to show the setting for reconfiguration in so far as it might affect that site and other parts of Liverpool’s health care provision.

Where local NHS organisations have already started to consider changing services, they will need to consider again whether their plans meet the criteria before continuing. It will be an opportunity for patients, local GPs and clinicians, and local councils to play a far greater role in how services are shaped and to ensure that the changes will lead to the best outcomes for patients.

The hon. Lady mentioned in an intervention the rebuilding of the Royal Liverpool. That will be reviewed in the light of the Secretary of State’s four tests. As she said in her speech, it is widely recognised that the hospital has a number of issues. Most significantly, the fabric of the building is deteriorating due to a serious case of concrete rot. The building’s condition contributes to high maintenance costs and a significantly poorer patient experience. The building is also inflexible, making it increasingly difficult for the trust to deliver modern, high-quality services.

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role. He is a reasonable man, and I am happy to see him in this job. Can he give all the Liverpool MPs here today some time scale within which the Government will take the decision on the review? We would be grateful for an approximate date.

[Mr Burns]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments, which are greatly appreciated. I return the compliment by saying that when our roles were reversed, I found her an extremely helpful and sympathetic Minister when I brought problems to her concerning Chelmsford prison. She has anticipated me in her direct question. I assure her—I am choosing my words carefully, as she will discover—that I will answer her question later in my speech.

The programme to address the issues within the trust has been ongoing for some time, as all hon. Members present will know and appreciate. For the benefit of those hon. Members not present who will read the report of the debate, I shall set out the timeline of events.

Due to the sorry state of the buildings and the high cost of refurbishment, the trust decided fully to rebuild the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust while refurbishing the site at Broadgreen. In July 2004, the Department of Health agreed the project’s strategic business case, enabling work to start on the outline business case and the process of obtaining planning permission from Liverpool city council. In March 2008, planning permission was granted. In September 2009, the strategic health authority, NHS North West, approved the outline business case. Then, in March this year, the project was approved by the Department of Health and the Treasury. On 14 April, an advertisement to tender for the project was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union. That is the scheme’s current position.

However, it is important to understand the changed context within which we now find ourselves. The most urgent task facing the Government is to tackle our record debt. As part of that, the Treasury is reviewing every significant spending decision made between 1 January 2010 and the general election on 6 May. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside herself said, the final approvals were given on 29 March—two weeks to the day before the general election was announced. As a result, the project has been included in the Treasury review of public spending commitments made by the previous Government.

I hasten to add, as delicately as I can, that we, as a nation, face tremendous difficulties due to the staggering debt left to this Government. My right hon. Friends have rightly decided that we must get to grips with the economic situation that we inherited, and the primary problem that we face in the immediate future is the debt.

[Mrs Ellman]

We all understand the problems of debt, but, as the Minister himself said, the replacement of this particular hospital has a long history. It has been scrutinised many times at many different levels—locally, regionally and nationally. It is a majority private finance initiative scheme funded mainly by the private sector. Is he suggesting either that the scrutiny has not been proper or that the hospital is not needed to meet the health needs of the people of Liverpool?

[Mr Burns]

I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady could reach either of those conclusions, and I can tell her with all clarity that my answer to both questions is no. I do not think either of those things—that is, that proper scrutiny has not been carried out or that changes to the existing system are not needed. I can reassure her on those points, but the problem is that the final decision was taken after 1 January—very close to the calling of the general election. Because the review commences from 1 January, the project falls within its scope and must be reviewed, in these changed circumstances, to help to meet our pressing economic problems and deal with the debt that we have inherited. The project received Treasury approval only in March. As a result, it is caught up in the review, as are many other projects.

The issue comes down to the simple fact that this country faces crippling debts. A huge amount of work is involved in the Treasury review. As I hope hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot give an exact timetable for the decision, but to be as helpful as I can and, I hope, live up to the kind words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, I anticipate a decision being taken by the spending review in the autumn. I appreciate that that might be frustrating for hon. Members and their constituents, but it is the best I can do. I hope that that answer moves towards their concept of helpfulness. I am afraid that, until then, I cannot comment further on the future of the development. If hon. Members were in the position in which my Government and I find ourselves, I am sure that they would do the same.

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I and everyone in the country share a vision of and want a high-quality NHS—accountable to patients, led by GPs and controlled locally. As a party, we were elected on a platform of real-terms increases in the NHS budget for every year of this five-year Parliament. It is a protected budget, so there will be no cuts, but there will be real-terms increases year after year, as long as this Parliament remains, which I anticipate will be five years. In that respect, there is stability and commitment, and an understanding of the financial commitments to the NHS. That, I hope, will give some stability to the overall decision-making process and the decisions that the NHS will have to take beyond simple capital projects.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that our city and its citizens deserve not only a new hospital built on the Royal Liverpool site, but the state-of-the-art facilities outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)? Does he also agree that the jobs created during the construction phase, similar to those that the Prime Minister spoke of in the Chamber this afternoon, would boost the local economy at a time of economic uncertainty? From what the Minister has said, the project appears to meet the Chancellor’s tests under the Treasury review because it is primarily financed under the private finance initiative.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but everything has to be taken in the context of the changed circumstances—a change of Government and our overriding need to get the debt and the deficit under control. The context for that and the engine driving it is the review of all public spending commitments across the board. We are talking about not simply the health service, but commitments made across Government since 1 January. I cannot anticipate the outcome of any review, and I am sure that hon. Members would not expect me to. I can tell them that decisions will be taken by the spending review in the autumn, and I hope that hon. Members consider that helpful.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way and I am grateful. I understand the position that he is in—believe me. He gave an endpoint to the deliberative process, but the time scale he suggested might put the development at risk. Uncertainty can create difficulties with the funding arrangements for a PFI project, such that it is no longer workable or cannot be put together properly if the delay is too extensive because the private sector needs to raise money through the markets and in other ways.

Will the Minister undertake to do the usual thing that Ministers do, which is talk behind the scenes to his Treasury colleagues, as he will have to do anyway? Will he ensure, as far as he can, that the project is at the front rather than the back of the queue? The delay he indicated—through to the spending review in the autumn—could put the viability of the scheme at risk, whether or not the Government reaffirm the commitment made by the previous Government. For that reason, I urge him to do us a favour and discuss with the Treasury behind the scenes, as Ministers do, the urgent need to deal with this scheme as soon as possible.

[Mr Burns]

I respect the hon. Lady’s ingenuity and I can see where she is hoping I will go. I do not want to disappoint, but I understand the situation and all I can do is reiterate that the project will be reviewed, as a lot of other projects across Government will be reviewed, in line with the Treasury guidelines for the review of projects from 1 January.

A decision will be taken by or at the time of the spending review in the autumn. I cannot go further than that. However frustrating it is for the hon. Lady, I know that in her heart of hearts she understands what I am saying. If the roles were reversed, she would probably say the same thing. It would be wrong and irresponsible, and potentially misleading, to go any further.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not had a chance to intervene.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I join in the congratulations to him on his well deserved appointment to the Department of Health. I understand that he cannot go further on timing, but can he tell us more about the nature of the review? Is it likely that his Department will say that certain projects will go ahead as planned and others will not, or will it ask projects to look again at the cost, to achieve more projects at the lowest cost to the taxpayer?

[Mr Burns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and gracious comments, which I greatly appreciate. I also pay tribute to his experience in coming at the question from a different angle. I do not want to, but I am afraid that I must disappoint him. I will not go down the route he suggests because it could be open to misinterpretation. I can only repeat what will happen: all spending projects from 1 January are being reviewed. Decisions will be taken by the time of the spending review.

I return to the reconfiguration of cancer treatments in the area, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised, to give her a brief explanation of the current position, because that will put it in context and, I hope, be of help to her. Local health organisations in Cheshire and Merseyside are working together to ensure better cancer facilities for the local population. However, I am advised that the primary care trusts plan to review the first facility at the University Hospitals Aintree site before committing to further facilities at the Royal Liverpool. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, that is a local decision and it would not be appropriate for Ministers, at this stage, to compromise the processes, intervene or comment. There are local procedures to be gone through before final decisions are taken.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of Liverpool Royal University hospital and fully appreciate how important it is to all hon. Members present and their constituents. We will have to wait until the spending review is concluded in the autumn for a decision. In the nicest possible way, I urge hon. Members, however difficult it is, to be patient and wait. If I were a constituency MP in Liverpool, I would be in the same position as them.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

Wednesday 9 June 2010

Previously Developed Land (Density)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I am today implementing the commitments made in the coalition agreement to decentralise the planning system by giving local authorities the freedom to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and “garden grabbing”.

The impact of the old policy approach, set out in planning policy statement 3, is that the combination of a national target for brownfield land, alongside the definition of gardens as brownfield land, has meant local authorities feeling forced into granting planning permission for unwanted development on garden land—simply to maintain the brownfield target.

To bring an end to these detrimental effects, we are today therefore removing gardens from the definition of previously developed land in planning policy statement 3.

We are also removing the requirement upon local authorities to have regard to the national minimum density for housing set out in paragraph 47 of PPS3. This policy has resulted in local authorities not having enough flexibility to set density ranges that suit the local needs in their areas—particularly for family houses.

I am today re-issuing planning policy statement 3: Housing (PPS3) with the following changes:

the definition of previously developed land in annex B now excludes private residential gardens; and

the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is deleted from paragraph 47.

Together these changes put power back in the hands of local authorities and communities to take the decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas.

This reissued policy document sets out the Secretary of State’s policy on previously developed land and housing density. Local planning authorities and the planning inspectorate are expected to have regard to the policy in preparing development plans and, where relevant, to take it into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications.

Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

United Kingdom Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I have decided to appoint Sir Andrew Burns as the “United Kingdom envoy for post-Holocaust issues”.

As a signatory to the declaration of the Stockholm international forum on the Holocaust the UK is committed to promoting Holocaust education, remembrance and research, both at home and abroad. Sir Andrew will lead the UK’s efforts in this field, drawing together activity from across Government and provide a clearer UK international profile, presence and influence. Sir Andrew’s work will include driving forward implementation of the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust era assets, resolving outstanding issues related to property and art restitution and ensuring the UK remains at the forefront of discussions on the vital work of the Task Force for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research and of the International Tracing Service.

Over the last few years the UK has taken an increasingly active approach to preserving the memory of the Holocaust. For the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this work has included leading the UK delegations to meetings of the Task Force for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research and of the International Tracing Service. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also represented the Government in discussions on property restitution and Holocaust era assets, frequently with support from other Government Departments.

This has worked well to date. But I am concerned that the UK is not taking the leading role it should in these international discussions or best representing the interests of the many Holocaust victims and their families in the UK affected by these issues. For this reason, and in order to drive a more coherent and strategic approach to our work, I have appointed Sir Andrew. He will add a new impetus to the Government’s post-Holocaust work, drawing on his considerable experience as chair of the executive committee of the Anglo-Israel Association and previously Her Majesty’s ambassador to Israel.

G6 Meeting

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK held their most recent meeting in Varese, Italy on 28 to 29 May. Italy currently holds the presidency of the G6 group and the meeting was chaired by the Italian Minister for the Interior, Roberto Maroni.

The meeting was divided into three working sessions over two days, all of which were attended by G6 Ministers of the Interior, with the additional guest attendance of the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, the US Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, David Heyman, the French Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström.

The first working session considered Europe’s approach to the management of migration from outside the EEA. Ministers also considered factors driving illegal immigration and the importance of international co-operation in combating criminal groups involved in illegal immigration and human trafficking. There was a discussion around ensuring that an increased focus on tackling illegal immigration should not come at the expense of vulnerable groups’ human rights, and of the importance of raising awareness of the positive contribution of legal immigration to society. The Home Secretary underlined the importance of evidence-based practical co-operation between EU member states and of work with source and transit countries upstream, rather than a reliance on new EU legislation.

The second session focused on the issue of organised crime. Ministers considered the increasing flexibility and diversification of organised criminals who take advantage of global trends and opportunities. The Italian Minister for the Interior gave a presentation on Italian methods for targeting illegal assets. Ministers discussed the promotion of a more joined-up approach between European States, EU Agencies and third countries in order to tackle this trans-national threat. In addition, Ministers considered methods of tackling money laundering and ensuring online child protection.

At the third session Ministers considered counter-terrorism. The importance of strengthening international co-operation was discussed, with particular focus on the relationship between Europe and the US. Discussion also centred upon the value of dialogue with third countries and the benefit of engaging and supporting countries in tackling violent extremism. At an operational level, discussion focused on the strengthening of aviation security, including the sharing of air passenger information, and on work into the threat posed by radicalisation.

In addition to the three plenary sessions, Italy gave a video presentation of its arrangements for handling serious road traffic accidents. The Home Secretary also held separate bilateral meetings with all of the other heads of delegation.

The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in Poland in the second half of this year.

English Language Requirement

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I wish to inform the House that I am today announcing the introduction of a new English language requirement for migrants applying to come to or stay in the UK as a spouse. Changes to the immigration rules will be laid before Parliament to bring this policy into effect in the autumn.

Non-European migrants joining a British citizen or non-European national settled in the UK will have to demonstrate a basic command of English in order to be considered for a visa. The rules will apply to spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, same sex partners, fiancés and proposed civil partners, and will be compulsory for people applying from within the UK, as well as visa applicants overseas.

The Government believe that speaking English should be a pre-requisite for those wishing to settle here. This new English requirement for spouses will help promote the economic well-being of the UK, for example by encouraging integration and protecting public services. It will assist in removing cultural barriers, broaden opportunities for migrants and help to ensure that they are equipped to play a full part in British life.

This is only the first step. We are reviewing English language requirements across the immigration system with a view to tightening the rules further in the future. We will inform the House of our conclusions in due course.

Today’s announcement is one of a range of new measures the Government will be taking to ensure that immigration is properly controlled for the benefit of the UK. These include an annual limit on non-EEA migrants coming to the UK to live and work and measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes.

Equality Act 2010 (Seafarers)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

On 30 November 2009, the previous Government published draft affirmative regulations showing how they proposed to apply part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 to seafarers. The draft regulations were silent on the practice of differential pay for seafarers recruited abroad and therefore, if they had been approved by Parliament in their published form, the practice of differential pay for seafarers recruited abroad would have ended.

Those who are likely to be affected by the final regulations were invited to submit evidence-based financial estimates of the likely impact of either:

(a) outlawing the practice of differential pay altogether; or,



(b) continuing to allow the payment of differential rates of pay to seafarers but only where such differentiation would not operate to the disadvantage of nationals from an EU, EEA state (or any other state whose nationals are entitled to corresponding rights under EU law) nor that of seafarers recruited in Great Britain, and the difference in rates would correspond to a difference in the cost of living in the places where the seafarers respectively habitually reside.

The then Government subsequently announced that a review of the evidence submitted would be commissioned.

Today I am publishing the findings of the review commissioned by the previous Government, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the DFT website (www.dft.gov.uk).

The issues raised by those who submitted evidence are important and the Government wish to provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment on this review of evidence before reaching conclusions on how to proceed. I am therefore inviting comments on this review over the next two weeks. I am especially keen to hear from those parties who previously submitted evidence.

Once I have considered the matter further, I will report back to Parliament.

Time for Training (Medical Education England Report)

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

“Time for Training”, the independent review of the impact of the European working time directive on the quality of medical training is being launched today by Medical Education England. A copy has been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote office.

In response to concerns about the impact of the directive on the training of junior doctors working in the national health service, the then Secretary of State asked Medical Education England last year to commission an independent review. I want to thank Professor Sir John Temple for his report and Medical Education England for their advice in helping to bring together complementary perspectives to issues affecting the quality of patient services and training.

The objective of post-graduate medical training is to produce fully qualified specialists who are able to provide high quality and safe patient care. Experience in delivering service is an integral part of training for a junior doctor but the provision of service is not the primary purpose of post-graduate medical training. Sir John’s review challenges the service and medical profession to think afresh about the approach to training the next generation of hospital specialists in ways that will provide better patient care and well-trained professionals.

The findings in this report underline the importance of the coalition agreement commitment to limit the impact of the directive in the context of United Kingdom health services. “Time for Training” identifies ways in which safe care and high-quality training are capable of being achieved in the service. It also highlights the immediate difficulties created for trainees and for the service, especially in providing out-of-hours and weekend emergency patient care, in places where there is not yet the structure, support or flexibility of working practices needed to comply with the directive and the restrictive interpretations of the directive by the European Court of Justice.

I will support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in taking a robust approach to future negotiations on the revision of the directive, including maintenance of the opt-out. We will not go back to the past with tired doctors working excessive hours, but the way the directive now applies is clearly unsatisfactory and is causing great problems for health services across Europe. These difficulties are clearly reflected in the evidence from junior doctors that the implementation of the 48-hour week EWTD has impacted adversely on training and has been accompanied by unwelcome imposition of shift practices. Sir John’s report reinforces my determination to support efforts to resolve these difficulties and be ready to work constructively with the European Commission and other member states on radical, creative approaches to gain additional flexibilities.

Professor Sir John Temple’s findings demonstrate that far more can be done now by the service and the medical profession to improve medical training by changing working practices and taking greater advantage of the big increase in the number of consultants working in the national health service. I welcome his recommendations that the New Deal contract for junior doctors should be better aligned with the structures under the directive and that the consultant contract and job planning should incentivise consultants to support trainees and continuity of training. Continuity of patient care, of course, rests with the consultant who is responsible for the patient.

I have asked Medical Education England to consider with the profession, the service and medical Royal Colleges, how best to implement training practices that will support these aspirations. This will include reviewing the appropriate service component for medical specialty training with individual colleges and specialty associations, and advising NHS employers in their discussions on ways to realign and simplify New Deal working arrangements. I will continue to seek advice from Medical Education England on other matters to improve training, including development of a strategy for technology-enhanced learning and take-up of simulation training, and on the future structure of post-graduate medical education.

House of Lords

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 9 June 2010.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Several noble Lords took the oath or affirmed.

Individual Savings Accounts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in considering whether shares quoted on the Alternative Investment Market should be eligible for ISAs.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I declare an interest as an owner of shares in a number of AIM quoted companies.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the Government are considering this question and welcome representations from interested parties. They will set out their approach in due course.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I am grateful for that Answer. I had hoped that the noble Lord might achieve instant popularity by giving a rather more positive Answer, but we obviously welcome him with his considerable City experience. At 30 April, 1,250 shares were quoted on the Alternative Investment Market with a total capitalisation of £64 billion. The Stock Exchange believes that capital raising would be much easier if AIM shares were made eligible for ISAs. In broad terms, a decision by the Government would be tax-neutral. Given that shares quoted on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange are eligible for ISAs, does the Minister agree that it is time that the Government changed their decision and gave investors the choice?

[Lord Sassoon]

I agree with the noble Lord that there are 1,250 companies on AIM, but of those about 750—60 per cent—have a market capitalisation of less than £25 million. I also remind your Lordships that the purpose of the ISA was to hold mainstream products, so there is a tension between the very many smaller companies on AIM and the fundamental purpose of an ISA. The Government have a number of schemes for assisting the capital raising of smaller and medium-sized companies. I have not seen any evidence that it would be materially easier for those companies, albeit that there clearly would be some effect at the margin, if AIM shares were included in ISAs.

[Lord Bilimoria]

Does the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, recognise that this is an anomaly? AIM was set up, I think, under a Conservative Government in the 1990s to encourage investment into small and medium-sized enterprises, into growing companies. Surely the Government realise that we have to encourage that investment. Why should this be disallowed? AIM is a recognised exchange run by the London Stock Exchange. Do the Government not want to encourage investment when growth is desperately needed in the economy?

[Lord Sassoon]

As has already been pointed out, AIM has been enormously successful, with 1,250 companies listed. The money raised on AIM has helped more than 3,100 companies. Since the start of the market £67 billion has been raised at admission and through further fundraising, which includes more than £16 billion raised by 1,800 smaller UK companies. AIM has been very successful in helping the financing of the smaller and growing market.

[Lord Myners]

Does the Minister agree that increasing capital gains tax is more likely to decrease innovation, enterprise and job creation than improve them?

[Lord Sassoon]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and I was wondering when we would get some more of the candour shown in yesterday’s remarks. I know that the question of capital gains tax is of interest to many noble Lords. The coalition Government believe that the tax system needs to be reformed to make it fairer and simpler, and that is why we will increase the personal allowance for income tax to help lower and middle income earners. To fund this, we are carefully considering the various options for taxing non-business capital gains at rates closer to those applied to income while ensuring that there are generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities. Reforming CGT will ensure that those seeking to avoid paying income tax by converting their income into a capital gain will pay their fair share of tax. Further details on the coalition Government’s proposals will be provided at the Budget.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, in welcoming my noble friend to his new position, could I ask him to look at this again? The noble Lord, Lord Myners, indicated in the last Parliament that this issue was the subject of a review and that we might get a response in due course. How long is “in due course”? Does not my noble friend agree that small and medium-sized businesses are the key to expanding prosperity and jobs in our country? Making this small change—which as the noble Lord said is an anomaly—will open up the possibility of investors being able to invest, and being “all in this together”, to create a recovery in our country. Surely we need a response.

[Lord Sassoon]

First, I regret that I cannot say why the previous Government made no progress on their promised consultation. As I have said before, the new Government, who have not been in office for very long, are considering this question and we will set out their approach in due course. In the mean time, I stress that we welcome the views of interested parties. I should also stress that we are looking at a whole range of issues related to SME financing, which I agree is an extraordinarily important matter. The range of issues relates as much to bank lending and keeping the flow of credit going as it does to raising equity.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord to the Front Bench and saying how much I am looking forward to our discussions in the coming months. Given that holding AIM shares is a standard device for the avoidance of inheritance tax, do the Government plan to change inheritance tax legislation to ensure that AIM ISAs do not provide a double tax advantage?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcoming remarks, and for pointing out the advantages that AIM shares carry. That allows me to make the point, for those who would like to see AIM shares included in ISAs, that the consequential could be that AIM shares, if one follows through his logic, would lose some other benefits, principally that of inheritance tax relief benefit.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, within 10 days we are going to have a Budget which will contain much more complicated issues than this which the Government will have to take time to look at and reach a decision on. For this purpose, can I suggest to the Minister that his definition of “in due course” might mean the next Budget day?

[Lord Sassoon]

I wish I could say “in due course” in another way. However, I can only reconfirm my previous Answer.

[Lord Christopher]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a small investment management company that markets ISAs. Does the Minister agree that there is another side to the growth coin—the risk to potential investors? The number of people who invest today without really understanding what they are doing is extremely worrying. We have seen plenty of examples of irresponsible marketing and I hope that the Minister will take into account the views of the FSA on risk, which should be made clear to potential investors.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing this out. When ISAs were introduced in 1999, they were intended to be for mainstream investment products so that they would be well regulated and investors would be protected from too much risk as well as having easy access. I take the noble Lord’s point.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked By

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contribution they will make to the work required to achieve progress on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons following the resolution passed at the review conference in May.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, as we promised on taking office, we pushed hard for agreement of a final document at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. We will give the highest priority to reversing the spread of nuclear weapons, keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and cutting their numbers worldwide, and we will work with partners to translate those commitments into action.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. There was considerable acclaim at the conference for the UK’s leadership role over the past few years in the verification of the disarmament process and, in particular, for our work with Norway. Will he ensure that the Government continue that work, that it is resourced and that Aldermaston retains and develops the expertise needed? Without those practical steps, wishes will remain aspirations as opposed to realities.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Her concern about and interest in these matters is second to none. At the review conference, it was felt that the treaty had been, thankfully, revitalised and a series of action plans and activities were agreed between the participants, including an action plan for existing nuclear powers; an action plan for non-proliferation checking, although, of course, we have a long way to go on that; civil nuclear energy co-operation; verification procedures with Norway, to which the noble Baroness referred; strengthening nuclear security controls; and calling a regional conference in the Middle East to discuss possible Middle East freedom from weapons of mass destruction. This is a big achievement—a big step—and we should be very grateful that we have managed to make this kind of progress.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the IAEA’s illicit trafficking database has recorded 336 incidents involving unauthorised possession of nuclear materials and associated criminal acts in the past 15 years. There have also been incidents of terror teams carrying out reconnaissance of nuclear weapon trains in Russia. Can the noble Lord tell us, first, whether Her Majesty’s Government are satisfied with the security arrangements around the nuclear facilities in this country and what steps they are taking to protect them? Secondly, what steps are they taking to ensure that security arrangements around both civil and military nuclear facilities elsewhere are being properly maintained?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are satisfied, but we are always on guard and always watchful for any need for improvement. The international security of nuclear materials was discussed, analysed and strengthened at the Washington conference in April that preceded the nuclear NPT review conference. A whole series of measures was put forward there and agreed. In so far as one can, one can say that these measures are a step forward in what is undoubtedly, as the noble Lord fully realises, a very dangerous situation.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations to both the Government he represents and the previous Government, since they overlapped during the NPT review, on the work that they put in to achieve a consensus outcome, which I agree was a major step forward? Will the Government press the Secretary-General of the UN extremely hard to appoint a facilitator for the 2012 conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, which has now been decided on, so that a really distinguished, impartial person can get down to work on this very difficult subject without delay? Will they ensure that the Secretary-General of the UN tells his facilitator that he should apply the phrase, “Don’t take no for an answer”?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Part of the action plan for the existing nuclear powers is to involve the UN Secretary-General much more closely and to seek his co-operation in the directions that the noble Lord has described. I cannot vouch for the precise patterns which he will follow, but his full involvement in these matters is a major intention of the signatories to the new conclusions.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, the Minister described the excellent outcome of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. However, the great bulk of non-nuclear powers decided to press for a nuclear weapons convention to abolish nuclear weapons completely by 2025. In the light of that, will the nuclear posture review, which has been welcomed and mentioned by the coalition Government, look into how far we can make precise the future steps towards disarmament that we shall take as a Government? Will it also look at the future of the British deterrent?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who obviously has enormous knowledge of this subject. The idea of a nuclear weapons convention is a fine one, but we take the view, as I think do other Governments, that it is in practice a question of one step at a time. We want to try to move towards the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. A whole series of things need to be done before one comes to the happy situation where the nuclear world is disarmed and a convention could then get full support. If we try to rush to a convention first of all, we might end up delaying the detailed work that is needed on the path to get there.

Prisoners: Voting

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans to give prisoners the right to vote.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government are considering afresh the best way forward on the issue of prisoner voting rights.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am trying to think what “afresh” means. Will the Minister confirm that the Council of Europe yesterday gave the British Government three months in which to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and that the previous Labour Government were committed to doing so? Will the Minister give some indication whether “afresh” means “some time” or “not likely”?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, “afresh” probably means “with a greater sense of urgency than Ministers in the last Government approached the issue”.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, as the Minister will recall, this question has been asked many times in this House during the past 18 months. Before the election, the Conservative Official Opposition were strongly in favour of the steps taken by the then Government to implement the ECHR ruling. The Liberal Democrats were equally strongly against our approach, accusing the then Government of dragging their feet, so I think that the House would be grateful to know the view of the present Government. Why is there no mention of this issue in The Coalition: Our Programme for Government? Is the issue not important enough for the document, or is it just too difficult?

[Lord McNally]

That comes from a Minister who did not even get “afresh” into any of his answers over a long period of time. He will be well aware that the court slightly moved the goalposts, in its decision of 8 April on Frodl v Austria, which narrowed even further the terms under which votes could be denied to prisoners. Given that and the fact that Ministers have just come into office, I think it perfectly reasonable that we be given some time to look at this. At the meeting of the Council of Europe in September, we intend to fully update the council on our thoughts on this matter.

[The Earl of Onslow]

My Lords, I was on the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights when this judgment was made, and I hoped at the time that grass would be heavily fertilised around this issue. It is the sort of judgment that does not really help to bring the general issue of human rights to the forefront of an Englishman’s mind. That is something that I regard as extremely important. We should be clear on human rights—and we should allow grass to grow in great dollops around issues such as this one.

[Lord McNally]

I think that the noble Lord’s Question was about whether the Government were committed to the basic, underlying human rights commitments in our membership of the council—and that is absolutely true and firm. But as at least two of the former Ministers now gazing at me know, there is a range of options. They were working on an option that might have been quite acceptable to a broad base of British public opinion, but the Frodl judgment has moved the goalposts again. That is why we are looking at the matter afresh.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

My Lords, can I tempt the Minister to define “afresh” as meaning a period shorter than the seven years which, regrettably, the last Labour Government took to do nothing about this issue? Is it not an absolute disgrace, given the support all around this House for much more emphasis on rehabilitation of people in prison, in this day and age to deny prisoners the vote as part of that rehabilitation process? It is totally wrong.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my senior colleagues in government are considering this matter. All that I can do is to guarantee that the expertise and experience in this House will be transferred to those colleagues.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, can my noble friends’ noble friend on the Front Bench tell whether there is any evidence whatever that this measure has any support outside this House among the general public?

[Lord McNally]

I am not sure that it has support in the editorial columns of the Daily Express or the Daily Mail, but in the broader general public there is a willingness to consider the experience of other countries, both in rehabilitation of prisoners and the kind of punishment meted to them. We will report to the September meeting, and the contributions of this House—both from my noble friend and from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I hope—will be taken into consideration.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Cross Bench!

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, may I assist the House? There is plenty of time remaining on this Question. May we hear for the first time from the Cross Benches and then, perhaps, from the Liberal Democrat Benches?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I suspect that one of the reasons the previous Government took so long to come to no decision was that they were asking themselves, and indeed asking the public through the consultative process, the wrong question. The European Court of Human Rights laid down that every sentenced prisoner had the right to vote. Therefore the question is not who has the right to vote but who does not. In France and Germany, that is decided in court at the time of sentence by the judge according to the crime. Is that approach going to be tried in the fresh look, rather than continuing the sterile one that produced no answer?

[Lord McNally]

I am well aware that that is one consideration before Ministers at the moment, but it is one of a wide variety of considerations.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I accept that there is great expertise and a great interest in this subject. We have already heard from the opposition Benches. May we hear from the Liberal Democrats?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

In reaching their conclusions, will the Government bear in mind that we should in no way give the impression to the less well informed members of the public that we can pick and choose which rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to implement as the Executive determine?

[Lord McNally]

I agree, my Lords, but when the court makes rulings and then makes new ones, it is up to the Executive to consider them carefully and consider the implications before they come to a decision. That is what we are doing, and I have already said that we will update the council of our view—not in seven years’ time, but in September.

[Lord Grocott]

There is clearly difficulty here, particularly between the two parties to the coalition. In an effort to be helpful to the Government, I therefore suggest that they do for this issue what they have done already for so many other aspects of the coalition agreement document—set up a commission.

[Lord McNally]

Even for a former Chief Whip, that attitude is shameless. As has already been pointed out from the noble Lord’s own Benches, that lot sat on this decision for seven years. We have to face a new decision made on 8 April, and we have said that we will bring our conclusions to a September meeting of the council. I think that that is pretty good going.

Pensions: Deepwater Horizon

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:31

Asked By

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on British pension savers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Deepwater Horizon spill is an environmental and human tragedy. People saving in a pension scheme may be worried by the recent falls in the BP share price and indeed by market speculation about whether BP will pay a dividend this year. However, most pension schemes will be diversified across a range of investments, which will include not only equities but assets such as gilts, property and cash. Those more heavily weighted towards equities should not be too exposed to a single company.

[Lord Harrison]

Given that some one pound in six of the moneys received by pension funds comes from BP, does the Minister accept that these environmental risks can become severe financial risks? In light of that, would his coalition Government consider strengthening the reporting by pension funds to shareholders of these environmental, social and governance risks to ensure that the pension funds are not embarrassed in the way that they could be as a result of the recent tragedy?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is right when he says that BP is a major dividend payer. I think that last year it paid approximately 14 per cent of all dividends in the FTSE 100. This raises the question that the noble Lord has just asked: to what extent are pension funds acting responsibly with regard to their ownership responsibilities to companies? There have been improvements in that over the past decade, but the question that we need to consider is whether they have improved enough.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

Does the noble Lord agree that the question of BP paying a dividend is a decision for the directors of BP and not for the President of the United States?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, whether to pay a dividend is a decision for BP, which is due to make that decision on 27 July at the appropriate board meeting. Anyone who reads the press will know that the company is coming under enormous pressure in the US not to pay a dividend. Indeed, the political pressure may be greater than the financial pressure, because BP is financially soundly based at this juncture.

[Lord Soley]

Are the Government talking to BP about this, bearing in mind the very real pressures on the company in the United States that could put it under even more pressure? Is not BP in need of help and support from the British Government? Is it being given that?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I understand that the Government are in touch with both the US Administration and BP senior management on a regular basis. Clearly, BP is a private company and one would not want to make public any discussions in that area, whether they were or were not happening.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, do the Government feel that BP is being fairly or unfairly treated by the Americans?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is a deeply political question. Clearly, the emotions raised in the US by this tragedy are enormous. There will be repercussions in the US and in the world as a whole with regard to attitudes towards oil companies. The best that I can say is that we will be watching this space for months to come.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords—

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, would it not be helpful—

[Noble Lords]

This side!

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, do not the directors have a duty to the board and the shareholders to meet their correct obligations in full on the serious issues that have arisen in the United States? That must be fully recognised. Having done that, and having made proper assessment of what those are, they also have to recognise the duty to their shareholders in terms of whether to pay a dividend.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. Clearly, the BP board has to make some complicated decisions, which are a mix of the financial and the political. Market estimates of the cost that the company will have to pay are in the region of £15 billion to £20 billion, although that is purely market speculation and I make no comment about what the Government expect them to be. The company will have to decide in that context whether it is appropriate to pay a dividend.

[Lord Harrison]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply to my first question—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, on the subject of return—

[Noble Lords]

Time!

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Procedure of the House Committee

Refreshment Committee

Works of Art Committee

Membership Motions

15:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006; and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Andrews, L Blackwell, L Butler of Brockwell, L Carlile of Berriew, B Gardner of Parkes, L Haskel, L Mayhew of Twysden, B O’Loan, L Soley, B Thomas of Winchester (Chairman);

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Merits of Statutory Instruments.

(1) The Committee shall, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (2), consider—

(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;

(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament,

with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (3).

(2) The exceptions are—

(a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;

(c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.

(3) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;

(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation;

(d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives.

(4) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of the merits of statutory instruments and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (3) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Butler-Sloss, L Eames, L Goodlad (Chairman), B Hamwee, L Hart of Chilton, L Lucas, L Methuen, B Morris of Yardley, L Norton of Louth, L Rosser, L Scott of Foscote;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the Reports of the Committee shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.

Procedure of the House Committee

That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

B Anelay of St Johns, L Bassam of Brighton, B D’Souza, L Goldsmith, B Gould of Potternewton, L Harries of Pentregarth, B Hayman, L Jopling, L Low of Dalston, L McNally, B Royall of Blaisdon, L Shutt of Greetland, L Strathclyde, B Thomas of Winchester, L Tyler, V Ullswater, L Wakeham, B Wall of New Barnet;

That the following members be appointed as alternate members:

L Campbell-Savours, V Craigavon, B Hamwee, L Hunt of Wirral, V Montgomery of Alamein (alternate for the Convenor of the Crossbench peers);

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Refreshment Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to advise on the refreshment services provided for the House, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:

L Brougham and Vaux, L Davies of Oldham, L Elder, B Emerton, B Fritchie, L Geddes, B Henig, L Lee of Trafford, B Rendell of Babergh, L Shutt of Greetland, L Skidelsky, B Thomas of Winchester;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Works of Art Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to administer the House of Lords Works of Art Collection Fund; and to consider matters relating to works of art and the artistic heritage in the House of Lords, within the strategic framework and financial limits approved by the House Committee;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Crathorne, B Gale, L Harries of Pentregarth, B Howells of St Davids, L Luke (Chairman), B Massey of Darwen, E Shrewsbury, L Smith of Clifton, L Stevenson of Coddenham, B Valentine, L Waddington;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Motions agreed.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. In March last year, the Healthcare Commission’s report into Mid Staffordshire and the appalling failures in patient care that were laid bare within it shocked us all. Three reports later and I am announcing today what should have been announced then—a full public inquiry into how these events went undetected and unchallenged for so long. This inquiry will be heard in public, including the evidence, from the oral hearings to the final report. We can only combat a culture of secrecy and restore public confidence by ensuring the fullest openness and transparency in any investigation.

So, why another inquiry? We know only too well what happened at Mid Staffordshire, in all its harrowing detail, and the failings of the trust itself, but we are still little closer to understanding how it was allowed to happen by the wider system. The families of those patients who suffered so dreadfully deserve to know, and so does every NHS patient in this country. This was a failure of the trust first and foremost, but it was also a national failure of the regulatory and supervisory system which should have secured the quality and safety of patient care.

Why was it that it took a determined group of families to expose these failings and campaign tirelessly for answers? I pay tribute, again, to the work of Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, rightly supported by honourable Members in this House. Why did the primary care trust and strategic health authority not see what was happening and intervene earlier? How was the trust able to gain foundation status while clinical standards were so poor? Why did the regulatory bodies not act sooner to investigate a trust whose mortality rates had been significantly higher than the average since 2003 and whose record in dealing with serious complaints was so poor? The public deserve answers.

The previous reports are clear that a culture of fear existed in which staff did not feel able to report concerns; a culture of secrecy existed in which the trust board shut itself off from what was happening in its hospital and ignored its patients; and a culture of bullying existed which prevented people doing their jobs properly. Yet how these conditions developed has not been satisfactorily addressed. The 800-page report by Robert Francis QC, published in February, gave us a forensic account of the local failures in that hospital and the consequences for patients, but, like its predecessors, his report was limited by its narrow terms of reference.

I am pleased to say that Robert Francis has agreed to chair this new inquiry, and he will have the full statutory force of the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to attend and speak under oath. Clearly these are complex issues and Robert Francis has already said he wants to establish an expert panel that can help support him through this process. However, it is important for everyone that this inquiry is conducted thoroughly and swiftly, with the aim of providing its final report and conclusions by March 2011. I want to assure the House we will not wait to take earlier action where necessary.

So I can announce today that we are going to give teeth to the current safeguards for whistleblowers in the Public Interest Disclosure Act by reinforcing the NHS constitution to make clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing; seeking through negotiations with NHS trade unions, to amend terms and conditions of service for NHS staff to include a contractual right to raise concerns in the public interest; issuing unequivocal guidance to NHS organisations that all their contracts of employment should cover staff whistleblowing rights; issuing new guidance to the NHS on supporting and taking action on concerns raised by staff in the public interest; and exploring with NHS staff further measures which could provide a safe and independent authority to which they can turn when their own organisation is not listening or acting on concerns.

In the coming weeks we will be introducing further far-reaching reforms of the NHS, which go to the very heart of the failures at Mid Staffs. This is not about changes in processes or structures. It is about a wider shift in culture—putting patients at the heart of the NHS and focusing on the things that matter most to them. That includes putting the focus on safety. At Mid Staffs safety was not the priority; it was undermined by politically motivated process targets. The first Francis inquiry was crystal clear on this point. As the report says:

“This evidence satisfies me that there was an atmosphere in which front line staff and managers were led to believe that if the targets were not met they would be in danger of losing their jobs. There was an atmosphere which led to decisions being made under pressure about patients, decisions that had nothing to do with patient welfare. As will be seen, the pressure to meet the waiting target was sometimes detrimental to good care in A&E”.

We will scrap such process targets and replace them with a new focus on patients’ outcomes—the only outcomes that matter. We will empower patients with access to information, giving patients the ability to hold their own records, make informed choices and to interact more readily with clinicians. We will put power in patients’ hands because ultimately, if patients had been informed and empowered, if people had listened to them rather than obsessing about centrally mandated processes and targets, these scandalous failings could not have gone unchallenged for so long.

In closing, I want to say a word about the trust itself. It is so important that this hospital, which has been under such an intense spotlight, is able to continue to improve services for the patients it serves and continue to rebuild the trust and fractured confidence of that community. Staffing has increased, with more than 140 more nurses recruited since March 2009; processes are more open and transparent, with monthly board meetings now being held in public; results are improving; the hospital standardised mortality ratio is significantly lower; and the rate of healthcare-associated infections has also improved. The Care Quality Commission will, in the coming weeks, provide its considered view on progress when it publishes the findings of its “12 month on” review.

We cannot and should not underestimate the task still ahead and the attention of the trust must not be unduly diverted. That is why I am clear that this further inquiry should not go over ground already covered in the first Francis inquiry and should, as far as is possible, ensure that it supports all those staff who are working so hard to bring about the changes that are necessary. When this inquiry has completed its work and I return to this House to present its report, I am confident that we will, for the first time in this sorry saga, be able to discuss conclusions rather than questions. We will be able to show that we have finally faced up to the uncomfortable truths of this terrible episode, and we will be able to show that we are taking every step to ensure that it is never allowed to happen again. This is a basic duty of any Government. For the people of Staffordshire, many of whose relatives suffered unbearably in the closing stages of their lives, and for the nation as a whole, this is the very least they are entitled to. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

15:47

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. The Secretary of State promised to establish a public inquiry to examine the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust as late as February when he was in opposition and my right honourable friend Andy Burnham made a Statement on this matter in another place and announced the findings of the Francis report.

The staff, management and board of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust have worked hard to turn round this foundation hospital and to re-establish good relations with their local community. They now find themselves back on the front page for failures that occurred three or four years ago, which have already been the subject of three inquiries. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is, how do the Government intend to support the staff and management of Mid Staffs during the coming public inquiry? I agree with the noble Earl—it is important to put this on record—that we should acknowledge the work that the current chief executive and chairman have undertaken in the past year or so to turn round this hospital, which has met with a large measure of success. I hope that the Government will support them in the coming months.

There have now been three reports into the terrible events at the Mid Staffordshire hospital. Professor Sir George Alberti published a review of the hospital’s progress in emergency care, and Dr David Colin-Thomé published a report on how the commissioning and performance management system failed to expose what was happening in the hospital. The independent inquiry by Robert Francis QC was then established in July 2009. That report is 800 pages long, and I think the noble Earl will agree that it reflects with accuracy the terrible catalogue of failure of care of patients and their families, the comprehensive failure of the management and the failure of the foundation board. As my right honourable friend in another place said, our job in government then was to hold a mirror up to the NHS, which is why we commissioned the Francis report in July and brought forward the further proposals and terms of reference for a further inquiry. Therefore, of course the new inquiry has our full support, as has anything in the Statement that, for example, strengthens and supports whistleblowers in the NHS.

My next question is: how much account will be taken of the previous reports, conducted as they were by very distinguished medical and legal professionals? Can the Minister explain in what way the questions or terms of reference of the new inquiry will differ from the draft terms of reference which my right honourable friend agreed before the election? How long will this inquiry take and how much will it cost? Indeed, what has happened to the many recommendations made in the Francis report in February, which were accepted in full by the then Government? Will they continue to be implemented while this inquiry is ongoing?

Where I think that the Statement is disappointing and perhaps even dangerous is in the reference to targets. It seems to me that the noble Earl is in danger of prejudging the findings of the public inquiry in his undertaking to get rid of targets. The Conservatives have made it clear that they have an ideological opposition to targets, and they have used what happened at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust as their main example of why the four-hour target in accident and emergency is bad. We can have a discussion about that target. We think it is about national standards and that it is a tool for improvement. We also think it is about patient safety—indeed, it has huge support from patients and health staff, including doctors. What we know about Mid Staffordshire is that staffing fell to dangerously low levels. We know that it was not following the national guidance on targets and that it had a stupid staffing policy, which meant that it did not have enough nurses. We also know that the board and management completely failed to address these matters.

What will the Government do if the public inquiry finds that it was these gross failures at every level that were the problem and not the targets? It would be very unfortunate if this inquiry were used by the Government to justify their commitment to that ideology. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a balance here? Surely the public inquiry needs to address with an open mind these isolated and awful events in this hospital, and then other hospitals and the NHS can learn the lessons from that. If that is the aim, the Government will have our full support.

15:52

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the general welcome that she gave to the Statement and to the decision to announce a public inquiry, which indeed the previous Secretary of State signalled his intention of doing before the general election. I agree with a great deal of what she said—particularly the need to support the staff of the hospital. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to visit the Mid Staffordshire hospital tomorrow and will make a point of seeing the staff and expressing his support, not just for the work that they are doing but for the progress that they have made since these matters came to light, and will assure them that nothing should distract them from that work as this new inquiry proceeds.

The noble Baroness asked how much account will be taken by Robert Francis of the previous reports. The answer to that is full account. We have made it clear to Mr Francis—and he has not been slow to agree—that there is no point in going over the same ground again. Mr Francis has many fine qualities, but one of the great advantages of his agreeing to do this is that he will, so to speak, hit the ground running. He is on familiar territory. We hope that he will have completed his report by March of next year. We recognise that that is a tight timescale within the context of the Inquiries Act, but he believes that it is eminently possible and we wish him well. The manner in which he will conduct his inquiry is the subject of a separate announcement that he has made this afternoon, and I understand that it is now on the departmental website, so the process will be clear from that.

The noble Baroness asked me about the terms of reference and the difference between this inquiry and the previous one. To encapsulate that difference, the previous inquiry concentrated on what happened at the trust while this one focuses on the lessons for the wider system. The other difference is that the first inquiry was carried out under the NHS Act and this inquiry will be conducted under the Inquiries Act, which is a much more powerful statutory basis on which to proceed. It means that there is a presumption that hearings will be held in public and that records of evidence and information given to the inquiry must be made available to the public. There is a power of compelling witnesses to attend and give evidence, a power to take evidence on oath and a power to make recommendations if Mr Francis so wishes, not just about the NHS but about bodies other than the NHS. He can make recommendations to the GMC, for example, which the previous inquiry could not do. These are important added factors.

The noble Baroness asked me about targets. I am well aware that she and I do not entirely see eye to eye on this, but I would like to think that we are perhaps closer together than she supposes. It is not that we regard all targets as bad and wrong, but we think that there should be an analysis of the clinical relevance of the targets that are now in place. How much clinical underpinning do they really have? Some of them have considerable underpinning clinically. One thinks, for example of the hospital-acquired infections target, which is clinically very important. But there are others that we will have to look at very carefully. They have less relevance but of course we are taking advice from the medical community. On the four-hour A&E target that the noble Baroness mentioned specifically, of course I recognise that time limits in A&E are very important to patients, but the precise nature of the current target may be wrong—we think that it is distorting priorities within many trusts. We will not take a doctrinaire approach and say that all targets have to go but we want to look at them carefully to make sure that they are useful.

15:58

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, the immediate response of my honourable friend Norman Lamb in the other place to the 2009 Healthcare Commission report was to call for a public inquiry. My noble colleague the Minister can be absolutely confident of the warm welcome on these Benches to the decision to have a public inquiry, a request that was refused by the previous Government. One has to suspect that it was refused because of the likelihood of exposing the inadequacies not just of a particular hospital and trust board but of the regulatory system that had been put in place and the culture of target and finance-driven managerialism that the previous Government championed.

I am sure that the noble Earl expects that this will be exposed in the public inquiry, but is it not important that we should not only protect whistleblowers—he has announced important developments in that regard—but address the whole culture that regarded professionals and commissions raising questions and concerns as troublesome and disloyal rather than as wanting to improve the standards and quality of the service? What is needed is a change in the culture, so that the views of clinicians of all professions are valued, welcomed and encouraged. The priority of managers is not to dominate the service and to impose politically driven targets but to provide it with high levels of patient care.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend that in many parts of the NHS we need a culture change—a culture that puts patients first. We need an NHS that listens to patients and responds to their concerns and needs. We must prioritise the people whom the NHS serves and we must listen to the doctors and nurses who work in it. The measures that we are taking today on whistleblowing are important. Last week, we began to publish more transparent data about the NHS so that people can hold their local services to account in a more meaningful way. We are looking also at reducing the number of hospital readmissions, as I am sure my noble friend is aware.

The culture change that is needed will not happen in a hurry and I would not want to give the impression that it is required everywhere in the NHS. Mid Staffordshire was an unusual event, but unless we get to the bottom of why it happened there must be a fear that it may happen again. As we move forward and propose to Parliament changes in the way in which the NHS is regulated and care is commissioned, we must not lay ourselves open to unintended traps. I therefore concur with all that my noble friend said. I think that he will find, as we bring forward our proposals, that the emphasis on transparency, openness and the patient’s voice will do much to address the concerns raised.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, the Minister has spoken about listening to professionals and to patients. Will he give an undertaking that, long before whistleblowing is necessary, there really will be measures in place to support staff who want to raise concerns that changes proposed by management might adversely affect patient outcomes? That requires an empowering of clinicians at the coal face.

Furthermore, as the Government consider changes in the NHS generally, will they not be fooled into thinking that this was a completely isolated event? I fear that there are a lot of other pockets in the NHS that are not right. What emerged from the inquiry were the voices of the patients’ relatives. When they gave evidence, those voices shouted out loud and clear that things were wrong, but they were not adequately heard. I commend—I declare an interest here—the Dying Well Matters programme as part of the Wales 1000 Lives Campaign, which I have been involved in instigating. It routinely seeks stories from relatives and patients before trouble occurs to try to detect those subtle but extremely distressing instances of poor and inadequate care in parts of the service that otherwise might go unnoticed.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as ever, the House will listen to the noble Baroness with great attention and respect, knowing that she works in the midst of an important and active part of the NHS. I hope that she is wrong and that the seriousness of the malpractice at Mid Staffordshire is rare, but we have to be vigilant. There could be another instance of a failing trust out there. The House may want to know that the Care Quality Commission has announced the registration status of 378 NHS trusts to provide healthcare services from 1 April. Only 22 of those are registered with conditions, but the CQC has said that those trusts are safe to provide services to patients. No trusts were refused registration, which is an important point.

On the question of openness within trusts, the noble Baroness is right: a culture of openness and willingness to learn from mistakes is essential to a health service that wishes to improve. There is a requirement on hospitals to inform regulators about serious errors, but that requirement does not extend to informing patients, so we are looking at how that can be addressed.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords—

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I think that it is this side’s turn—

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, I believe that it is our side’s turn.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, there is plenty of time for both sides. I think that it is this side’s turn.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I have never felt so much gratitude towards a Minister as I feel at this moment. He has created a first in my parliamentary life. Never before in 44 years have I had the requests placed so clearly in a speech met six days later: care for patients, an understanding that non-medical people are not always the people to make decisions, and safeguarding what whistleblowers have to say. In fact, there were other hospitals—Maidstone and several others come to mind—where serious problems had arisen. I have raised such cases many times with dates and all details and had no answers given as to why patients were treated so badly. In the case of Stafford, the chief executive of that hospital, who had been in command for the whole of the time during which that terrible record was amassed, was then given a very senior position with as much responsibility elsewhere. Will the Minister look at that, because we must safeguard patients, wherever they may be?

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind comments. The House will know what a champion she is of patient care and compassion in the health service. On her last point, it is of course for Robert Francis, who is in charge of the inquiry, to decide whom he calls as witnesses, but he has a completely free hand and I am sure that he will take note of my noble friend’s suggestion.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, before I ask my question, I suggest that we register that the usual channels might discuss the sequencing of speakers from the government Benches and these Benches, because I am not sure that there is a correct interpretation.

I have no objections whatsoever to this wider inquiry. I hope that it will look carefully at the extent to which doctors, nurses and managers failed in their professional responsibilities. What the regulators and other bodies did might also be usefully looked at. However, does the Minister accept that it is easy in such circumstances to reach for something that cannot answer back, such as a target, to explain away what is essentially appalling clinical and managerial behaviour? That is clear from many other inquiries into what happened in Mid Staffordshire.

If the Minister wants seriously to consider targets, he might read some of the speeches made by previous Ministers, who made it crystal clear to the NHS that its overriding responsibility was to the care and safety of patients, not obsessively to implement targets. I know that there are conventions about looking at papers from previous Administrations, but I would certainly be prepared to waive that consideration. Will he also look at the extent to which John Reid, when he was Health Secretary, amended the way in which the four-hour target was implemented in response to concerns expressed by doctors? He might like to see the minutes of a meeting that I had with the College of Emergency Medicine. Members of the college came to see me as a Health Minister to ask me—beg me, almost—not to amend the four-hour target because of the improvements that it had produced for its members, for patients and for the way in which hospitals were run. Will he also look at the Nuffield Trust’s independent inquiry into targets, which also shows the benefits that they have brought to patients in terms of better access and shorter waiting times and which compares the experience in England, where there were targets, very favourably with that in the Celtic fringes, which did not have them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are not targeting the targets with this inquiry. They are not the main point at issue. The noble Lord is right that the main point at issue is the failure of care, but that is also, as we hope this inquiry will show, a systemic failure. That is the point of the inquiry. I do not doubt anything that he said about the commitment of previous Ministers to putting care above any rigid adherence to targets; I fully accept the good faith of Ministers in the previous Administration in that regard. However, the noble Lord will know that what Ministers say is very often not interpreted in the same way on the ground in the NHS. When people in the NHS hear things coming out of Whitehall, they are inclined to adhere rigidly to what they are told to do. That is part of the problem, but it is not the problem that I want to emphasise in this context. We need to understand how the wider performance management and regulatory system failed to spot the problems earlier and deal with them and why so few professionals felt that they could challenge what they saw. Understanding the lessons from that and the culture in which the events at Mid Staffs were allowed to happen will be key to informing and shaping our plans for the future.

[Lord Patel]

I declare an interest as chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency. I concur with what the Minister just said: the regulatory authorities that scrutinise the performance of trusts failed Mid Staffordshire. I was criticised for publishing reports of all trusts linked to two parameters of quality of patient safety: trusts’ reporting of incidents and mortality ratios. On both those criteria, Mid Staffordshire would have failed, as other trusts fail now. We need an inquiry that identifies parameters of quality and safety that could be embedded across the whole of the NHS so that we can identify failing hospitals early on and remedy them. I support the inquiry.

[Earl Howe]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work, in particular for his work with the National Patient Safety Agency. As he will know, hospital standardised mortality ratios are something of a vexed topic. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, has established a working group that will review how those ratios are derived and recommend what method should be used consistently for the NHS in future. The aim is to provide simple, practical guidance on how the ratios should be interpreted and used with other sources of information. Once the technical basis for this work has been developed, it is planned that patients and patient groups will be invited to become closely involved.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, the Minister referred to seeing to it that, following the experience of Mid Staffs, more information will be given to patients. He will no doubt recall from debates in this House during the passage of the Equality Bill that research carried out by Dr Foster for RNIB, of which I am a vice-president, showed that as many as 72 per cent of patients were given information by their GP that they could not read. Even higher figures were uncovered in relation to the rest of the NHS. Will the noble Lord give a commitment that the Government will take steps to ensure that information is given in accessible formats to patients who have difficulty in reading information in ordinary print? To assist in doing this, the Government will have at their disposal the strengthened rights of access to information in accessible formats included in the Equality Bill before it passed into law.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, which is spot on target—if I dare use that word. The need to create more accessible information for patients is central to the Government’s agenda for creating choice. Choice is meaningless unless it is informed choice, which means rolling out choice to every patient, including those who are visually disabled. We are determined to make more information about care and safety standards and performance available to the public and staff. That should be published online and in formats accessible to all patients. I assure the noble Lord that we will bear these points closely in mind as we develop our plans.

[Lord Burnett]

My noble friend is right that a widespread culture of secrecy and fear pervades the NHS. I welcome wholeheartedly the establishment of this inquiry and the proposals to buttress the rights of whistleblowers. Will the Government consider making concerted efforts to recruit managers, especially at senior levels, from outside the NHS? I am aware that some high-calibre people are non-executive directors, but we need and should recruit high-calibre non-executive directors in the NHS who are independent, intelligent and fearless.

[Earl Howe]

I fully agree with my noble friend. We have asked the Appointments Commission to set out proposals for a revised person specification for chairs and non-executive directors to ensure that it is aligned with the current priorities and principles of the NHS. We want to continue to deliver high-calibre non-executives, in particular, who are needed to meet the challenges ahead. The general point raised by my noble friend is well made and we shall certainly take it forward.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. Will the Minister confirm what I think was the thrust of the Statement, which was that regulation and regulatory activities should always be about patient safety and not about maintenance or promotion of professionals? As the strong and welcome implication of the Statement is about putting patients at the centre, does he expect the inquiry to give any indication as to how patients should be supported in bringing forward their concerns?

[Earl Howe]

On the last point, we are doing quite a lot of work in the department to ensure that patients are supported in an appropriate fashion in their dealings with the health service. Our plans for what we hope to call “health watch” will flesh out that point. I agree that safety lies at the heart of the quality agenda, which was commenced in earnest by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, when he was a Minister. I have the privilege of being responsible for that agenda, which is being continued with urgency. We are committed to developing the role of the Care Quality Commission to make it a more effective regulator of health services in England. We will bring forward proposals that will focus on the outcomes of the care experienced by patients. The Care Quality Commission will be intimately involved in that.

China: EU Committee Report

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:20

Moved By

[Lord Teverson]

To move that this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Stars and Dragons: The EU and China (7th Report, Session 2009-10, HL Paper 76).

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, at the moment we in the western world are inward-looking. What we see as a global financial and economic crisis makes us in the western economies and societies look inwards more than we have done for many years, and we have not been paying as much as attention as we did a few years ago to the rise of many other economies around the world, particularly China. Yet the Chinese economy has been growing at some 10 per cent per annum and has become effectively the third largest economy in the world behind the European single market and the United States. It still has a very large trading surplus with the western world, including the European Union, and it is continuing to spread its influence, investment and tentacles across the developing world. It is a country, an economy and a trading nation that we cannot afford to ignore, let alone forget about. We need to keep the focus on it.

For this report, we intended to look at the broad relationship between Europe and China and ask ourselves what the nature of that relationship should be, what it should include, and in which areas the European Union should take action to make sure that the relationship is more effective. For the benefit of the House, I shall give a little of the history of the relationship between the European Union and China. It is perhaps staggering that the current formal legal relationship, in the form of a trading and co-operation agreement, was made between the EU and China in 1985. Although it is 25 years old, it is still valid and is the basis on which EU-China relations formally work. Since then we have seen the introduction of annual summits and, more recently, regular high-level dialogues between Ministers and their equivalents on both sides. Indeed, in 2007 it was agreed that there should be a new partnership and co-operation agreement that would cover a far broader range of subjects than just that of trade as covered in the original agreement. The negotiations towards it continue, but three years later, the agreement is yet to be fulfilled.

The headline from the report and the view of the sub-committee is that, given the important nature of the two entities—one a sovereign state and the other a collection of member states—the agreement needs to be of a much more strategic nature than at the moment. Europe comprises some half a billion people, while China has 1.3 billion. Along with the United States, between us we account for over 50 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and we are major players not just in the world economy but in how the world will work in the future. We believe, therefore, that we should have a much better and more strategic relationship with China.

One of the themes that came up repeatedly throughout our studies was the concern whether Europe had already lost the game and was being left out in terms of future global relations, so that we would have a G2—the two being, of course, China and the United States. We considered this many times, but the committee felt that that was not the case at this point, that it certainly should not be the case, and that the G20 model, in which China participates strongly, would provide a much better role in terms of future inter-governmental co-operation at the global level. The G8 is clearly moving on; it is important to include the developing nations within that, and China could play a strong role. At the moment our relationship with China is not a strategic one. It was described by one of our witnesses—and agreed by the committee—as more representative of a collaborative relationship.

Looking back on the history of EU-China relations, up until 2003 China saw Europe as an important player on the world stage generally. It saw it as a balance to the power of the United States—in an economic if not a military or security sense—and it took great time to understand Europe and invest in the relationship. In 2003, a small incident changed the nature of the relationship. This was when a number of major member states within Europe started to make it clear to China that the EU arms embargo should be removed. That expectation moved to the brink and, although it may not have made a great difference to the way in which the arms trade worked, it was an important policy decision. However, because of the intervention of the United States, negotiations stopped and the arms embargo remained. It was felt by a number of witnesses that at that point China no longer saw the EU as having a pivotal role in its relationships, particularly with the United States, and that, in many ways, it was a partner to the United States in a different way to China. We still have to recover from that situation.

Indeed, one of the lessons that we learned from that episode is that the EU must never again put itself into a position where it is directly in conflict with the United States in its relationship with China—and certainly not into a position where it changes its own policies. There needs to be much greater consultation and co-operation in that area.

It came through from a number of witnesses that the EU, a major economy—among the world’s largest—and a large market for China, failed generally to put leverage on to China in regard to certain decisions. To say that the EU rolled over on every occasion is clearly not the case, but we felt that, given our strong trading position, our market and our position in the world, the EU failed to use its natural power to sufficiently influence Chinese policies in areas such as human rights, trade negotiations, intellectual property and access to markets.

An example of when the EU did not help itself was described by a number of our witnesses. This was when the Heads of Government of three major member states—the United Kingdom, France and Germany—entered into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. China took diplomatic action and, at the same time, other member states tried to take advantage of the situation. We showed no solidarity whatever and the rug was taken from under the feet of the European Union as a whole—this happened during the French presidency under President Sarkozy—when the Chinese cancelled a summit that was due to take place between the EU and China. The committee asked itself whether China would ever have done what it did to the European Union if the United States had been its strategic partner. There is a great need to show strength of unity and to use leverage wherever possible.

The sub-committee also felt that there was a mismatch of understanding within the relationship. The Chinese embassy in Brussels has some 70 or 80 staff and it sends a large number of students to European and other western countries to understand their culture and the way in which they work. There is much greater understanding of the English language in China than of the Chinese language in Europe. There needs to be much greater investment in our understanding of China.

A possible outcome of that lack of understanding is that we look upon China as a single entity. To a large degree, it is clear that it is. It is a centralised, unitary state, with one-party rule everywhere apart from in Hong Kong. However, we forget that there are 31 different provinces in China whose provincial Governments have many powers, even within international investment projects. There are also some 55 minority populations, of which the Han Chinese are by far the largest. The EU therefore needs to have a more complex view of China as a nation, particularly in its dealings on development issues.

The sub-committee was in China for one week. You cannot see a great deal of the country within that time, but we did visit one of the industrial areas in Guangzhou and the Pearl River Delta. Although this is a major industrial area, and although a very effective UK trade delegation is there, we were surprised to find that EU representation was concentrated within Beijing and that it did not have any trade delegations or staff in the provinces. A presence in the provinces is important not just for promoting trade, which is much more a national issue, but also for market access and for making sure that WTO rules are applied and that the writ of trading rules in Beijing is felt out in the provinces.

However, we were not as utterly pessimistic as I have sounded so far. We were encouraged that China is starting to take on a broader role as a world citizen. It is still finding its way in this area and we felt that it was in many ways hesitant to take on that broader responsibility, let alone a regional responsibility. Yet we were surprised, as might be many of your Lordships here, that China is the largest contributor of peacekeeping troops of the permanent five members of UN Security Council, P5. While it has participated independently in the Somali counterpiracy operation, its naval force has co-operated with the EU’s Operation Atalanta and the NATO force. We welcome this taking-on of responsibility, while understanding that there is nervousness among the western security community about what that might lead to in the future. We welcome China’s increased world citizenship.

It is clear that China’s main relationship with Europe is through trade. In 2008, there was a €170 billion deficit between the EU and China. Ironically, one of the outcomes of the recession is that the trade deficit has gone down, but we were reminded that an important aspect of the international recession is imbalances such as that in trade between China and the western economies. The undervaluation of the Chinese currency has enabled China to have very high savings at a time when the West has consumption and very much a trade deficit. So what we see there is a balance that has not changed but needs to change, for future economic stability. With the United States, Europe needs to ensure that there is a resolution of that problem over time before it again becomes a major problem to world trade.

Many noble Lords will be particularly concerned with the human rights issues. We were concerned that there was too much rhetoric and grandstanding and not enough effect in that area, and I know that a number of noble Lords will wish to talk about that. One area that we found very positive, which was never mentioned by the Commission in Brussels but which we saw on the ground, was a number of practical justice and rule-of-law policies, investments and developments that were EU-financed and that found success and were welcomed at a provincial level by provincial Chinese government. We felt that those should be particularly strongly invested in. As for the broader human rights issues, it was pointed out to us by China’s Government that, through their economic development, social rights have been improved as at no other time in history. Several tens of billions of Chinese citizens had been taken out of poverty by the current growth and regime within China. We do not dispute that—we welcome it. However, clearly it is not acceptable that that still comes at the level of restriction of human rights and democracy that that still represents.

On climate change, we saw the shift of power from west to east at Copenhagen. Although China signed up to reducing energy intensity at the Copenhagen accord, it was a great sign to us of Europe’s failure in that negotiation that it was hardly involved in the Copenhagen accord, while China chaired it and influenced how it worked. We are still in a position of having great challenges as we move towards the next meeting on climate change at the end of the year in Mexico.

I shall leave the description of our report at that. The clear message that came over to us was that in the 21st century, as China clearly improves its economic performance even more and its importance in the world increases, it was essential that the EU had a proper strategic relationship with China. Is the Lisbon treaty, which came into force while we were looking at this relationship, going to enable that? It could do—but we were far from convinced that it would. The summit that took place this May was positive, but I do not think that it moved that relationship forward very much. The challenge is with the European Union to use its power, influence and moral authority to create a strategic relationship that works for the rest of the global community. I beg to move.

16:37

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the speech just made by my noble friend and the report of the sub-committee under his chairmanship. As his presentation made clear, it produced a comprehensive, clear and constructive report containing some plain and important messages both for the United Kingdom and the European Union, as well as the People’s Republic of China.

The central message is clearly important. If ever a subject cried out for pan-European consideration, it is the management over the long term of our relations with China. That proposition contains no suggestion of hostility, although I noticed with some irony the use of the word “tentacles” by my noble friend. I know that that was not meant to be a demonstration of hostility. There is no question of hostility, but there is a growing significance and diversity of common interests, all requiring the consideration of collective response by the European Union—on climate change and energy, the WTO and IMF obligations, intellectual property rights, the impact of Chinese investments on developing countries and the possible sources of political tension in North Korea, Myanmar, Taiwan and so on.

I am glad to be able to welcome what is said in paragraph 303 of the report. It states:

“China… has gradually been prepared to play a more constructive role in respect of some armed conflicts in Africa”.

My noble friend did indeed make that point. One must hope for a continuation of that—a less passive role by China, for example, in relation to a different style of conflict, whether in Myanmar itself or in Zimbabwe.

I am glad, aside from my noble friend, to be able to endorse the recognition by our new Foreign Secretary, who made his celebrated maiden speech at a party conference in the debate to which I had to reply. He outshone me throughout the evening as I commented on his speech, rather than he on mine. I have great confidence in him. He has been emphasising the value and necessity of approaching these problems and others from a European base. That is an important proposition.

I agree with my noble friend that the formalities of the Lisbon treaty are far from being a magic wand in this context. I venture to suggest that our own colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, although she is not here, has an important role to play in this. Because of her demonstration of leadership qualities in this House, I think that she will achieve a constructive partnership—even leadership—with our own Secretary of State and other colleagues in the foreign affairs field.

My second major point is no less important than the first. In Britain’s case, at least, and not just in relation to foreign policy, there is truly an important independent role to be played. There are two reasons for making that point. The first is the probability that both our countries, the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic, are likely to remain permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. I know from limited experience in that context that it gave an opportunity for me to collaborate with my then Chinese opposite number in that venue. It is no disadvantage that the only other European member is France.

The second reason for confidence in this relationship is the fact that the United Kingdom and China have a long, although sometimes chequered, mutual relationship with each other. We share a sense of history that we are not able to share in quite the same way with other countries.

For me personally, if I may digress for a moment, my own contact with this concept first arose on 5 January 1950. Together with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who is not here today, and one other Cambridge undergraduate, I was, rather surprisingly, in Ebbw Vale preaching the cause of Conservatism and holding what was laughingly called a “brains trust” in the constitutional club of that important community. On that day, the news had broken that Ernest Bevin, that terrible socialist Foreign Secretary, had announced Britain’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China. Surprisingly, members of the club asked us the question, “Do you Conservatives agree or not agree with this rash decision taken by this socialist Foreign Minister?”. We had all been well trained by Professor Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, and we all responded collectively to say, “Of course we agree with Ernest Bevin’s decision”. That laid a firm foundation for my relationship with China thereafter.

The next step came, a little more seriously, in 1973 when I had my first meeting—in the United Kingdom, as it happens—under the benevolent surveillance of my noble friend Lord Walker, who, unhappily, is not with us at the moment. I was Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, and I met my Chinese opposite number. Again, the bridge was being built a little further. For that reason or some other, I became a friend of China to the extent that, in 1978, I found myself invited as a guest by the People's Republic together with my noble friend Lord Brittan of Spennithorne and my noble kinsman who is not here. The three of us were in the party together. I remember one episode. There was a notice put out by the China Daily newspaper to the effect that:

“Vice President Gu Mu had received British Member of Parliament Geoffrey Howe and his wife Leon Brittan”.

We overcame that.

During that visit one of our missions was to search for the existence and effectiveness of anything resembling the rule of law in China. We found very little evidence of it. The gang of four were only just being identified as being responsible, with Chairman Mao, for the destruction that had taken place. In Beijing itself we searched for lawyers and eventually met three ageing and retired lawyers from what had once been Beijing University, and that was not very encouraging. In Shanghai, on our last day, we went inside a police cantonment and were there shown what purported to be a law court. There were only two characters there with white shirts on who claimed to be judges and turned out to be retired generals. When we asked them whether there had been any acquittals during their time at the court, they said they could not recollect anything of that kind. I say that not to be humorous but to emphasise the extent of the depth of uncivilised culture that the Chinese themselves are beginning to acknowledge as they get away from the rules that had been made.

Six years later, I was privileged as Secretary of State, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, to take part in the Hong Kong negotiations. One saw then, in the wisdom with which those were conducted by the then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, the extent to which their leadership was developing wisdom that would lead it far into the future not just in economic terms but in political and institutional ones as well.

Deng Xiaoping’s four-word phrase “one country, two systems” was one of the wisest things that one has ever had to work within. He hoped that it might one day work for North and South Korea, and we must share his hope. He hoped that it would one day work in Germany, but he was overtaken by the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It enabled him to ensure that the agreement we made for Hong Kong guaranteed the survival of the rule of law in a strong form and guaranteed the existence of the Court of Final Appeal, which still includes two members of our own Supreme Court. It provided for a Legislative Council constituted by elections to come into existence in due course and that the Executive should be accountable to that legislature. That process moves on. Universal suffrage is now likely to arrive in 2017.

I mention that for our own significantly useful impact on the future of Hong Kong and then offer a word about such influence as we may have on the great mass of China itself. It is well known that China regards human rights as a strictly internal matter. None the less, it does recognise pragmatically that her own commitment in that direction—and there is such a commitment—as well as to the rule of law requires technical support which makes her willing, in practical terms, to study the models of other legal systems. China has long felt that the United Kingdom has much to offer in this area. We have found ourselves leading a handful of countries—the United States, Canada, Germany and Scandinavia—at a serious level on these human rights issues.

In that context, Beijing was persuaded some years later by John Major in his premiership in 1992 to receive a mission from this Parliament of ours, of which I was the modest leader, to study—this is carefully drafted—

“Matters of common interest, including human rights”.

The party included my noble friend Lord Higgins and, more important than that for tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is in the Chamber. We were members of a party of 11 who went together. I remember the way in which we were warmly received by the then General Secretary—later President—Jiang Zemin. He made the point—also made by my noble friend Lord Teverson—that the most important human right for China at that time was the feeding of 1.25 billion people, coupled with the enlargement of social freedom to move, and so on. That was the point that the General Secretary emphasised. However, we made specific recommendations, and we were delighted that four years later, in 1996, the NPC—the Chinese Parliament—enacted legislation providing for a presumption of innocence, a bail system and the existence of defence lawyers. In fact, two out of three of those propositions are now in place. Bail remains a rather shadowy proposition, and it does not surprise one that shortly after the NPC passed the legislation, a Beijing newspaper reported that a retired police superintendent—a member of the NPC—had protested to the meeting that, given all these changes, how could he be confident of capturing criminals? There is that balance of debate in more places than one.

In that context, perhaps I may declare an interest in the Great Britain-China Centre, of which I have been president since 1992. Many colleagues may not have heard a great deal about it, but it has been, and is, a vital vehicle in pressing for the objectives that I have been talking about—the rule of law, human rights and the various missions financed by the European Union and this country that are being undertaken, together with highly technical assistance in sensitive areas of work. The centre helps in the fundamental role of building up trust with key institutions, such as the Supreme People’s Court and the Procuratorate. The centre of our current work includes the reduction of the use of torture and firmly addressing the excessive role of death penalties. We are all clear in our memory of that, due to the recent tragic execution of Akmal Shaikh—despite our protests.

It now gives me pleasure to draw attention to a report in China Daily on 31 May, under the headline:

“New rules on confession to limit death sentences”.

I shall quote just two sentences:

“Evidence obtained illegally—such as through torture during interrogation—cannot be used in testimony, particularly in cases involving the death penalty, according to two regulations issued on Sunday … jointly issued by the top court, the top procuratorate, the ministries of public security, state security and justice”.

One has always to hesitate regarding the difference between that which is proclaimed and what happens, but I draw attention to the fact that this is part of steady progress in the direction which we seek to encourage.

My final point concerns the uniquely purposeful quality of the Great Britain-China Centre’s achievements. They involve what strikes me, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a very small spend indeed by Her Majesty's Government. The grant-in-aid received by the centre was £300,000 last year. It has been reduced to £270,000 this year, with which we are able to lever other funding institutions, including the European Union, to raise our resources to about £1 million. We are anxious that we should not be further squeezed in the present circumstances.

I dare to say this: in so far as money becomes a problem, given what the Treasury may seek from our overseas budget, I urge the Chancellor to reach out—this may sound very inhuman—towards the huge proportion of that budget exercised by the Department for International Development, so as to allow strong and worthwhile projects, such as those that I have described in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, to continue to prosper in Britain’s and Europe’s joint interests in the People’s Republic of China.

My Lords, I rest my case.

16:54

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his opening speech and his very able chairing of our committee. I am truly delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who has a distinguished history with China, not least in respect of the smooth passage of Hong Kong to being a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

I was, as the noble and learned Lord said, the statutory Labour member on the human rights mission in 1992, which increased enormously my admiration for the noble and learned Lord as a great leader. Perhaps I may be allowed one short memory of that visit. New passports had been issued in the UK shortly before the visit. The then Prime Minister, with appropriate humility, chose the number 001. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, then Foreign Secretary, could have chosen 002 but, with his usual humour, chose instead 007. When he gave his passport to the officials at Beijing airport, it met with a flurry of excitement. The official in charge called all his colleagues over to see this mild-mannered Welsh gentleman who had a licence to kill. However, he was allowed in and led us extraordinarily well.

The starting point for this debate is, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, the consensus—across all international and national studies—that China is the new colossus. The only difference is over the degree of the Spenglerian relative decline of the West and, perhaps, the pace of the change and whether the US global influence has not declined as rapidly as some claim, as Professor Nye has argued.

There has been an amazing transformation, as the noble Lord has no doubt seen on his regular visits to China. When I went on holiday to Shanghai with my wife, I recall gazing around open-mouthed at the general prosperity. I think at that time almost half the tall cranes in the world were in Shanghai, building those vast edifices. The giddy pace of development is likely to continue, in spite of the downside of increased pollution, which affects Hong Kong, the demographic problems and the problem of uneven development. Shanghai is not the whole of China. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we must understand the difference of implementation in the several provinces. I always get this wrong, but it is said, “The mountains are high and the emperor is far away”.

How do we in old Europe—since the European Union is China’s largest trading partner and overseas market—respond to these changes? I served on the European Union Committee. I confess to being, at first, a little sceptical about the subject that we had chosen. Was it too big? Had there been too many reports from other groups? Where would our value-added be? However, I hail the result, even if it is necessarily broad. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Kathryn Colvin, our clerk. We were also well served by Dr David Kerr, our specialist adviser.

When I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place, I tried always to ensure that we spoke not only to government and parliamentarians but to a wider audience, including the think-tank world. I believe that this report does just that. I am pleased that we also had our report noted in the European Parliament. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has been invited to address the European Parliament’s human rights committee on, I think, 15 July, which shows that we are, quite properly, read by our partners in the European Parliament.

Because of the speed of transformation, we need constantly to examine our policies. For example, in the current climate, even when DfID’s expenditure is ring-fenced, is DfID doing exactly as it should? Where are the respective responsibilities of national Governments and the European Union? Has China adjusted to its new weight and responsibility? Rather incredibly, China still wishes to be seen as a developing country and, as we saw at the Copenhagen climate change conference, throws its weight along with the other developing countries, even if their interests may somewhat diverge. Is China now more of a status quo power? Is it prepared to play a responsible role in international affairs? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned some pointers. I mention Operation Atalanta, in which a Chinese vessel is involved, and, as we see in Appendix VI of the report, the way in which China is playing a significant role in UN peacekeeping operations.

We are on the eve of the UN Security Council decision on new sanctions for Iran. In spite of China’s reservations, its declared policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries and the significant oil trade between it and Iran, it seems pretty clear that it will vote with the other members of the Security Council on the new sanctions package. However, looking at Chinese history, geography and its interests, we have to accept that those interests will, not infrequently, not coincide with our own, so how does the European Union relate to the new China?

Our report asks how China sees us. Clearly, China has difficulty understanding the complexity and uniqueness of the European Union. At one stage, it hoped that the Union would develop into a united states of Europe, a federation to which it could relate and which would act as a counterweight to the hegemon so often criticised by China—the United States. At others, it has concentrated on individual states, having, as the noble Lord said, had a rude awakening as to the nature of the European Union and our close relationship with the United States in 2003 during the arms embargo saga. On several occasions China has sought to play off one European country against another. It is sad to relate that we have often been prepared to play its game, as was shown in respect of the Dalai Lama.

Much foreign policy comprises international trade policy, which is where the European Union has a key role. I hope that the Government will see clearly that there are areas where we have substantial clout as a member of the European Union that we would not have on our own, particularly as regards specific trade issues, be they counterfeiting or the lack of licensing agreements within China. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government see the European Union’s External Action Service working. It is suggested that there is currently a great dispute over the senior appointments, rather like cats in a sack, and that the new action service will not come into operation at least until 1 December. What will be the relationship between the British and EU representatives? I hope that there will be an increased complement of European officials in Beijing. It is absurd that there is now only one full-time EU official there concerned with human rights. We suggested that the European Union should have more widespread coverage within China. I hope that that will not be affected by financial cutbacks. It may well be that, as the Foreign Office looks around for savings in our external representation, we shall find scope for collocation of consular premises in different parts of China with the European Union, for which there should surely be no objection in principle. It would be helpful to know how the Foreign Office and the Government now see the scope for working together with the European Union’s External Action Service.

On human rights, much wisdom has already been expressed. We recognise that there is no early prospect of a western-style rule of law. We also recognise that, if we want results, we should not megaphone our Chinese colleagues but instead, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, deal sensitively with them. I believe that we achieved certain results by leaving with our Chinese colleagues lists of sometimes forgotten Catholic priests who were languishing in different parts of China and who, even though nothing happened immediately, we understand were eventually released.

Although there is some scepticism about the EU/China dialogue on human rights, one has to ask what the alternative is. Indeed, we can concentrate on areas where progress can be made, such as legal reforms, the way in which the prosecution is handled, the rights of defendants and so on. We should press the Chinese to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We should also note Chinese concern about the western reaction to events in Xinjiang, where, rather insensitively, the western press responded in a one-eyed way, forgetting the atrocities on the Han population in the capital at that time. Over the longer term, we have to work very closely with the Chinese. In terms of student exchange, more than 112,000 Chinese students are in the EU at the moment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we have to encourage greater EU interests in China.

Much has been said about China in the world. It is gradually adjusting to a global role, as one saw at Copenhagen, and that is now most notably seen in Africa. There are many examples of infrastructure projects for mining rights: platinum in South Africa, iron ore in Sierra Leone, oil in Sudan and so on. There are proper western concerns about transparency, human rights, the increase in debt and training local people, yet the IFC—an arm of the World Bank—has recently, for the first time, financed Chinese investment in Africa and has sought to add human rights and environmental conditions to the offer. One should look for trilateral co-operation between the African Union, the European Union and China. In spite of those concerns, surely Chinese investment is to be welcomed. There is room within Africa for us all. Certainly, African leaders are pleased and there is scope for greater co-operation.

In conclusion, in disputes such as this, there are no partisan differences. I hope that the Foreign Office will respond speedily to the report, as it has promised. Because there are no real differences, I hope that the Government will reply well before we go into recess in July so that we can give the matter consideration. The Government, and certainly the Conservative component, should surely recognise that the European Union is a key instrument in furthering our own national interests and that policy is evolved at all levels—in Brussels and through regular contact between missions en poste. We should seek to understand the problems but also to relate to, channel and co-operate with our Chinese colleagues on a basis of mutual trust. I believe that our report will have made a contribution to that trust and to a greater understanding.

17:10

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the former Prime Minister of China, Zhou Enlai, is recorded as having replied to a question about the consequences of the French revolution with the lapidary statement, “Too soon to say”. One could well say the same of the direction and destination of the relationship between the EU and China.

The Chinese have a marked habit of taking the long view of their geopolitical relationships with other parts of the world. We Europeans have a tendency to take an excessively short-term view of such relationships. So it is very desirable, from time to time, to stand back a bit and look at the relationship between the EU and China in the round. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my former colleagues on Sub-Committee C of the EU Select Committee, on providing us with this timely and thought-provoking report which provides an opportunity to do precisely that.

I shall, if I may, go back to the beginning of the EU-China relationship some 35 years ago last month, not just because I was present at the creation but because it contains some useful lessons for the present day. It also provides me with the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Leader of this House, Lord Soames, for whom I worked at the time in the European Commission and without whose skill and flair the entirely new relationship between the European Community and China that emerged following his visit to Beijing in May 1975 would not have developed so rapidly, so smoothly and so constructively.

The Europe from which we travelled then in 1975 was at that time in some considerable disarray. There was a leadership vacuum following the death of President Pompidou and the departure from office of Messrs Heath and Brandt. Europe’s economies were wracked by high inflation and high unemployment following the Yom Kippur war and the quadrupling of the oil price. China, too, was in turmoil with Zhou Enlai and Mao in their final days and the “gang of four” just around the corner. But that did not prevent the establishment of diplomatic relations being agreed and it did not prevent the foundations of the first EU-China trade agreement being made, both of which developments survived all the subsequent upheavals and blossomed into the much more elaborate and multifaceted set of relations described in the report that we are debating.

We should not be overly concerned if the short-term prospects for that relationship are currently not particularly brilliant, nor should we draw too drastic conclusions from Europe’s current leadership vacuum and the preoccupation with its internal problems, which is certainly leading to some expressions of frustration on the Chinese side and to a number of derogatory remarks about the waning importance of the relationship.

Why do I take the view that this relationship is so robust and durable, other than the elements of history that I have recounted and which rather demonstrate that? Basically, both sides have substantive and different reasons for ensuring that it remains. There is no parallel here at all for the EU’s rather fraught and unsatisfactory relationship with Russia. The Soviet Union, and now Russia, have consistently had as a guiding principle of their relations with the EU and its member states the policy of divide and rule. While the Chinese are not averse from time to time to playing off one member state against the other in an opportunistic way that is not the guiding principle of their attitude. Quite the contrary. From the very outset they have wanted to see a Europe working together and playing a more significant role in the world. They do so not out of any starry-eyed belief in European integration but because they see Europe as one of the constellations in a multipolar world which revolves around the middle kingdom—their picture of a desirable balance of power. They recognise that in the trade policy field, which matters a lot to them, Europe on the whole speaks with a single voice and acts as a single unit.

From the European perspective, which is a completely different one, effective multinationalism is one of the guiding principles of our common foreign and security policy. That means that we are working for an increasingly rules-based international community because it is in our interest, as well as that of many others, to do so. But we cannot have effective multilateralism without the active co-operation of China, with its veto on the UN Security Council, its membership of the G20, its leadership role among the G77 developing countries.

Getting China to co-operate in achieving effective multilateralism is, of course, no easy matter. There clearly are tensions in Chinese foreign policy between a trend towards nationalism and mercantilism on the one hand, and on the other a trend towards playing a full and responsible role in the search for global solutions to global problems. In joining the World Trade Organisation, and in accepting its fully rules-based approach to trade policy, the second trend has been clearly dominant. In dealings over Burma, Zimbabwe and Darfur, the first trend has so far prevailed. Over North Korea, the Chinese have sat on the fence but they may not be able to do so for much longer. However, one thing is very clear: we shall not achieve our objective from this relationship—the objective of effective multilateralism with the Chinese co-operating fully—if we do not make full use of the toolkit provided by the Lisbon treaty. I was glad to see that point brought out in the report we are debating, and today by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

Should we be worried about the possible emergence of a G2, which is a kind of shorthand for a Sino-US directoire ruling the world, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred in his opening remarks? I do not myself believe so. For one thing, neither the US nor China seem to me to be prepared for or to want the kind of structured, systematic, all-purpose relationship that a G2 would imply. No doubt, from time to time these two countries will strike deals and that will affect us and many others. But we really should not fret that these two countries bulk so large in each other’s foreign policies. They have done so for 40 years now and they are going to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That has not been, and should not be, seen as an obstacle for a healthy and expanding EU-China relationship.

I believe therefore that we should be relatively optimistic about the prospects for EU-China relations. On my analysis, we are working with the grain of the two parties’ fundamental interests. Whether we succeed in building successfully on that foundation depends every bit as much on us as it does on the Chinese. So far, we have not been terribly effective at doing so. But we cannot afford to give up, or to fall back on a network of bilateral links between China and individual member states which will never maximise our influence or successfully further the protection of our interests.

17:17

[Lord Inglewood]

My Lords, for me, one of the best brief general descriptions of western Europe’s relationship with China appears in the opening paragraph of The Chan’s Great Continent, written by the great Chinese observer, Jonathan Spence. He writes:

“One aspect of a country’s greatness is surely its capacity to attract and retain the attention of others. This capacity has been evident from the very beginnings of the West’s encounter with China; the passing centuries have never managed to obliterate it altogether, even though vagaries of fashion and shifting political stances have at times dulled the sheen. The sharpness of the feelings aroused by China in the West, the reiterated attempts to describe and analysze the country and its people, the apparently unending receptivity of Westerners to news from China, all testify to the levels of fascination the country has generated”.

When I first became involved in China, just over a decade ago, when to my unexpected delight I became vice-president of the European Parliament’s China delegation, I was dazzled. At that time, I spoke to an older and wise friend, a considerable China scholar who in a diplomatic capacity—not, I would mention, in a UK diplomatic capacity—spent a number of years in the country during and after the Cultural Revolution. Her reply was, “Don’t be distracted by the exoticism: focus on the rational”. The problem we face is that we may not fully understand what the Chinese want, since their historic and cultural framework is not the same as ours.

A good example of that has already been alluded to in this debate—the Chinese attitude to human rights. As we all know, in the Chinese hierarchy of values, human rights are different and less important than they are to us. I expect that not only everyone in the Chamber but many Chinese people themselves believe that the Western hierarchy of values is right but, as has already been mentioned, to influence human rights in China, we need to appreciate that our values and theirs may be different. The arguments that we think are self-evident are not necessarily those which will persuade those whom we wish to change. We must deploy the arguments that are potent to others if we wish to bring about change. The report is absolutely right about that.

Equally, the concept of the rule of law is subtly different. It is not law quite as we understand it because ultimately, in China, the law is an expression of policy and the Executive’s aspirations—in much the same way as the National People’s Congress is not quite the same as Parliament here. In my judgment—I strongly echo the sentiments expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe—we in this country and western Europe have not placed as much emphasis on legal education and the development of legal studies in China as we might have. We have missed a trick in that regard. Had we done as much in respect of legal education as we have in trying to introduce business education to China, we would have achieved more than we have.

China has a very clear historically based perception of itself. Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, it is understandable within the framework of the way in which constitutional arrangements have evolved in the East. They may be expressed in terms of international law, which is, after all, a western European concept but, underneath that, there are slightly different eastern ideas. For example, I do not think that the Chinese treatment of Tibet and the Tibetans is in any way proper or justified, and I am no apologist for it, but I can see how, from a Chinese perspective, the Chinese have reached their justification for what they have done. We are not doing the Tibetans any favour by not being clear about that. Indeed, the Dalai Lama’s attitude towards the independence of Tibet suggests that he shares that view.

Against the background of a “one China” policy, combined with a “one country, several systems” approach, we can see how the approach is being allowed to evolve to the People’s Republic’s advantage. It has the potential to provide considerable benefits, and may well do so in future, especially in respect of Taiwan, Tibet and even bits of what are now integrally part of what is more generally considered to be single China—say, Shanghai or Shenzhen. That constitutional approach may seem somewhat perverse to those of the European Union—especially, I suspect, to some in this country—but there is nevertheless a clear logic to what is going on which we ignore at our peril.

We need to be equally clear about the destructive character of the previous century in China which has, from its point of view, been more or less one continuous civil war. In particular, the Cultural Revolution will have had a considerable impact on the Chinese leadership. Understanding their economic policies must be based on an appreciation that they are trying to pursue the antithesis of the destructive chaos that swept that land over most of the past century. In particular, they are looking for stability and good fortune. I suppose that we would describe good fortune as getting richer. After all, in the 19th and 20th centuries, China in its historic context was politically at a very low ebb and was a demoralised great power. The wealth in the world was being created in the West and the Chinese, understandably, wanted to engage with that and participate.

Under the administration of a one-party system speaking the liturgy of Marxism with Chinese characteristics, we have seen a Chinese attempt in the World Trade Organisation, for example, and in how it has been behaving in the international monetary markets, to try to return to its rightful position as a great power. That will not necessarily be to our advantage in the immediate or the longer term, but from a Chinese perspective, I can see precisely what they are trying to do. It is also interesting to see our reaction in the West to what has been going on in this context. It has put into stark perspective the issues that are thrown up by how Europe should retain its economic competitiveness. This has been a subject of considerable debate, not least in this Chamber, and it will, no doubt, continue to be one.

How is China looking at the wider world? Is it striving for a tripolar world of the US, China and the EU, a bipolar world or what? Indeed, it is not clear to me what the European Union wants, and it is certainly not obvious what the evidence of the EU’s external policy may be saying to the Chinese. As was pointed out in the report, Chinese puzzlement seems to be entirely justified. It is arguable that it is we who are in a muddle about this.

One of the most important things emerging from this report is that it highlights a couple of issues that arise from looking at the EU/China relationship. They are some of the biggest issues facing western Europe and the European Union. How do we deal with questions of competitiveness and in what way does the European Union’s diplomatic mission and approach go forward? There is a difference between many in this country and the European Union of which we are part. The same disagreement is to be found among some other members of the European Union. Since those disagreements are not necessarily about the same things, it seems to me that we have to focus very hard to work out what we collectively want in these circumstances.

17:26

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party China Group and as a partner of the law firm DLA Piper with responsibility for international business relations in China, Korea and the Middle East. As a very regular visitor to China, I think that this is an extremely welcome and thought-provoking report. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson on his opening speech and him and his colleagues on an extremely well put-together report.

The report quotes Vice-Minister Zhang Zhijun and Dr Kerry Brown and, as China watchers will know, that means that the report is balanced and authoritative and gives two interesting sides of the equation. The report is right to treat China as a major EU priority in foreign and trade policy. China has swiftly returned to double-digit growth and will overtake Japan later this year to become the world’s second-largest economy. Essentially, this is seen from the Chinese perspective as a rightful re-establishment of China’s position in the world, as I am sure many noble Lords will know. In terms of bilateral relations, the report rightly concentrates more on what the EU should do than on what China should do. There is nothing worse than preaching at China, as a number of noble Lords have said.

Seen from the Chinese perspective, China faces many major issues, which are inherently difficult and full of paradox. They include: keeping the value of the renminbi competitive in the face of a massive surplus and rising costs, because the future of the Chinese export economy is at stake; the recent suicides at the major supplier Foxconn; and the Honda strike in China, which will have an impact on labour costs. Many other factors may lead to higher costs, particularly in the east of China. There is a desire in the Chinese Government to move from an export-led economy to a more consumer-based economy, while controlling domestic inflation after the success of the economic stimulus package, but that will not be easy with double-digit growth.

There is a need to grow and create a massive number of jobs each year just to cope with new graduates, while improving the protection of the environment and moving to a low-carbon economy at the same time. How can the Chinese extend local autonomy at county and provincial level, as they wish to do, and satisfy demands for more human rights generally—and in Xinjiang and Tibet in particular—while maintaining political stability, one of the cardinal objectives of Chinese policy? In the education system, how can China deal with the dilemma of encouraging greater creativity in the face of a traditionally prescriptive teaching method at all levels? How can it ensure proper intellectual property protection without, as it sees it, overpricing legitimate consumer expectations? How can it ensure Chinese influence over natural resources, particularly in Africa, without being accused of employment malpractice?

In many of these areas, we want China to do more to satisfy western government expectations, but China rarely responds to external pressure. It is much more sensitive nowadays to domestic public opinion, particularly as it is expressed through the internet. Much will depend on the relationship that we manage to build over time and on whether any move meets the essential criterion, which I repeat, of retaining and delivering the cardinal virtue of political stability.

The relationship will have its ups and downs and, in the past year in particular, there have been quite a number of downs. What do the Chinese Government seek to derive from their relationship with the EU? Of course they want trade, technology transfer and investment. These are a cornerstone, as is the education link, but crucial to real progress, in China’s view, is support for market economy status for China and lifting the arms embargo.

On the market economy status, China still thinks that the West is not playing by the rules and is adopting double standards. Why should Russia have market economy status but not China? Why have some 97 countries given market economy status to China, while major economies such as the EU, the US and India have not? China also considers that it has been subject to an unjustified barrage of anti-dumping cases. Above all it believes—the report makes this quite clear—that the EU speaks with different voices. Chinese leaders express genuine frustration at the multiheaded European leadership structure and the lack of a single voice. This, I believe, is genuine and, like the committee, I do not accept the Fox/Godement thesis mentioned in the report that China is intent on playing one EU country off against another or, indeed, that there really has been a practice of unconditional engagement on the part of the EU.

China sees the US/China interface as much preferable, because it can get answers and decisions that stick. Unless we are to play second fiddle in every case to the US, the EU needs, as my noble friend’s committee’s report points out so eloquently, to get its act together. One of the questions is whether Europe takes a lead or simply follows the US. This is particularly acute in respect of both the arms embargo and the MES. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on this subject at the end of the debate.

There is much to be done, but the Lisbon treaty has improved matters somewhat. I have great respect for the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, our colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, whose trip to China earlier this year was well received and made the Chinese Government feel that progress was possible with the EU. I am therefore optimistic that we can make progress.

At the end of the day, there is the question of what we can expect from China as a superpower. The former ambassador, Madam Fu Ying, was fond of talking about how the Chinese see China from the inside as a mouse, whereas we on the outside see it as an elephant. Of course there is a big gulf between the way in which China is perceived from the inside and the way in which it is perceived from the outside. There is growing evidence of a more actively interventionist approach, but China still lacks the confidence that it really is the superpower that we think it is. There was greater engagement at Copenhagen, even if it was not seen as satisfactory from an EU point of view. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, the agreement over Iran sanctions could prove extremely important. Above all, I believe that the role played by China at the G20 last year was extremely constructive. In the EU we should not be afraid to bargain. If that is done coherently, we can exploit our technologies, our creativity, our education and our research quality. In key areas such as trade policy and climate change, we need to agree strategies within the EU and to speak with one voice, which is the welcome message of this report.

What of Britain’s role? As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe pointed out, there is a long history between us, which is still regarded as important by the Chinese. Our ambassador is one of only five vice-ministerial ambassador posts. Ambassador Liu Xiaoming continues this pattern. I recognise the achievements of the previous Labour Government in having established relationships with China on a firm footing. I believe that the successful Hong Kong handover had a major impact and was beneficial for our relationship. I also welcome the desire of the coalition to have closer relations with China, as set out in the coalition agreement.

However, both our parties are a relatively unknown quantity to the Chinese Government. I hope that a high-level visit by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister will take place soon, perhaps coinciding with the close of Shanghai Expo. The Chinese have many matters in common with Britain. Belief in free trade above all is the link, as well as an admiration for our higher education system. None the less, Britain is still underperforming in trade and investment flows. France and Germany in particular outperform us in energetic trade promotion. However, perhaps our salesmanship is entering a new era. Out cultural diplomacy seems to be improving by leaps and bounds. The Shanghai Expo pavilion is evidence of that. The Chinese are taking genuine pleasure in the success of the pavilion designed by Thomas Heatherwick and have taken very much to heart what they call the “Dandelion”. UKTI deserves huge credit for having the imagination to deliver a strikingly original symbol of British creativity at Expo. I hope that we will celebrate the way in which Britain can help the EU’s objectives in its relationship with China.

17:37

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, our sub-committee was well chaired by my noble friend Lord Teverson, who introduced the report clearly. First, I should like to express my thanks to Kathryn Colvin, our admirable clerk, and all those who helped us to prepare that report. It was a very big job, which was well done. I was one of the sub-committee members fortunate enough to go to China. We went 25 years after my last visit, during which I had watched on Chinese television the signing of the Hong Kong agreement. The fact that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, present at that ceremony and playing a central role, has been able to contribute to this debate, and give a very personal account of involvement with a changing China over more than half a century, has been very welcome and is a good example of the unique quality of this House.

The transformation of China during the 25 years since I was there has been remarkable. On my previous visit, we travelled to the old city of Beijing from a very simple government guest house along a bumpy, unlit road, which was hardly wide enough for two vehicles to pass, to a city where there were few cars but thousands of bicycles. Beijing, Guangzhou and, I believe, the even more spectacular Shanghai, which we did not visit on this occasion, have taken their places among the world’s great modern cities. The bicycles have given way to a vast number of motor vehicles which choke the huge highways that have obliterated the old buildings. Perhaps even more significant than the construction programmes is that people’s lives are better than they were. They have improved in terms of disposable income and economic and job choices, and with those improvements have come greater freedoms.

It was not just the scale of the development taking place that struck me so forcefully on this visit, but the changing character of the political leaders of modern China. We had meetings with men I can best describe as old fashioned commissars. They were not very productive meetings because our attempts to intervene with questions seldom generated helpful responses. On the other hand, we had meetings with two senior vice-Ministers, Liu Jieyi and Zhang Zhijun, who were the kind of men one would expect to find holding with great distinction senior positions in government, business or academia around the world: informed, perceptive and intellectually of the highest calibre. They were prepared to give us shrewd personal judgments and observations while they also clearly set out their Government’s official position. We met a number of people from the universities and think tanks who impressed us in a similar way. With men and women of this kind increasingly taking leading roles in China, I find it hard to believe that the country will not undergo fundamental changes quite quickly.

Having said that, there are some issues about which even the most creative and flexibly minded Chinese are unbending. In the report we describe them as China’s “lines in the sand”. First, China will not accept any questioning of its territorial integrity, whether over Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. There are signs that both Taiwan and China are feeling their way towards better relations within the One China concept, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood had some wise words to say on that topic and how it might, in the future, be the way through for Tibet as well.

The second immovable line in the sand is China’s need for development and economic growth. The Chinese Communist Party depends for its legitimacy on guaranteeing prosperity for its citizens. No other policy area will take precedence over the need for continual growth and all EU policy has to recognise this immovable fact. Because of China’s need for the natural resources that it does not possess, it will continue to extend its supply contracts and involvement in Africa and other places where its needs can be met. That will have implications for Europe.

Chinese attitudes to government and democracy have a good deal more in common with imperial administration developed over the millennia than to communism as it has been generally practised. As one witness, Dr Steve Tsang, put it, the party,

“has imposed what amounts to a social contract … the Party delivers stability, order, rapid growth and general improvement to the living conditions of the people in return for its continued dominance”.

Despite the achievement of amazing levels of growth and the prosperity of the coastal areas, we were repeatedly reminded that China sees itself as a developing nation with a high proportion of its vast population still with some of the lowest incomes per head in the world.

The EU is China’s largest trading partner. That fact provides a central reason for each wanting to understand and have good relations with the other. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, told us that the EU has huge leverage because Europe provides the market destination for a vast quantity of Chinese exports, and keeping Europe’s markets open to those exports is fundamental to China’s economic and political strategy. It was, however, pretty clear from his evidence that, as my noble friend Lord Teverson pointed out, the leverage has not been exercised very effectively. While the UK and the other European nations will have their own policies and compete strongly with each other commercially, it is entirely in the interests of all that the EU should act as one on trade conflicts covered by the WTO, and on the need for China to open its markets more widely and to respond positively to European concerns about intellectual property rights and commercial law. To speak with one voice and to be mutually supportive is equally desirable over human rights, international development, climate change, and in sensitive areas such as the treatment of the Dalai Lama.

It is equally true that strong European backing for British efforts in Hong Kong is important if the promised implementation of the Basic Law and moves to wider democracy there are to be achieved. Hong Kong is a hugely important conduit for foreign investment into China and the EU needs to reinforce its diplomatic efforts in the Hong Kong SAR.

Events have moved on since we prepared our report. The euro is under threat, which must alarm the Chinese, and the economic recovery from the banking crisis is far from secure. If some have had doubts about the ability of China to maintain its phenomenal rates of growth in these conditions, events have proved them wrong. While the Chinese authorities are finding it necessary to contain inflationary pressures, the chief executive of HSBC in China says that the financial crisis has only made the country stronger, with its exporters becoming leaner and more efficient. There has been huge investment in new plants and infrastructure and manufacturing is being moved inland to where housing and wage costs are much lower than in the coastal belt. This ability to move to these huge regions where wages are low means that China is likely to maintain its competitive edge for many years to come.

There has been an unfortunate tendency by some in the EU to lecture China. We are much more likely to make progress, even on sensitive issues such as human rights, by finding those areas in our relations where it will be in China’s national interest to change. Nowhere is this truer than on climate change. On re-reading our conclusions on this topic, I doubt that we got the balance quite right. Certainly we must enter the next round of negotiations as a player but I do not believe it is wise to set an example on cuts in isolation. While I differ with quite a lot of the analysis made by my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, I share his view that to impose huge burdens on our own industry which none of our competitors will follow is not the sensible way to proceed. Like my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding in speaking on the gracious Speech, I think we need to find a way forward that is politically more attractive and, I would add, economically less masochistic.

In the Chinese context, that means tough negotiations in which our contribution is realistic and is made as others make theirs and not in advance in the vague hope that they will follow. We need to exploit the fact that while China needs to continue growing, it faces grave threats from climate change. It is threatened with acute shortages of water in some regions and the threat of floods in others. Pollution from its coal-fired power plants is smothering Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Natural disasters when they occur in China tend to be even more devastating than in other countries.

Those are some of the reasons why China may choose to move further than the pessimists believe, and there are positive reasons as well. China, I am sure, wishes to be a massive player in the developing industry in low-carbon technology. There is real scope for Europe and China to co-operate in this vital area, despite fears about transferring technology without better licensing. The successful development of carbon capture technology is hugely important for both Europe and China, and particularly important for this country. The lack of urgency or drive in taking forward the joint carbon capture and storage project represents a shocking failure of EU policy.

I shall make three other brief points. First, as already referred to by my noble friend Lord Teverson, the formal exchanges on human rights are more ritualistic than effective, but we found that real progress was being made in different parts of China, with lower profile rule-of-law and civil-society projects. Here we are working with the grain in areas which are entirely in China’s own interests.

Secondly, I draw attention to paragraphs 146 and 147 of our report about the caution that needs to be exercised in sharing some technologies with China and the need for close co-operation with the United States and NATO on the subject of cyber technology, in particular, and the possible need to take strong countermeasures if our interests are threatened.

Thirdly, it is important that we continue to encourage far more of our own citizens to obtain real knowledge of all aspects of modern China, including, of course, its language. My noble friend Lord Sassoon, in a notable maiden speech winding up yesterday’s debate on UK competitiveness, commented that it is easy to be complacent about the language question. I am sure that he was right. Those vice-Ministers to whom I referred knew and understood our culture and institutions so much better than most European politicians know or understand theirs; perhaps that was one reason why I found them so impressive.

17:49

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, Stars and Dragons: The EU and China deserves to be widely read. It is a comprehensive and engaging report to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, did great justice in his introductory remarks.

Paragraph 43 of the report rightly states:

“It is unrealistic and undesirable that a single EU-China relationship will replace relations between China and individual Member States. The two will rightly continue in parallel”.

There is a great deal that is unique in the extraordinarily rich and historic relationship between our two countries, a point touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in his wise and penetrating speech. There is also much in our contemporary relations that remains unique. We must not sublimate those interests in the desire always to hunt as a pack. I shall talk about China and her relationship with the United Kingdom and China’s domestic challenges.

Ambassador Liu Xiaoming, China’s new and accomplished ambassador to Britain, presented his credentials on 26 May. When diplomatic relations were established 38 years ago in 1972, bilateral trade was worth just $300 million. Last year, it was worth $39.1 billion, a theme addressed in chapter 6 of the report. Thirty-eight years ago, there were just a few dozen Chinese students in the United Kingdom; today, their number has reached 100,000, our largest source of overseas students. Thirty-eight years ago, a meagre 1,000 people travelled between China and Britain every year. Today, each and every day, thousands of visits are made, with 200,000 Chinese tourists visiting the UK last year.

On coming to office, the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, rightly made one of his priorities a telephone conversation with premier Wen Jiabao and the Foreign Secretary, Mr Hague, spoke to his opposite number, both discussing the further expansion and advancement of the China-UK strategic partnership and looking at ways of developing that vital relationship further.

The oldest Chinese community in Britain outside London is to be found in Liverpool. My first visit overseas as a young Liverpool MP was to stay with Chinese families in Hong Kong. Two years later, I travelled to mainland China, to Shanghai, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, mentioned. I met some of those to whom he referred who had suffered grievously for their religious faith. It is significant that only yesterday, and I welcome it warmly, the authorities in Beijing recognised the underground bishop, Matthias Du Jiang, as Bishop of Bameng in Inner Mongolia. I also mention the constructive role played by Ma Yingling of Yunnan, one of the remaining bishops of the official church yet to be recognised. Last year, I met the Bishop of Beijing, now officially recognised by both Rome and Beijing. Anyone who has followed the issue touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and how, for instance, Cardinal Kung, the former Bishop of Shanghai, was imprisoned for more than 30 years, knows that these are historic, momentous, significant developments which we should all warmly welcome. That is not to say that there is not still much to be done; indeed, there are several underground bishops who remain in prison as we meet today. However, we should not underestimate the changes that have been under way. The scars of the years of the Cultural Revolution, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred, are healing. China has made many fundamental changes, but it is a great work in progress and, economically, it has undergone an extraordinary transformation—and that we must admire.

In 1999, Liverpool twinned with Shanghai, which opened the way for commercial and entrepreneurial opportunities for both cities: commerce, development and jobs. Perhaps every town in Britain should consider twinning with a city or town in China. Liverpool's story is a good illustration of the benefits of good fraternal relations. It had many reasons for twinning with Shanghai; it shares many characteristics with Shanghai, not least the architectural similarities between the waterfronts. Shanghai, of course, has grown exponentially, with a population of more than 21 million people, and a stock exchange of 74 million investors, but the two cities retain many similarities, including the waterfronts, maritime industries, football, and a history of innovation and change.

The relationship between the two cities has prospered so much that Liverpool was invited to participate at no charge at Expo 2010, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, which began in May and ends in October. China's expo is four times larger than any previous expo and is expected to attract around 70 million visitors from 140 countries. The Liverpool team running the Shanghai pavilion tells me that an average of 3,000 people come to its stand each day, with as many as 5,000 people at the weekend. From all this, I hope that both cities and both countries will see Expo 2010 as an opportunity for even closer economic and commercial relationships and inward investment, along with more educational exchanges and tourism. Here I declare an interest, as I hold a chair at Liverpool John Moores University. Education should be a two-way street. I should like to see more of our students travelling to China with Mandarin and Cantonese more widely offered in our schools and universities.

None of these positive developments should occlude the way in which Britain is still perceived by some Chinese—and I would like the report to have touched on this. One hundred and fifty years ago, on 18 October 1860, at the command of Lord Elgin, Britain's High Commissioner in China, one of the most shameful episodes of British history occurred: 3,500 British and French troops torched China's Old Summer Palace in Beijing—the Gardens of Perfect Brightness. It was a vindictive and philistine act which aimed to humiliate China's Qing Dynasty and assert the hegemony of the British and French occupying forces. Its consequences still reverberate today, and it is another of those unforgotten and unhealed chapters of history.

The burning of the palace was the culmination of the second opium war, waged by the British in China, a war whose lessons have contemporary resonance. The French writer, Victor Hugo, in his Expedition de Chine, described the pillaging and burning of the palace as akin to two robbers,

“breaking into a museum, devastating, looting and burning, leaving laughing hand-in-hand with their bags full of treasures; one of the robbers is called France and the other Britain”.

So what was Britain's objective in pursuing the second opium war—or arrow war—of 1856 to 1860? The pretext which was given was the killing of a French missionary, Father August Chapdelaine. In reality, the British Empire and the Second French Empire pitted themselves against the Qing Dynasty with the objective of legalising the opium trade and expanding the trade in coolies—a derogatory slang expression used to describe the virtual slave labour and exploitation to which Chinese labourers were subjected. The trade in coolies was the forebear of the human trafficking which continues to this day. Along with the opium trade and the trade in people, Britain was determined to open up all China to British merchants. The opium war concluded with the British, French and Russians demanding and getting a permanent diplomatic presence in Beijing. China was forced to pay reparations of 8 million taels to Britain and France. Britain acquired the territory of Kowloon, adjacent to Hong Kong, a territory taken at the end of the first opium war. The opium trade was made legal, and Christians were given the right to evangelise—a sad and discrediting linkage of religious freedom to the worst excesses of imperialism.

Most scandalous of all was the trade in opium itself. Vast numbers of Chinese had become addicted to opium and Britain, instead of helping to eradicate the addiction, became the supplier. The Chinese Government said:

“Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality”.

Instead of upholding China's policy, however, Britain decided to play the part of pusher and profiteer—the equivalent of today’s urban heroin and cocaine pushers, not only government-sponsored and sanctioned but backed by force of arms. In the House of Commons, the young William Ewart Gladstone rebuked the British Government. He said,

“a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know”.

By the conclusion of the second opium war and the burning of the Old Summer Palace, Britain had achieved its strategic objectives but its reputation was left in the ashes and charred remains of the Gardens of Perfect Brightness. As we approach the 150th anniversary of these events and catch a glimpse of drug addiction, human trafficking, theft, arson, violence and humiliation, we might pause to consider how these unhealed and unforgotten events continue to play into the times in which we live now. As we exhort China to take its place in the world and consider its development role in Africa, which has been mentioned, or how it should be a major broker in countries such as Burma and North Korea—and I hope that that will be the case—we should have regard to how China has traditionally perceived foreign powers, how it has been treated itself and how it sees its own interests.

Above all, China cares passionately about its own domestic stability. It is acutely aware that social cohesion and stability are two great prizes. How to achieve that without repression is daunting. I shall now say something about China's domestic challenges. On 22 May the Spectator drew attention to the plight of a Beijing academic, Professor Yang Zhizhu, who had lost his job and become an outlaw after refusing to pay a second-child fine of £18,000. At paragraph 15 of its report, the committee rightly draws attention to some of the consequences of China’s one-child policy which, it says, has led to,

“significant distortions in gender and generation balances, with men outnumbering women, and difficulties supporting the elderly, which will affect Chinese views and policies in the future”.

It is estimated that there are now 37 million more men than women. The British Medical Journal says that the overall sex ratio for China is 126 boys for every 100 girls. Nine provinces had ratios of more than 160 boys for every 100 girls, for second children. The article stated:

“Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males”.

The Economist described this as “gendercide”. This gender imbalance is a major force driving sexual trafficking of women and girls in Asia.

China also has the highest female suicide rate of any country in the world. It is the only nation in which more women than men kill themselves. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 500 women a day end their lives in China. This extraordinary suicide rate may well be related to the campaign of forced sterilisation and compulsory abortion. I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is on the Front Bench today, for the reply that she gave me yesterday to a Written Question, where she said that last year alone £770,000 had been provided by DfID to Marie Stopes International, and that this will be reviewed as part of the process of looking at overseas funding. I would point out to your Lordships that MSI might claim to disapprove of compulsion but recently gave a red-carpet welcome in its London headquarters to Ms Lin Bin, Minister of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, which is responsible for the one-child policy. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be able to confirm that the Government will follow the previous Government in upholding the case of Chen Guang Chen, the blind human rights activist who in the Xiandong province exposed the compulsory abortion and sterilisation of more than 130,000 women and is now into his fourth year in prison for having done so.

Last year, under the auspices of the All-Party Parliamentary China Group and with the assistance of the Government of China, I was able to organise a small all-party visit by four British parliamentarians—two Members of the Commons and two from your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself—and we subsequently published our report, Tibet: Breaking the Deadlock, which can be viewed on the all-party group’s website. We travelled with the blessing of the Dalai Lama, who, in the aftermath of the March 2008 riots, trenchantly condemned violence as a means of procuring change in Tibet. He has also accepted, as the British Government have done, that Tibet is part of China, but believes that it should be allowed significant autonomy. He has repudiated any return to feudalism and has stated that he is willing to accept a spiritual role, rather than a political one. We concluded that these four principles could form the basis of a firm settlement with the Government of China. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said to me at the beginning of the debate that he is disappointed not to have been able to take part in it because of commitments elsewhere. If noble Lords look at paragraph 269 of the committee’s report where it rightly calls for mutual respect, they will probably agree that terms such as “splittist” and “feudal”, which are regularly used to describe the Dalai Lama, do not encourage that mutual respect that we should all try to encourage.

It is not too far-fetched to consider the making of a religious concordat with the Dalai Lama that sees him as a spiritual rather than a political leader and designates Lhasa’s Potola Palace as a holy city, comparable perhaps to the standing enjoyed by the Holy See. Were the Chinese to initiate such a move, it would show a new and welcome openness to the principle that each man and woman should be free to determine the religious belief of their choice. Instead of undermining the unity of the state, invariably the state becomes the beneficiary of the good that religious faith and spiritual endeavour are then free to promote.

Last year the Lhasa Evening News said that a “strike hard campaign” had been launched. Perhaps a “think hard” campaign would now be more apposite. How much better it would be if the Dalai Lama were invited to have direct discussions in Beijing with President Hu Jintao. The fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, now aged 75, is willing to find a solution and is in a position to make a lasting settlement. His word and his judgment will be accepted by disparate groups of Tibetans. When he dies there will be no similar focus for unity, risking a more radical and intractable conflict. If agreement is not reached during his lifetime, it could leave a dangerous vacuum which could threaten China’s cohesion.

The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” also means “opportunity”. There is an opportunity to use Chinese genius, as happened in the case of Hong Kong and is now happening in the area of religious liberties, to find creative and durable solutions to some of the issues that I have touched upon.

18:06

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken with conviction and clarity. In my speech, I will deal with some of the matters that he has mentioned, but first I should declare a past interest: when I was a student at Oxford University, I visited Singapore and wrote a thesis in the 1960s on the overseas Chinese in Singapore, which dealt with the process of transition from colonialism to self-government. I was particularly interested to discover that the Chinese students whom I met there were extremely proud of the prowess of mainland China and that that pride was accompanied by a great loyalty. This was all the more remarkable to me since Singapore had moved from a colonialist regime towards a democratic one and a thriving capitalist economy. I therefore hoped that one day I would get the opportunity to visit mainland China to better understand its attitude and, more important, to appreciate the constantly growing economic importance of China in the world.

The most important conclusion that I believe must be drawn from our visit is that the European Union should pursue a wider policy of constructive engagement and develop a collaborative relationship with China. We emphasise that the member states need to decide the key issues on which in practice the EU should stand firm on a united approach. This ought to cover a great many areas, including climate change, co-operation over science and technology projects, Operation Atalanta to prevent piracy and dealing with the enormous trade imbalances between China and the West. We have said that, to add substance to this policy, the EU and its member states should encourage—this is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made—the study of Chinese languages, culture and institutions within the countries of the EU.

When our delegation visited China last summer, what struck me most forcefully was the way in which the Chinese Government were geared to obtaining maximum development and economic growth with all possible speed. China has some of the most highly developed cities in the world on its eastern seaboard, but on the other hand, with its 1.3 billion citizens—nearly one-fifth of the world’s population—it has a great deal of rural poverty in its vast western areas. The report rightly proposes that the EU ought to establish a stronger presence outside Beijing and Hong Kong.

The policy of rapid economic development in China has now taken priority over everything else, including issues involving human rights. As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, while China has commendably raised millions of its citizens out of poverty, the Chinese leadership has shown no great enthusiasm for extending democratic rights, and political dissent is quite simply not tolerated. That was amply demonstrated by the events in Tiananmen Square and by China’s treatment of Tibet, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. More recently, there was widespread disappointment when a UK national was executed in China on drugs charges despite pleas from the British Prime Minister for clemency. Indeed, I was told when we were in China that the death penalty is still on the statute book for the smuggling of cigarettes.

I believe that the Chinese Government correctly understand that the EU will continue to assert its deeply held commitment to human rights and will wish to raise such issues in a consistent and practical manner. On this subject, we recommended that the EU delegation in Beijing should consider increasing the number of those working on human rights. However, we should strive to ensure that our approach does not cause other key negotiations on the future of the world’s environment and trade to be derailed. It is a difficult and delicate balance to strike, but progress, even if slow, can be achieved on a variety of fronts. In that connection, I strongly endorse the perceptive and far-sighted words of the leader of our delegation, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who said on 23 March:

“It is also important that the EU sticks to its principles on Human Rights when dealing with China, but we feel more progress will be made in this area by pursuing a frank and detailed private dialogue rather than EU leaders grand-standing with public condemnations”.

One reality about China that I knew before I went and was confirmed to me when I was there is—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, emphasised this in his speech—that the Chinese Government plan on a very long timescale. One distinguished Chinese professor and former ambassador revealed China’s perspective when he declared to us that human rights in China had never been better for the past 5,000 years. I therefore fear that human rights issues will continue to be raised by the EU with China for many years to come.

The second important message that came across to us strong and clear was that China is totally committed to its territorial integrity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred in relation to Tibet, Hong Kong, India and especially Taiwan. Our view in relation to Taiwan was that,

“a military solution must not be contemplated and would lead to severe repercussions”.

Indeed, we describe Taiwan as,

“a potential flash-point for the whole region, which could bring the US and China into open conflict”.

My conviction is that a possible war over the status of Taiwan would be a disaster for the world, as any such conflict could rapidly escalate. Our report recommends:

“The EU should state its support for the one China policy but its rejection of reunification by anything other than peaceful means. It should discourage China and Taiwan from taking any unilateral actions that would infringe these principles”.

My final point is that we are having this debate against a background of heightened tensions between North and South Korea. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, stated, we had a constructive meeting in China on this subject with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the senior official representing the Communist Party. I express the hope that the Chinese Government will use their good offices to try to bring about a reduction in tension. They have the capability to act as a major restraining influence on the unpredictable North Korean leadership.

There is no doubt that our report points towards the EU needing to establish an effective relationship with China based on trust and mutual respect. It will be a long road and there will almost certainly be potential pitfalls on the way and perhaps even a few daunting distractions. However, China’s illustrious philosopher, Confucius, offers guidance for us all with these wise words:

“It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop”.

Perhaps that statement of principle, too, was indirectly recognised in our report—compiled under the able leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with the dedicated assistance of Kathryn Colvin and her team—in wanting a long-term dialogue and a policy of constructive engagement by the EU. This evening, I not only commend the wise words of Confucius but strongly support the recommendations in our report.

18:15

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, because I agree with almost everything that he said, particularly on matters of human rights in China and relations with Taiwan. I start by declaring an unpaid interest as the newly elected chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary British-Taiwan Group. I have on a number of occasions had the good fortune to visit Taiwan in recent years and I shall say something about relations with Taiwan in a moment.

First, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee on producing such an excellent report and the members of that committee who have spoken in this debate on their contributions. The report is informative, thoughtful and well argued. Indeed, in many respects it is a model of what a good Select Committee report should be.

I think that the noble Lord is aware of this, because I had a word with him before this debate, but I feel that one thing missing from the report is any detailed reference to the disproportionate and excessive use of the death penalty by the People’s Republic of China. I agree completely with what the committee said about the execution of our fellow British citizen, Akmal Shaikh, in December 2009 and I was pleased to see repeated at paragraph 235 of the report the EU statement reaffirming its,

“absolute and long-standing opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances”.

However, I could see no reference in the report to the annual reports from Amnesty International on the use of the death penalty worldwide, particularly in Asia. The 2008 report on death sentences and executions says that in that year more people were executed in Asia than in the rest of the world put together. It states:

“At least 1,830 (76 per cent) of all total reported executions were carried out by Asian states”.

Of these,

“at least 1,718 were carried out in China”,

and,

“at least 7,003 people were known to have been sentenced to death”.

Amnesty International continues:

“These figures represent minimum estimates—real figures are undoubtedly higher. However, the continued refusal by the Chinese authorities to release public information on the use of the death penalty means that in China the death penalty remains shrouded in secrecy”.

The report continues with a damning description of how those facing capital charges do not receive fair trials, with failings including the lack of prompt access to lawyers, a lack of presumption of innocence, political interference in the judiciary and failure to exclude evidence extracted through torture. I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said and I hope very much that the description that he gave of how things are improving turns out to be the case. In this House, however, where there is such strong opposition to the use of the death penalty, it is right that we should express our concern about the situation that continues to exist in China.

The use of the death penalty in Taiwan, by contrast, is almost unknown—I cannot say entirely unknown because, regrettably, it was used earlier this year. However, I admit to a sense of disappointment when reading the various references to relations with that country. I had hoped that the committee would have taken this opportunity to question some of the basic assumptions that underlie western Governments’ thinking on this matter and recognised that the 23 million people who live in Taiwan also have rights that deserve to be taken into consideration. I refer particularly to the assertions in the summary with the heading “China’s lines in the sand”. The report states:

“First, ‘one China’. China will not accept any questioning of its territorial integrity whether over Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. It is the Taiwan issue that presents a threat to regional security”.

That sentence has been quoted by a number of noble Lords in this debate. From that, one might assume that Taiwan is somehow threatening its neighbours militarily. That is clearly an absurd proposition. The only threat in the region comes from the People’s Republic of China, which has stationed 1,500 missiles on its coastline, all targeted at Taiwan, and has passed an anti-secession law, which, it claims, gives it the right to invade Taiwan if that country declares independence.

Almost 20 years have passed since the Kuomintang last claimed that it was the legitimate Government of the whole of China and during that time Taiwan has evolved from a one-party dictatorship under martial law into a genuine parliamentary democracy where Governments are changed through the ballot box. I remind your Lordships of what the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place said in paragraph 173 of its August 2006 report East Asia. It stated:

“We conclude that the Chinese military build-up across the Taiwan Straits threatens peace and stability in East Asia .... We further conclude that the growth and development of democracy in Taiwan is of the greatest importance, both for the island itself and for the population of greater China, since it demonstrates incontrovertibly that Chinese people can develop democratic institutions and thrive under them”.

By contrast—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and members of his committee will not take offence at this—the tone of the report that we are debating seems to be that we must do nothing to promote relations with Taiwan that upsets the PRC. Paragraph 171 of the report states:

“The EU should continue to support Taiwan in areas which China would regard as non-threatening and should encourage the Chinese to be more flexible, seeking to persuade them that Taiwan’s participation in some international organisations, such as observer status at the World Health Assembly, will not damage the Chinese case on reunification”.

If it is right for Taiwan to participate in these international bodies—I would add to that list the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and others—why should the People’s Republic of China be given a veto?

The case for Taiwan to be given observer status at the World Health Assembly—finally granted in May 2009—was overwhelming because of the significant contribution that the country had made over the years on world health issues such as the SARS epidemic and earthquake relief. If a visitor arrived from outer space and examined the various relationships between Britain and Taiwan—in financial services, in industrial investment by British companies in Taiwan and by Taiwanese companies here, in the provision of places for Taiwanese students at British universities, in collaborating on tackling financial crime and terrorism, in combating disease, in coping with national disasters, and much more—that visitor would come to the conclusion that here were two friendly countries working together closely in virtually every area that mattered.

However, we know that life is not quite like that. I well recall an exchange in your Lordships’ House in January 2003 on a Question that I asked on WHO membership. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked my noble friend Lady Amos, then a Foreign Office Minister, whether she could think of any of the attributes of a sovereign state that Taiwan lacked. Her reply was:

“My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we do not recognise Taiwan. The majority of countries in the UN also do not recognise Taiwan”.—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 432.]

That was a truthful answer, but it was not quite an answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked.

However, I pay tribute to the previous Government, whom I was proud to support, for one very important decision that they took in relation to Taiwan. On 3 March 2009, they granted visa exemption for six months to Taiwanese passport holders. We were followed by Ireland and New Zealand, and Taiwan has offered similar rights to British passport holders. There is no evidence that this has created any problems in the countries involved.

I was interested to see the letter that Ivan Lewis MP, the former Foreign Office Minister, sent on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on 6 April. I am delighted that the noble Lord has been sitting through this debate and is listening carefully to all our deliberations. Paragraph 10 of the letter states:

“The Government agrees that the EU has a significant stake in the maintenance of cross-Straits peace and stability. In line with the East Asia Policy Guidelines, the EU should continue to welcome positive developments and initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue, practical co-operation and confidence building. It should also encourage both sides to pursue pragmatic solutions to Taiwan’s involvement in international organisations, especially where Taiwan’s practical participation is important to EU and global interests”.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question: do the new Government agree with what their predecessors said on that matter?

I have a couple of further questions for the Minister. The first relates to the EU arms embargo on China, to which the Select Committee report refers. Can he give an assurance that the Government will not support the lifting of the arms embargo until the PRC has abandoned its threatening stance towards Taiwan and has removed the missiles from its coastline?

Secondly, do the Government stand by what the Minister’s new noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said during the exchanges on the Question to which I referred a moment ago? Speaking from the opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord said:

“I am sure that we all appreciate that because of respect for the ‘one China’ policy and our relations with the People’s Republic of China, we do not accord Taiwan full diplomatic status. Can we at least be assured that we give Taiwan representatives in our country and the sort of causes that we are discussing in this Question the same support and encouragement as are given by our neighbours, particularly France and Germany, in their dealings with Taiwan? Are we as effective as they are in maintaining good relations with this remarkable democracy?”—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 432.]

His reference to the support offered to Taiwan’s representatives in the UK is important. Is the Minister aware that practice differs markedly from one EU country to another in terms of Taiwan’s offices’ legal status, the immunities granted to their staff, the rules on vehicle ownership, use and taxation, and so on? I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer today, but perhaps he will institute a review of the situation and, where possible, ensure that, where the UK practice is behind that which is followed in other countries in the EU, we will attempt to match that. Perhaps he could write to me about that in due course.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, again for his brilliant introduction. I am grateful to the Minister for his attention throughout our debate and I look forward to his reply. I congratulate all members of the committee on pursuing such an excellent study.

18:30

[Lord Cobbold]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee on an excellent report. European committee reports always achieve a high standard. The only problem with this one is that it is physically difficult to read because of its very tight binding. I agree with the report’s principal call for the EU to raise its game substantially and forge a strategic relationship with China based on trust and mutual respect. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I think that one of the most important statements in the report is in paragraph 43. It reads:

“It is unrealistic and undesirable that a single EU-China relationship will replace relations between China and individual Member States. The two will rightly continue in parallel”.

We in this country already have a special relationship, as many speakers this afternoon have mentioned, because of Hong Kong and, more particularly, the English language.

I first visited Hong Kong in 1959, but my first visit to the People’s Republic was a business trip in 1990. It was a revelation at that time to learn that China’s economy had been growing by around 10 per cent per annum since 1979. It was clear that if this rate was to be maintained China would be the largest economy in the world by the middle of this century. In spite of the current global recession, China is still on track.

On my return in 1990 I went to the University of Hertfordshire, of which I was then a governor. I told the university that it must develop a relationship with China; I am happy to say that it now has around 1,000 students from China. I think there is a total of around 77,000 in Britain and, according to paragraph 50 of the report, as many as 190,000 in the EU as a whole. These are important numbers. Happily, at alumni parties organised by the university in China, graduates have been enthusiastic about their experience in Britain, and have said that it had helped them to get good-quality jobs on their return.

It is also important to arrange for more education in the Chinese language in this country. I think some of my children and grandchildren are being taught the Chinese language. Education is just one of the many links that we have with China. These links are well covered in the committee’s excellent report. My one concern is over the statement in the gracious Speech that the Government look forward to an “enhanced partnership with India”. I have nothing against India, but what about China?

18:31

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I also congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the members of the sub-committee, who have provided a detailed and persuasive case on how the European Union can better co-ordinate its policies towards China and maximise its leverage over China. Most of the speakers have played around with those points. It remains quite difficult to pinpoint exactly how we will do it but at least we are charting some paths. My one carping observation is that, from the evidence sessions, it is apparent that the committee took no evidence from a single member of the European Parliament on the several visits that it would have made to the Commission. With the Human Rights Sub-Committee, the Development Committee and others there, the committee might have sought that useful contribution.

The context that we are dealing with in these issues is the increased assertiveness which China is showing. That assertiveness increases the case for a more coherent strategic approach to our relationship with China. On Burma, Iran and North Korea, we know that China has been—and continues to be in most cases—less than helpful. On trade and investment policy, industry and technology, climate change, proliferation and human rights, the European Union clearly needs to refocus more strategically on how it deal with its concerns.

As the report says, Europe must raise its game. The reality that we have more influence when we work together is well understood in the report. Charles Grant has observed that we should bear in mind that China, as an ultra-realist, respects power. Therefore, uniting European member states are far more likely to have that influence over Chinese policy than we have when there seems to be too much of a focus from many member states on bilateral efforts to build special relationships between them and China. We need to insist, at European Union level through the new high representative and the European External Action Service, that we develop a system of joint messages—with more clarity—from the European Union to China.

It is also time to end what China clearly perceives as Europe’s rather patronising approach to it. Its economy grew by 9 per cent in 2009. For China, this is hardly evidence of any need to emulate our economic model. The European Union must get to grips with identifying the critical issues central to building a more constructive relationship with China. We need, for instance, to promote the objectives of the Doha development round. China is a member of the WTO and has an important role to play. It well understands the need for open trading systems and would look for support on this. There is also climate change, which several noble Lords have mentioned. It means building a consensus at EU level on fewer issues than we currently focus on, and ensuring that our views are clearly understood. We should be clear with China that Europe is ready to do more on such issues as technological transfer, in which China has an interest. We understand the clear benefit for China, and the European Union is ready to be more co-operative and engaged in such issues.

China regularly expresses its interest in a partnership and co-operation agreement with Europe. However, in reality, as many noble Lords have said, nothing much seems to be happening. We see continuing intransigence on several issues identified in the committee’s report. The conclusion is that as China’s economic power has grown, our diplomatic contact with it seems more, not less, difficult. China continues to foster relations with developing countries and, increasingly, with authoritarian regimes. Nor do we see many signs that China is keen to integrate further into international systems. In the absence of Chinese support for Resolutions 1718 and 1874 on North Korea, and Resolutions 1737 and 1803 on Iran, the UN’s effectiveness was severely diminished by the intervention of China, which voted against these resolutions.

Europe has limited opportunities at its disposal. However, it has been argued that the tensions between China and the US, and China and its neighbours, must mean that Europe now has a better chance to focus on building that G3 relationship which would be preferable, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested, to the G2 relationship which most people seem to think is the likely outcome. This is a critical time for relations with China. The option of working on a G3 relationship is perhaps more possible for us at this time than it has been in the past.

China has an impressive grasp of public diplomacy, which it has developed with the United States and the European Union. Contrary to the impression that some people have given today, China understands public diplomacy and how to manage it. The European Union has shown an aversion to open and public acrimony between Europe and China because it leads to the judgment that we are failing to handle China. The bottom line is that, like Europe, China needs global trade, monetary standards, security and access to resources. The high representative now has the opportunity to argue for careful policy co-ordination with the United States to use the opportunities that the Lisbon treaty and the European External Action Service have brought about. Insufficient mention is made of that service, which will facilitate the momentum that we need.

China’s change of tack on Iran shows the importance of exerting influence on China. Russia’s change of policy and the involvement of the Gulf states influenced China in that regard. We should try to emulate those actions in other ways to exploit the fact that China is open to influence. That, in turn—I repeat the point I made earlier—reflects the fact that levering change could be dependent on how we work with others. Indeed, there will be no change unless we work with others.

On climate change, we should acknowledge Europe’s success in building up global momentum and agreement on a legally binding treaty. It was not the case that Europe was not engaging, but what happened in Copenhagen resulted from the fact that we had nothing to engage with because we had the maximum on the table, and China reacted to that. What we saw before Copenhagen was that China was prepared to reject the deal with the BASIC group. That action was the result of influence on China. Copenhagen was certainly not a diplomatic success for China. I know for a fact that China is now busy working to rebuild bridges, particularly with African countries and small island states in the developing world, which feel badly let down by it. China is now busily trying to repair those relationships. We should not expect much progress beyond the Copenhagen accord before the Cancun meeting. However, the ball is most definitely in the European Union’s court and that is an opportunity which we must grasp.

European solidarity on human rights is essential when we put forward our arguments. We must continue to focus on Tibet and the Dalai Lama but we should give much more attention to the plight of political dissidents in China. The imprisonment and difficulties that dissidents experience get very little of our attention compared with Tibet and the Dalai Lama. It should not be a case of one or the other, but we should place more emphasis than we do at present on the plight of political dissidents in China. The European External Action Service must work to ensure that there is a strategy on how to maintain consistent pressure on human rights. We have many strong European Union Council positions—we have the common positions on China and other countries—but they are not being followed through sufficiently with strong and concerted European Union action. As with all the policies covered in the report, there should be incentives of a positive kind on the table when we have our discussions with China, but, in tandem with that, there should be clarity on what action the European Union will take when there are clear breaches of international human rights law and, very often, of Chinese law as well.

Noble Lords have touched on Africa and China. I know from my experience of working in Africa how the activities of the Chinese there preoccupy many people who are involved in development and human rights. Beijing combines state investment in Africa with economic incentives to attract private investment. China displays hard-nosed self-interest but successes have resulted from its resource-backed development loans. For instance, reconstruction in Angola has been helped by three oil-backed loans, which have been used to build roads, railways, hospitals, schools and water systems. Angola required Chinese companies to subcontract 30 per cent of the work to local firms. People are not generally aware of that. The Congo will receive $3 billion worth of copper-backed loans from China. According to reports that I have read, the Congolese Government have stipulated that 10 to 12 per cent of all infrastructure work undertaken under the arrangement must be subcontracted to Congolese firms, that no more than 20 per cent of construction workers involved can be Chinese, and that at least 0.5 per cent of the costs of each infrastructure project must be spent on worker training. That represents considerable progress on what I observed in the 15 years during which I travelled frequently to Africa. There are still many concerns but we have to accept as a fact that Chinese teams are building a hydro power project in Congo in exchange for oil and another in Ghana to be repaid in cocoa beans.

Chinese aid to Sudan is relatively small, but the joint venture on oil regrettably allows al-Bashir to maintain his power and Chinese arms continue to flow into Sudan in spite of the UN arms embargo. However, other aspects of the relationship are not so well known. China was pivotal in getting Khartoum to accept a joint UN-AU peacekeeping force. It agreed to the al-Bashir case being referred to the ICC. As a member of the Security Council, China could have vetoed that but did not. Beijing is working with the United States and the European Union to build joint strategies in Sudan. Again, that is progress on which we should build in future relations.

As the report says, we must continue to ask for more transparency on official aid and other flows of finance. As noble Lords have said, there are concerns about China’s relations with resource-rich countries in Africa, but claiming the high ground will not result in the progress being made that we need to see in China’s dealings with these Governments, who, as we know, need huge investment in infrastructure. China provides the assistance that they need. It increasingly understands the importance of good governance in Africa, and that it is not in its interests to fail to support and encourage that.

We are discussing the findings of this excellent EU committee report. We know that we have seriously to analyse what we have to do better in our dealings with China, a strong and powerful state protected by its status as a developing country, as others have said. Europe needs to have a comprehensive, strategic, persistent, concerted and well co-ordinated approach. The conclusion we reached is that the European Union must develop and refocus its foreign policy to meet the promise of the Lisbon treaty and the European External Action Service. Europe has moved on from past approaches and from the assessment of the Centre for European Reform that Europe’s policies were,

“a ragbag of opportunistic, allergic, poorly co-ordinated and panicky policy action”.

Europe will have to do better. I believe that that is possible and I hope that this excellent report will make a contribution.

18:48

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful and constructive speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that China is an area where there should be continuity of foreign policy. It is very much an area in which there is consensus among all the main parties on what British and European policy should be.

The Government welcome this extremely helpful report which contributes to the British and European debate. Like other reports from the Lords EU committee, it will no doubt be read in Brussels and other capitals. I apologise for the delay in the ministerial reply. There have been one or two hiccups in the middle, such as the general election. Some of the committee members, at least, will be aware that the Minister responsible wrote to the chairman on 3 June:

“I hope that a time-frame of two months from the State Opening of Parliament on 25 May would be acceptable”.

So a full and detailed ministerial reply will be on its way well within that timeframe. I should perhaps also apologise and say that I hope my voice does not give out before the end of my speech. I have a rather bad cold.

The report and the speeches in this debate have been balanced between EU/China issues and UK/China issues. I loved the comment in paragraph 35 that,

“it was not always clear for China where the locus of governance was in dealing with Europe”,

referring to Chinese confusion over where the balance of authority lies between national capitals and Brussels on trade, intellectual property, technological co-operation and everything else. Of course, Members of this House are entirely clear where the balance lies between Brussels and Britain. This is part of the constructive ambiguity with which we all deal within the European Union, and the Chinese are learning to navigate their way around it.

On the other hand, there is a useful emphasis in the report that China, in its turn, is not a monolith. We need to pay more attention to the Chinese provinces, and we need to make sure that there is representation for the United Kingdom and, indeed, for the European Union as a whole in the major Chinese provinces. When being briefed, I was told that Guangdong province now has an economy larger than that of Saudi Arabia, for example, with 30 other provinces to add. So far as China is concerned, the future of the EU External Action Service is very much a matter of coming to grips with a complex entity.

China is a priority for the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We fully support her objectives and her efforts there. She visited China at the end of April, and one notes that this is a dual relationship. President Sarkozy made a major visit. The Chancellor was in Beijing on 3 and 4 June for economic discussions and then, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, went to the Shanghai Expo to visit our excellent exhibition there.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about collocation and secondment. I remind him that the British Government have collocated a number of their missions with others—in particular, German ones—and I think in at least one case with a European Commission office. Therefore, there is no objection in general and, indeed, there is a huge advantage in doing so, often on economic grounds. The European Union External Action Service is in the process of development. We are busily training and seconding officials to it, but we will have to write to the noble Lord about the development of the structure of the EU External Action Service in China.

It may be appropriate to say a little about the new coalition Government’s approach to co-operation on foreign policy within the EU. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to William Hague’s maiden speech at the Conservative Party conference. The noble and learned Lord reminded me the other day that on the famous photograph so often reproduced of the 15 year-old William Hague, there are only three other recognisable faces, one of which is his. So a number of people go back that far with William Hague.

In the Queen’s Speech debate in the Commons, the Foreign Secretary said:

“The Government will be an active and activist player in the European Union … while working to make the European Union as a whole a success … It is also in our interests and in the EU’s general interest for the nations of the EU to make greater use of their collective weight in the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/10; cols. 187-88.]

This report is, after all, about making greater use of the EU’s collective weight in its relations with China. In a couple of days’ time, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be speaking together in Berlin about Britain’s European policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked whether an enhanced partnership with India, mentioned in the coalition agreement, would mean that China would be downgraded. We do not see it as one situation versus the other; we very much want to continue to build on the previous Government’s approach to China and to extend their strategic dialogue as far as we can. We already have a fairly developed structure of annual summits, the economic and financial dialogue and, now, the strategic dialogue. Therefore, we are currently talking to the Chinese at many different levels.

There has been much reference in this debate to history. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, went the furthest back—150 years—reminding us that the western treatment of China, with years of humiliation, western arrogance and complacency, is still very much in their minds. That explains part of the intense sensitivity with regard to sovereignty, outside criticism of domestic affairs, including on human rights, their treatment of minorities and the management of Tibet and Xinjiang, and so on. Perhaps we also have to be a little more humble in remembering that when we were behaving in Beijing in the way that the noble Lord suggested, our treatment of our national minorities in Ireland was not entirely above criticism. Therefore, we are moving along a certain path.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked about the opening of contact with the EC in 1975. We are, after all, still struggling with a trade agreement of 1985 and are making efforts to move that forward into a more constructive partnership agreement. However, I think we all recognise that the transformation of China since then—economically above all but also to some extent socially and in some ways even in terms of human rights and the rule of law—has been remarkable. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about the changes in the freedom to worship. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, quoted the claim—which perhaps is quite correct—that the Chinese have better human rights now than they have had over the past 5,000 years. There may be some way further to go but there are signs of movement in the right direction.

The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Crickhowell, both said that it is a great mistake to preach at the Chinese. It is far better to appeal, as far as we can, to their enlightened self-interest. That is clearly true in relation to the rule of law. On my first visit to Beijing in 1981, I met Professor Gerry Cohen from Harvard, who was giving introductory lectures on international law to Chinese trade officials. They did not want to learn about that out of a sense that it was important intrinsically; they wanted to negotiate over trade—enlightened self-interest. Similarly, the Great Britain-China Centre, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred, has made very important contributions to work on rule-of-law issues in China. We have to persuade the Chinese that a stronger rule of law, a stronger recognition of the importance of whistleblowers in providing for better industrial relations and better sustainable development is in their own interests and not just a question of value. That has to be the way forward. The same is true of their attitude to intellectual property, which is still a sensitive issue, to the market economy and to energy use.

We will, if we may, write to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the specific human rights issues that he mentioned. We raise specific cases of concern within our human rights dialogue with China. The last round of the EU human rights dialogue with China took place last November and the next round is due to take place in Madrid in June. In that dialogue, we will again focus on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, human rights defenders, the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang, and the death penalty, torture and so on. Therefore, we continue to raise these issues and slow progress is made.

Similarly, on climate change, we have some leverage because the Chinese themselves are increasingly worried about the environmental damage they are doing to their economy. Therefore, we welcomed the focus on climate change during the recent visit to Beijing by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We are also engaged with the Chinese in work on carbon capture technology and on other forms of reducing the energy intensity of their economy.

We have to explain to them that, because of its special status, it is in their interests that Hong Kong continues to remain an economic and financial driver for the entire Chinese economy. In the introduction to the 2009 EU annual report on Hong Kong, just published, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, welcomed the EU’s strong support for early and substantial progress towards the goal of universal suffrage in accordance with their Basic Law. So we are doing our best to persuade them that their enlightened self-interest goes along with the values that we ourselves wish to promote. This is more difficult in some areas than others.

Several noble Lords mentioned the arms embargo issue. It is a sensitive issue partly because it is one for both sides. Indeed, in some ways it is more symbolic than real. It was imposed because of the abuses of human rights, above all in the Tiananmen massacre. It was not originally linked to the Taiwan issue, although we are conscious of the Taiwan dimension and there is broad consensus in Europe that now is not the right time to lift the arms embargo. We need to see clear progress on those matters before the issue is raised again.

Cyber crime strategy and the whole question of what is happening is one of the most sensitive issues with which we are dealing with the Chinese and with companies such as Google operating in China. We agree that we should continue to work closely in this area with all our partners in the EU, NATO and other relevant organisations. A number of noble Lords raised the much broader question, which is in the report, of how to encourage China to become what some call a more responsible power or to shoulder a larger share in the responsibility for maintaining global order and prosperity. Again, the report notes that China is gradually becoming more engaged in all sorts of ways. It is the largest contributor to peacekeeping within the P5, although most Chinese peacekeepers I understand are still in the logistical, medical and support dimension. They do not yet have combat troops in UN peacekeeping operations, unlike India which is the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping operations at present. When I looked at how many British ships were taking part in the anti-piracy operations off Somalia, I was struck by the fact that there was one British ship and three Chinese. So the Chinese are beginning to take a larger role.

In Africa, too, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, said, the Chinese now find themselves moving up a learning curve on how they need to co-operate with African states to preserve their longer-term interests. Sudan is an interesting case in point, where the possibility that there might be a secession in Sudan in the next year—possibly accompanied by further conflict—must directly affect Chinese interests. We therefore have an interested basis on which to discuss with the Chinese how we help to prevent future conflict. We see ourselves as working with the Chinese on peacekeeping and peacebuilding and there is more to be done to encourage the Chinese to take full part in multilateral approaches to conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and so on. We will be ending the British bilateral aid programme to China next March and we see ourselves moving towards a strategic partnership with China in international development, which will be working with China on issues such as African development. The International Development Secretary has asked that a global partnership fund be established within DfID to provide resources to work with countries such as China on the exchange of experience and mutual learning in support of other developing countries. I hope that noble Lords think that that is a useful step forward.

We have to recognise that as we adjust to China taking a larger role in international institutions, that may in time raise some painful issues for Britain and other European countries. We are all—the Italians, French and Dutch, as well as the British and the French—conscious that we wish to retain our positions in the IMF and elsewhere. There is much to be done in terms of how we adjust.

On North Korea and Taiwan we are conscious that China is the only country that can significantly influence North Korea. China pursues a policy of economic engagement to encourage stability in North Korea and avoid the threat of a collapse, which would hit China more strongly than anywhere else except for South Korea. We have to ensure that Chinese policies do not undermine UN Security Council resolutions designed to prevent proliferation. On Taiwan, again we do all that we can to encourage China to recognise that a peaceful relationship and further development of the relationship of two countries within one state should be developed. So far, again it is clear that that is also in China’s interest as well as in ours.

Several noble Lords mentioned the question of the considerable attention to China from within the United Kingdom and the extension of British and other European students studying in China. More young people are being encouraged to study Mandarin elsewhere. Again, these are encouraging signs. The last time I was in Beijing I was lecturing on a joint London School of Economic’s graduate degree course in China made up of half British and European students and half Chinese. The University of Nottingham is doing much more than that, so there are a number of initiatives under way, not all of which are government-led, helping to encourage that. I know that a number of independent schools, in particular, are encouraging more people to study Mandarin.

In conclusion, the Government are happy to accept many aspects of this report’s analysis. We see that a more coherent and effective EU-China relationship should be a priority for the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and for the European External Action Service, supported by a more consistent approach to China from the different member states. Constructive engagement with China can deliver huge opportunities for the people of Europe across our international, bilateral and trade priorities. I thank the EU Committee for this excellent report and look forward to the next one on this subject.

19:06

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and also for his undertaking to come back to us with a full Government response. We have had a response already from the previous Government and I want to thank the now Opposition for their positive response to our report when they were in government.

I particularly thank non-Sub-Committee C members for contributing to the debate. Their contributions were as excellent as those from members. Two noble Lords talked about the importance of the parallel role of EU and member states. That is absolutely right but most importantly, both understand what each other’s roles are. They are consistent on that and it is not all about the way in which it is written in a legal treaty—Lisbon or whatever. It is around making that work in practice.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, about the death penalty in China. That should have been covered far more strongly. We did not cover Taiwan because this report was broad enough as it was, but the plain fact is that Europe has no effect on the strategic relationship and the risk of that conflict between Taiwan and China. That is an entirely Chinese-United States issue and, regret it or not, the EU has no leverage in any defence way over it.

I shall respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. I take her point about the European Parliament. I am not absolutely sure that we did not ask for help when we went to Brussels and asked for an interview. I may be incorrect. She is absolutely right about all these reports.

I was interested in the idea, which I take particularly from our history, that we might have a paternalistic attitude towards China. What concerned us most as a committee was the opposite of that—as if Europe in many ways has already said, “Game over. China is the future; Europe and the West is the past”. It was that fatalism about the future that concerned us. We wanted to see Europe as a major player in the future. Various development issues are important and in many ways we were positive about China’s future role there.

Finally, I join many fellow committee members in thanking our committee clerk, Kathryn Colvin, and Oliver Fox and Bina Sudra who gave us a huge amount of positive clerical and organisational assistance. In particular, I thank our special adviser, David Kerr, who gave us superb assistance during this assignment. I commend the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Genomic Medicine: S&T Committee Report

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

19:10

Moved By

[Lord Patel]

To move that this House takes note of the Science and Technology Committee Report on Genomic Medicine.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, the sequencing of the human genome in 2000, and the technological advances that made that possible, brought with them the possibility that these advances could benefit healthcare. The Government of the day recognised this by the publication of the White Paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future, in 2003. The investment that followed resulted in the provision of services mainly for the treatment of single gene disorders.

Several further advances have resulted in the development of molecular and genetic tests, both for identifying risk of disease and treatment. As genome sequencing technologies improve and more genetic tests become available, new models of service delivery will have to be considered. We are familiar with the association of diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon’s disease, sickle cell and others with defects in single genes. The sequencing of the human genome in 2000 affords scientists the opportunity to explore the association of gene mutations in more common diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancers, Parkinson’s disease, mental health and many others. The development of genetic tests has made it possible to target treatment to patients most likely to benefit, identifying patients sensitive to certain drugs such as Warfarin—an anticoagulant—and retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV and many others.

In the world of competing priorities and cost savings, how are the advances in genetics and clinical genetics going to be translated into clinical practice? We should be certain of one thing: that scientific advances will lead to the identification of newer drugs, allowing for the treatment of more diseases and the identification of patients most likely to benefit from treatment. Without the planned introduction of validated tests, the effective treatments available across the whole of the NHS will not occur. A postcode lottery in the provision of care will develop, as it already has in relation to the use of currently available genetic tests for single gene diseases.

The purpose of our inquiry was to explore the current state of genomic science and its implications on healthcare. We also briefly explored the ethical and legal implications of genetic information. The report is presented in seven chapters, each focusing on different issues. It is based on the written evidence given in response to our call for evidence, and oral evidence from some 140 individuals representing nearly 110 organisations. We make 54 recommendations. All the evidence is presented in part 2 of the report, running to nearly 360 pages. We also carried out a visit to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, to get evidence from the USA. It was presented to us in 34 sessions over three days.

The previous Government responded to our report, accepting some of the recommendations. However, in general the response was poor and failed to recognise the reasons for some of our recommendations. The coalition Government now have an opportunity to scrutinise the report and, I hope, produce a more studied response over the coming months. I hope, though, that by the end of today’s debate the Minister will commit the Government to taking forward some of the key recommendations, particularly those related to the White Paper on genetics and the new Institute of Bioinformatics.

Let me briefly allude to some of the advances in genomic science with implications for healthcare, and refer to some of the dramatic advances reported since the publication of the report in July 2009. Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA in 1953, working in Cambridge. Fred Sanger, also from Cambridge, reported on the methodology of sequencing the human genome in 1977. The mapping of the complete human genome was reported in 2000 and cost around $3 billion. The mapping of the second human genome cost around $180 million. The third mapping—that of James Watson—cost around $1.3 million. The pace of the sequencing technology is such that both the speed of doing the sequencing and the cost is coming down by the month. The most recent report suggests the cost to be in the region of $10,000, with the prediction that within one to two years it will be down to $1,000 or even lower.

Moore’s law that applied to developments in microprocessing may well apply to the sequencing of the genome—some say to the point that regular and repeated sequencing of an individual patient’s genome will be routine practice in clinical medicine. High-throughput sequencing technologies open up myriad opportunities: the identification of rare variants of DNA that have a large effect in an individual’s risk of developing disease; gene mutation in cancers; de novo mutations in a range of diseases; monitoring the progress of disease; and effective treatment. Costs may even be less if targeted sequencing is used. Protein encoding axons of the 23,000 or so human genes comprise 1 per cent of the genome but contain 90 per cent of the mutations that cause disease. Of course, more scientific work is still necessary to increase the accuracy and relevance of the vast amount of information.

The United Kingdom will need adequate capacity for fast sequencing. Currently, only a few companies worldwide provide this. One of them, Oxford Nanopore Technologies is based in the United Kingdom, but China is building this capacity fast. Recent reports in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and New York Times reported the identification of rare mutations of single-gene diseases such as Clarcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Miller syndrome and ciliary dyskinesia. These suggest that the identification of rare mutations of common multigene diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and others, using whole genome sequences, will be possible—and soon.

The scope of our report did not allow exploration of the role of environment in DNA modifications and disease without genome alteration in the science of epigenetics. Clearly, though, the ability to map the epigenome is crucial, as key elements in the development of disease are controlled by the epigenome—the chemical modifications not encoded in DNA that control how and when genes are expressed.

Pacific Biosciences, a company based in Menlo Park, California, which I visited last year, reported two weeks ago on an integrated system it has developed that simultaneously reads a genome sequence and detects an important epigenetic marker called DNA methylation, which reduces gene expression and is linked to disease development in many types of cancers. With the further refinement of technology, we might be heading towards a full-scale methylation map at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will change our understanding of the behaviour and functionality of cells with identical genomes, and their association with disease development. While companies like Oxford Nanopore Technologies in the UK are developing such technologies, bigger investment is needed if the UK is to maintain its lead.

A recent report in the Lancet illustrates further benefits of rapid sequencing. Investigators were looking for novel mutations—rare variants in DNA—that could modulate a response to drugs. A 40 year-old healthy male with a family history of premature coronary heart disease, aortic aneurism and sudden death had his genomal sequence analysed. The report identified 63 known pharmacogenetic variants that could affect the person’s response to commonly used drugs, such as statins, Warfarin and Clopidogrel.

That brings me to pharmacogenetics—the way in which genetic variations across the genome affect drug metabolism. The right drug at the right dose for the right patient is the way to go for medication in future. Current estimates suggest that 400,000 patients a year in the NHS suffer severe drug reaction, with 15,000 to 20,000 resulting in fatal outcomes. We also make recommendations about the stratified use of medicines, an area of potential UK leadership if the right investment is made now. An increasing range of cancer drugs, such as Herceptin, Iressa and Erbitux, are effective in patients only if they have specific mutations in P13 kinase and other pathways. Breast cancer patients with HER2 receptors respond to the drug Herceptin. Similarly, patients with non-small cell lung cancer with EGF receptors respond to the drug Iressa. Further developments in molecular and genetic tests will lead to more patients being treated in a similar way.

The UK can lead in the development of the stratified uses of medicine. Cancer Research UK alone has been involved in the development of 30 cancer drugs that are used across the world. There is a need for a national strategy. The research community, the research councils, the National Institute for Health Research, industry and private funders can all drive that. Cancer Research UK has established networks that, within five years, will use genetic tests to guide cancer treatments for all patients in the United Kingdom. The potential for United Kingdom plc in this area is huge. The Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills need to support the development of an innovative platform for the stratified use of medicines, bringing Cancer Research UK, the Technology Strategy Board, the research councils, the NIHR and the ABPI together.

Many other recent advances are reported, such as area-based tests for prediction of prognosis and a guide to best treatment for acute and chronic leukaemias, sequences of bacterial genomes for treatment of TB in drug-resistant cases, tracking the spread of MRSA from person to person in the population and many others.

Assessing clinical utility and validity before the use of tests in the NHS will be crucial. Our recommendation that NICE should do that should be accepted. The United Kingdom has fallen behind, when previously it led in clinical trials. Two days ago, I met representatives from Novartis, having previously met representatives from other big pharmas. The interpretation of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom, which is different from the interpretation of the same regulation in the rest of Europe, and the bureaucracy that each individual trust has put in place for clinical trials make doing clinical trials in the United Kingdom difficult. We have now dropped from number two in the world to number 17, with most of the trials now going to China. I hope that the review by Sir Michael Rawlins will address that, but the Government also need to be aware of that and do more.

I turn to another of our key recommendations. I hope that I have convinced the noble Earl that all of the developments that I have described so far have implications for healthcare research and for UK plc and that good information collection is crucial. Our report strongly recommended that a new institute of biomedical informatics should be established, together with training to develop expertise in bioinformatics. Sir Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust said in his oral evidence:

“I have visited the set-up in Dundee and it is very powerful in terms of informatics, providing better patient care and is doing very sound research”.

I extend an invitation to the noble Earl for a private visit to see it for himself. Dundee is not that bad a place.

My recent visits to academic centres, hospitals and companies in the United States—the universities in San Francisco, Stanford, Berkeley and Harvard, as well as Houston medical city and Massachusetts General Hospital—have demonstrated how sequencing technologies for genomes and epigenomes are being used in clinical practice and how genetic and molecular tests are routine in the care of the patient. We may be well behind in that. If we do not invest as a country in infrastructure and support industry, we will pay higher costs, as we already do for the use of certain tests, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 for the identification of the risk of breast cancer in individuals. The United Kingdom has the capacity to lead, both in life sciences and in synthetic biology. Life science developments with engineering science can lead to the development of technologies and molecular markers.

With these advances will come ways of delivering healthcare and identifying disease risk which will drive public health policies. They will change the ways in which disease is diagnosed, disease progression is monitored and treatment is chosen. They will deliver early measurement of the effectiveness of the treatment through use of molecular tests as the epigenome changes. Medical care will be personalised, which will have implications for the way in which commissioning takes place. PCTs are struggling now with commissioning and I wonder how they and GP commissioning will work for personalised medicine. Will we not run the risk of even more the postcode lottery in the care of patients? Apart from the instances that I referred to in diagnosis and treatment of single gene disorders and their screening, where there is great variation in care in the United Kingdom, there are many other examples, such as the variation in genetic tests for breast cancer. There is also great variation in the identification, screening and treatment of patients and relatives with the mutation leading to long QT syndrome, which causes sudden death, usually in young people, and is now a preventable disease, and there is variation in the screening of patients for the stratified use of medicine in cardiac disease and some cancers. These are only some examples, but we also have a high incidence of late diagnosis of cancer, leading to poor outcomes.

There are several other issues that, no doubt, the other noble Lords on the committee and others will cover. However, let me ask the noble Earl some questions. Will the coalition Government stand by some of the commitments made by the previous Government? Will the current Government go further and commit to produce a White Paper on genetics and clinical genetics? Let us give them some time; let us say 18 months. Will the Government commit to establishing an institute of biomedical informatics? Will they support the development of innovative platforms for the stratified use of medicine?

While not all the current promise of genomic and epigenomic science may come to fruition, there is already irrefutable evidence that developments in science will have implications in healthcare. There is also good evidence that the UK has the opportunity to benefit from investing in both technology development and science. Too often in the past, as happened with monoclonal antibodies—now a £2 billion per year business—CAT scanning, MRI, ultrasound and many drugs, we do the good science but are poor at converting it to commercialisation. We need to change that if our economy is to benefit. The subject is so important that I hope that the Science and Technology Committee will return to it in two or three years.

I shall conclude with some well deserved and most sincere thank yous. It was a privilege to be asked to chair the inquiry by the Science and Technology Committee. An added bonus was to have such talented members in the committee, who were all fun to work with and very supportive. The committee was supported by our clerk, Elisa Rubio, until near the end, when she had to leave on maternity leave. We also had full support from our science adviser, Rachel Newton, and the clerk to the Science and Technology Committee, Miss Christine Salmon Percival, who also performed the brilliant task of converting scientific gobbledegook into the understandable, readable report that we see. Last but not least, I thank our specialist adviser, Professor Tim Aitman, who handled us all with respect and kept us informed and educated. Only rarely did he show his frustration at our lack of understanding. He worked truly hard, despite his clinical and academic workload. To all of them I say a huge thank you, because without their effort the report would not have been possible and they certainly made my task easier.

I also wish to put on record my thanks and that of the committee to Dr Francis Collins, a great proponent of personalised medicine, who led the sequencing of the human genome that was reported in 2000. He is now the director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He organised our visit to the United States and co-ordinated the presentations by experts from all over the US. He and his colleagues put huge efforts into making sure that our visit was informative, which it was. I thank him and his team. Finally, we had to have the debate today, for today is Professor Tim Aitman’s birthday. I am sure that the whole House will want me to wish him happy birthday from us all.

19:30

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, the whole House will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on this important report and on the informative way in which he introduced this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee, so I can say with some degree of impartiality that I believe that this report can be listed, with several others over the years from the Science and Technology Committee, as one that fulfils the key role of informing and stimulating public debate on issues that inevitably arise when there are rapid and far-reaching scientific advances leading to challenges and, of course, opportunities for the user community, government, regulators and the scientists themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spelled out graphically the dramatic speed of progress in sequencing and the increase in the volume and complexity of DNA sequence data that are now being produced. These have given rise to a new, highly skilled industry that is growing rapidly around the world. We are leaders in it, which is an important attribute that we should never lose sight of. The health benefits to be gained over the years ahead could be great. It is important not to oversell them, but anyone would recognise at first glance the potential for disease diagnosis and management, although much of it is as yet unfulfilled. However, this will happen only if the development of informatics keeps pace with the accumulation of data. Already we are beginning to see that our ability to interpret the results is lagging behind the new generation of sequencing technologies, so it is essential that bioinformatics support and functional genetic investigations are available in close conjunction with the clinical services.

I shall confine my remarks to Chapter 5 of the report, which relates to the need to support bioinformatics. Interpreting this ever-increasing accumulation of data presents a major challenge for researchers and clinicians. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, quoted Sir Mark Walport’s oral evidence. I shall quote a different part of his evidence, which is reproduced in paragraph 5.7. He said:

“I think one of the major things that this Committee could actually be helpful on is to point out the need for there to be proper and sustained funding for databases such as the European Bioinformatics Institute which will otherwise become unsustainable and would put Europe in a weak competitive position”.

It was gratifying that the previous Government in their response accepted the case for more secure funding for the EBI through the Research Councils UK’s large facilities road map and that the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—the BBSRC—awarded the EBI £10 million to increase its data capacity. The BBSRC is now developing the business case for longer-term funding for the institute. This gives grounds for optimism that appropriate investment in informatics infrastructure at the European level might be secured with leadership from the United Kingdom. The BBSRC deserves credit for having led on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also referred to an innovative company, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, which gave evidence to the committee and has circulated a note drawing attention to developments since the report came out, specifically drawing attention to the demand for trained bioinformaticians. It seeks to recruit in that specialised sphere, but it says that there is a limited pool of skilled resource in the United Kingdom at a time when the demand for trained bioinformaticians is exploding. It states:

“Access to bioinformatic resource, particularly for smaller laboratories, will be a key enabler in achieving critical mass in genome research and translating the results of that research into clinical practice”.

No one could possibly quarrel with that observation.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred several times to recommendation 8.23, which states:

“We recommend the establishment of a new Institute of Biomedical Informatics to address the challenges of handling the linking of medical and genetic information in order to maximize the value of these two unique sources of information”.

This recommendation appeared to have been kicked into the long grass in the previous Government’s response. They undertook to consider the proposal carefully—I am always rather chary when I hear the response “We will consider it carefully”, because I think that I know what it means—but no dedicated funding was made available. Instead, the response referred to the excellent work at the National Genetics Reference Laboratory in Manchester in delivering bioinformatics courses for molecular and clinical geneticists. However, we have to put this in perspective. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, which also speaks with some authority, commented that while this laboratory in Manchester,

“is carrying out some work in this area, it has neither the funding, the mandate nor the focused mission to lead the United Kingdom in a coherent fashion in the use of linked medical and genetic information. A national institute of biomedical informatics with this specific mission would ensure that the UK translates its research leadership in these areas into improved healthcare delivery. Without it we are likely to fail at the point of translation into material benefits, as has happened so often before”.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee are right to put so much emphasis on ensuring that we have an appropriate national capacity to meet the biomedical informatics challenge. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this recommendation will be followed up.

Whenever any new facility is proposed in these days of funding cuts, I accept that there is a responsibility on those who support the proposition to explain how it is to be funded. In the United Kingdom, we spend about £2.5 billion on pathology services, which are scattered around every hospital in every corner of the National Health Service. These pathology and laboratory services in NHS hospitals tend to be fragmented. In his evidence, Sir John Bell said:

“There is an urgent need therefore to rationalise the management of these, either at an NHS Trust level or through large regional laboratories”.

The virtues of that are economies of scale, bringing together state-of-the-art equipment and the integration of laboratory services, which would save money and provide a coherent, integrated delivery. The medical profession, which always tends, like any other profession, to protect its own patch, must recognise that the sovereignty of individual specialities cannot inevitably be protected. By bringing together molecular pathology and genetics laboratories, one has opportunities for the more efficient use of existing resources. I commend that to the Minister. I very much hope that the Government will now make a national institute of biomedical research a reality.

19:39

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I speak today not as a real participant in this debate but to ask the House’s permission for our Front-Bench contribution to be given at the end of the debate by my noble friend Lord Winston. Having listened to the first two contributions, I am already in awe at the knowledge, wisdom and expertise that I know will be demonstrated throughout today’s debate, which is hugely important and very exciting. I could not make a worthy contribution because my own knowledge of genomic medicine could probably be written on something considerably smaller than a DNA sequence.

In moving into opposition, we are still some way from finalising our Front-Bench spokespeople in this House. In the interim, I ask the indulgence of the House and of my colleagues and ask a number of them to step up to the plate. Indeed, I trust that they will continue to be Front-Bench guest spokespeople from time to time. I happened to strike lucky when I asked my noble friend Lord Winston to speak on behalf of the Opposition today. I regret that I cannot stay longer and learn more, but I will read today’s Hansard tomorrow with huge interest. I know that I will learn an enormous amount.

19:40

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, the committee’s inquiry into genomic medicine was a very wide-ranging inquiry into a very important and highly technical subject. It is a subject in which I am a layman and, even after hearing a large and impressive array of expert witnesses, I cannot claim any but the most superficial knowledge of the issues involved. Fortunately, we had a very learned and able chairman, who handled our inquiry with great skill, expertise and charm. We had an excellent expert adviser and splendid supporting staff, and many of the committee members had valuable experience and knowledge of their own. All I can do in my speech is to contribute some rather general observations.

A basic question that we face is: how likely is genomic medicine to produce substantial benefits in the short to medium term, say in the next five years, in the treatment of disease? Experts differ on this. If benefits are many years away, the case for the urgent implementation of our recommendations is obviously weakened. An independent response from the Foundation for Genomics and Population Health and Cambridge University’s Centre for Science and Policy, for example—two pretty heavy-weight bodies—was rather dismissive of the short and medium-term prospects for benefits to the nation’s health. It is agreed that staggering progress is being made in the sequencing of human genomes. There is also no doubt that there has already been a major impact on single gene disorders, such as Huntington’s disease, and single gene subsets of some common diseases, but these are rare diseases and affect only a tiny proportion of the population. However, it is argued, when it comes to genetic tests for common diseases, that the gain to clinical utility in the short or medium term will be small, and a great deal more research as well as trials will be needed before we can be confident of the benefits that genomic medicine can bring to a wider section of the population.

The critics of our report are similarly cautious about the prospects for substantial early developments of pharmaceutical drugs that are tailored to individual needs or about how much knowledge can soon be gained of adverse side effects of particular drugs in individual cases. At first, I was somewhat sceptical about the claims of early prospective benefits—big benefits for tiny cohorts, tiny benefits for the big cohorts—but I believe that the balance of the evidence that the committee heard clearly leads to a more optimistic conclusion.

There is an impressive list of examples in paragraphs 2.16 to 2.30 on pages 17 to 20 of our report, and further developments have since added to them. Genetic variants, for example, with only a very small effect on risks, may enable us to identify new pathways for diseases, opening up the prospect of substantial benefits in treatment. Single nucleotide polymorphisms, which are associated with breast cancer, could identify women with a much bigger risk of breast cancer. Microarray measurements of gene expression in tumour tissue could separate women who have breast cancer into low-risk and high-risk groups, which would allow some to avoid chemotherapy and lead others to be treated more aggressively than they might have been. The Breast Cancer Campaign recently sent us a letter, which I am sure other members of the committee have had, showing that it is confident of real progress in identifying patients’ risks and the treatment of breast cancer.

A large number of people with a particular mutation who had diabetes in the first few months of life could be taken off insulin even after 30 years, and we heard that there are reasonable prospects of identifying new genes that will lead to the stratification of patient groups. A witness from the Pfizer group told us that the effect of pharmacogenomics and targeted medicines is being felt in every aspect of research and development in the pharma industry. Better drug treatment for individual patients will follow. Indeed, the Human Genetics Commission thought that new developments were most likely to come into clinical practice in the short term from pharmacogenomics. I believe that our committee’s optimism was amply justified by the evidence. Moreover, progress in the field is changing so fast that for once a more optimistic view is more likely to be justified.

What will happen now? The most important item in the Government’s response is probably the establishment of a human genomics strategy group. This seems a reasonable reaction if it is properly funded and staffed, but what chance is there in the present financial climate of proper funding for this body and for our other recommendations that need government money, albeit fairly modest sums?

I realise that everyone argues that their pet cause must be exempt from pending cuts. Cuts are for other people. I remember this well from my time in the long distant past as a Treasury Minister at a time of severe cuts in government spending way back in 1968 after the 1967 devaluation. However, I hope that the new Science Minister, David Willetts, will be able to demonstrate to his colleagues, as I believe is the truth, that our long-term prosperity depends more on our science base than on almost any other factor. The Government should think big and bold. Let us suppose that we were after all to phase out Trident in the Strategic Defence Review. Trident was designed to protect us from Soviet missiles in a different era, and its present justification is at the very least somewhat vague and lacks intellectual rigour. Let us also suppose that half the billions saved were diverted to increase the science budget. We could be firmly established as the leading nation for science in Europe. We could realise a vast potential for innovation in the industries of the future: a potential that is there to be realised if we effectively exploit the exceptional quality of our science, especially in the fields of biology, biotechnology and modern medicine.

The committee was told, I believe correctly, that genomics was one of the highly important areas of future development and that we were among the leading nations in the field—certainly in the academic field. It would be a tragedy if the Treasury’s axe were applied proportionately to science generally, and to developments such as genomics in particular, as to all other parts of government spending, and if the relatively small extra expenditure for which our report argues became part of the sacrifices that all government departments will have to accept. Frankly, I sometimes doubt whether most Cabinets—this Cabinet may be an exception—really understand the absolute importance of science. David Willetts was a good choice as Science Minister, and he is probably our best hope.

19:49

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel and his colleagues on producing an excellent report. I also congratulate my noble friend on a judicious, clear and dazzling introduction, not least to those of us who are not specialists in the field. As chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee I had the privilege of ex officio and visiting membership of the sub-committee. It gave me, along with the reports I received, ample evidence of a fine and important report in gestation, which has now come to birth and is before us.

I thank those who submitted evidence to the committee—those 140 individuals and 110 groups who took the time and effort. I simply ask your Lordships to look at all 640 pages of volume 2. It is a heavy and weighty tome in every sense. This is the distillation of scientific expertise, information and knowledge of which many a government around this world would be deeply envious. Please pay detailed attention to it. It tells a very important story. I wholly endorse the points made by my noble friend about the importance of bioinformatics and institutional development in this area. It is essential that we seize the opportunities which our scientists and technologists have given us.

This series of submissions leads me to be briefly political—with a small “p”. My first political point to the Government is that this is evidence of a strong, informed and powerful national interest in these topics. It will continue to subject government policy and practice to scrutiny, along, I hope, with the help of future emanations from the Science and Technology Select Committee. This issue will continue to be scrutinised in some detail.

The second political point—with a small “p”—is not quite as direct to the Minister, but a request to him to carry a message back. A measure of the impact of the report of the Science and Technology Select Committee is to be found, first, in this volume of evidence, and, secondly, in the subsequent reports from those who gave evidence in the first place in response to the Government’s reply. This is a measure of the impact of the importance of this committee. It is an impact which goes far beyond this Chamber. Will the Minister draw this to the attention of those who are charged with making proposals for the reform of the House of Lords? An elected House, which would have no room for the calibre of scientific expertise and wider scientific engagement which this committee attracts, would be a much impoverished House. That point needs to be before those who are to think about the future shape of this House.

However, perhaps I may slightly deviate from my noble friend Lord Patel, who expressed his disappointment eloquently on the government response. That was a relative disappointment: I simply have to add that if noble Lords had seen some of the government responses that I have seen over the years, this is pretty good. At least there are some proposals which suggest that the previous Government were interested in moving forward in this area, which are to be welcomed. The fact that there is a good, considered government response, although it does not agree on all points, is a civilised way of advancing debate on this important and complex topic. I shall come to this issue shortly.

As other speakers have indicated, I should like to say a word first on the broader context which we inhabit. In scientific terms, the context is one of significant scientific advance in this country and elsewhere. There are fruits to be cropped here of huge significance; namely, medically, the health of the nation, commercially for the economic health of the nation and so on. These advances give us the capacity over time to extend the range of medical treatments and the good health of the nation. It should be noted that most of the advances proposed in this report are potentially part of that holy grail of preventive medicine—that after which we all seek and strive, but to which we seldom pay sufficient attention. Preventive medicine is to be preferred to the rather more expensive remedial alternative. Again, this report gives a direction of travel if we are to make the most of that. That is the scientific context.

The economic context is well expressed in the perhaps ill judged joke—“Sorry there's no money left”. However, the truth of this is evident to all of us—we are in times of severe financial constraint. That constraint allows various responses. One response is special pleading on our part and I have no doubt that there will be a fair bit of that. There will be special pleading to say that this is important, and it is, but that is not the direction I wish to follow now. A second response is to cut and slash percentagewise across the board, which would be ill considered in this area. Let us be strategic in our thinking.

There are other responses, but the third, on which I want to focus, is that this constraint gives us an opportunity to consider future strategies in some detail. I hesitate to go so far as to say that this is the silver lining in the financial clouds, which would be rather overoptimistic, but there is the possibility of taking time for careful, calm and deliberative thought. We can be sure, for example, that no ambitious Minister will be ready to make his or her name with a promise of high-profile, short-term spending which has not been properly evidenced or evaluated, as we had before the election with suggestions around the House for spending on the long-term care of groups within the community—political stunts that did not bear discussion. We are absolved from the likelihood of that because of the financial picture within which we live. A time of financial retrenchment is a time when the backroom engine should be devoted to long-term planning and priority setting. It is not necessarily a time to say, “Let’s not discuss this, we can’t afford it”. It is a time to think through to the future when we hope we will be in better times.

In this spirit I warmly welcome the previous Government’s pre-election proposal to create a human genomics strategy group. I know that we wanted a White Paper—it would be good to have that too—but I see the potential value of such a group. Does this proposal have the support of the coalition Government? If not, why not? Perhaps I may be optimistic. If it does, might we first work on the remit and the membership of such a strategy group? There could be a very good starting point in asking the group chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel to give advice to the Government on what such a remit should be. It is not easy and completely obvious how best we should advance on this. My view is that the remit should not simply be confined to questions of a scientific, medical and technical nature—they should be central but not exclusive. I shall supplement my own suggestions on these issues by referring to the work of Generation Scotland, whose advisory board I have the privilege of chairing. Generation Scotland has a significant presence at my noble friend Lord Patel’s university, Dundee. It works in consort with the other Scottish universities with medical schools—Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow—and alongside the National Health Service for Scotland.

The intention is to build a database, which is complementary to the UK Biobank, but different in important respects. Largely through general practices in Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow, so far more than 15,000 families—I stress “families”—have been recruited to this study, which amounts to more than 70,000 individuals. Through genetic screening a picture is being built up of the correlation between family genetic inheritance and the medical histories of those families. It puts on to an evidential scientific basis the information that, informally and tentatively, a GP tries to piece together by asking when your parents died and, if you know, why they died. This is a scientific approach to providing data that will correlate genetic inheritance with perceived and actual illness patterns within families. The potential benefits are huge both for knowledge and for treatment.

So much for the example now happening in Scotland, and I draw on that, but what is its relevance to the proposed human genomic strategy group? One central conclusion I have drawn is that the oversight of such matters requires more than technical and scientific expertise. Certainly these are both central and essential, but a whole penumbra of related questions arise that may require much more than simply expertise in the scientific and technical context. They are issues of commercial exploitation—already referred to—of data sharing; of ethical principles and informed consent in relation to data sharing; and issues around the future shape of healthcare and the appropriate training and manpower needs that will arise as a result. There is a temptation to shunt all of these off to specialist committees, but it is too early to do that. A human genomic strategy group should be charged with recommendations not simply for the short term—tomorrow—but for the next decade and the decade after that. The issues of science, healthcare, commercial exploitation, ethics and regulation all bear on each other and would benefit, at least initially, from being considered in the round rather than by competing specialist committees that can easily become policy silos. In passing, I have to say that the sceptic in me does not think that there is such a thing as, for example, an ethical expert. There are experts who can aid ethical discussion, but ethics is a matter for the wider community and should not be shunted off to be considered by a separate body absent from those who know about the technology.

That is why I believe that the human genomic strategy board, if it is set up, would have important work to do and why its remit and membership should be a matter of careful discussion and decision-making. Since we cannot afford initially to commit hugely significant sums of money, we have the opportunity for thoughtfulness through this mechanism. I look forward to the Government’s response to this suggestion.

20:01

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I, too, am pleased to have the chance to contribute to this debate and I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his colleagues for the excellent work set out in this report. I am pleased to be here not only because of the importance of the rapid advances in genomic medicine in recent years, but also because it enables me to pay tribute to some of the groundbreaking work that is being undertaken in my home city of Newcastle upon Tyne at the university, in the Centre for Life and in our NHS hospitals.

The links between genetic make-up and the diseases that afflict us are clearly established and I for one, as a non-specialist, am becoming much more aware of the possibilities that advances in molecular genetics seem to offer for the understanding, prevention and treatment of a wide range of complex diseases. I am aware of the advances that are being made so rapidly despite the very considerable complexities involved. I am also aware of Professor Sir John Burn and his work in identifying people with the gene that causes an inherited form of colorectal cancer, and of the clinical trials to test aspirin and a form of starch as inhibitors of the disease. That opens up the possibility of using simple food additives to prevent the development of that particular type of cancer.

Another area of research in Newcastle has been into a degenerative brain disease which it was previously assumed was a form of Parkinson’s or Huntingdon’s disease. Only by studying in great detail the individual genetic make-up of a large family was it possible to determine the cause of the disease and identify the genetic markers for it. Other research at the Centre for Life in Newcastle has involved the use of highly sophisticated genetic analyses of a large number of families to identify how genetic variability between individuals contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular disease both in childhood and adulthood. None of those would have been possible without the DNA technologies that have been developed in the past 20 years, and I cannot help but wonder what the next 20 years will bring.

The advances in our understanding have been little short of extraordinary in the first years of this century, and rightly these advances have given rise to much excitement and enthusiasm. But they also give rise to a number of important issues which are addressed in this helpful report, so I will make a few points about some of the recommendations. First, I turn to the recommendation that the Office for the Strategic Coordination of Health Research should be tasked to,

“take the lead in developing a strategic vision for genomic medicine in the UK with a view to ensuring the effective translation of basic and clinical genomic research into clinical practice”.

That is a really good recommendation, but in the current climate of the culling of quangos, it is necessary to ensure that this body or any other is adequately funded for that purpose. Money spent on getting the strategic vision right is likely to save many times that amount in both waste and application in the absence of such a strategy.

The report also recognises the variety of stakeholders and institutions that are already active in the field of genomic research. It is essential for the public good that we,

“should identify the barriers to collaborative working between academia and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries”—

and the NHS—

“and ways of removing them”.

The first part of that task will be much more easily achieved than the second, but barriers to collaboration will have to be overcome. The recommendations that identify the changes required to incorporate genomic medicine into mainstream NHS are good, but they, too, inevitably will require an increase in personnel and resources if we are to obtain the best possible outcomes.

For genomic medicine to achieve optimum effect, it is important that a large database is established which is reflective of the population of the United Kingdom. Individuals agreeing to their genetic information being stored and used for research purposes must, of course, give their informed consent. Since, however, the potential uses to which their genetic information may be put are impossible to identify, unless the consent agreement is restricted to immediate and specific research, that raises a number of key questions. How informed is an individual’s consent if he or she does not know how the information is to be used? Is it right to ask for broad or blanket consent unless the individual is aware of the range of possible research projects? For example, information may be used to help research into cancer treatment, but it may also be used to aid antenatal diagnosis of disease that may provide the basis for an abortion. While some people may not have a problem with this, others most certainly will. And yet, at the same time, to restrict consent to certain types of research programmes may be overly prescriptive and impractical to police. We need a fuller debate in this area.

The report goes on to suggest that it is not necessary to introduce legislation to ban genetic discrimination. I remain to be convinced about this because if discrimination is rightly banned on the grounds of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation, then why not here? It would be possible for an employer to seek genetic information on current or future employees and then to make employment decisions based on that information. Can that be right? For people who have, for example, the gene for familial colorectal cancer or a gene which contributes to the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease, this could lead to employers not wanting to employ—or certainly not wanting to invest in the training of—people who have those genes. Each of the genes would give a different risk of developing the disease and, in one case, there is a lifestyle contributory factor too. Would an employer be able to distinguish between some of the subtleties and the nuances? Surely it is too complex an area not to regulate through legislation.

Similarly, the recommendation that companies supplying direct-to-consumer tests should self-regulate rather than be subject to statutory regulation is highly questionable. Self-regulation has already been found wanting in other areas of public life; what leads us to think that commercial companies would be any good at it here? The potential for misinformation is too great to be left to companies, whose main aim, after all, is to make a profit.

When the first draft of the human genome was published in 2000, President Clinton described it as,

“the most wondrous map ever produced by mankind”,

and Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed it as a,

“revolution in medical science whose implications far surpass even the discovery of antibiotics”.

While of course, as we have heard, some genetic sequencing still remains to be completed, the past 10 years suggest that Clinton and Blair were not overengaging in hype. That is why I welcome the report. Although I am not sure about all the recommendations within it, it is an important step as we embark on the next stage of the exciting developments in genomic medicine.

20:11

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I was fortunate enough to be co-opted on to the inquiry and it has been a great privilege to work alongside so many people from a scientific background, many of whom sit on our Cross Benches. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on his chairing of the committee and on his splendid introduction today.

I wish to speak about stratified or personalised medicine, the area of genomic medicine predicted to hold great potential for healthcare in the near term. It entails matching treatments to specific patients using clinical biomarkers to target treatments effectively by taking account of patient susceptibility to particular drugs or to adverse drug reactions. The Royal College of Pathologists told us that it anticipates that DNA and RNA-based diagnostic approaches,

“will guide more appropriate treatment and avoid ineffective treatment, and will identify some patients who do not need treatment. [They] will be an absolute requirement before the administration of many new treatments, especially new anti-cancer drugs; [and] will increasingly allow the prior prediction of severe adverse [drug] reactions”.

However, doing the test is not enough; it is the clinical context that is crucial. Therefore any thoughts that over-the-counter tests could move things out of the clinical arena are misplaced. Tests can be misleading at best—but they can be worse than that if they are not conducted in a proper clinical context.

My noble friend Lord Patel has already spoken about the cancer treatments that have emerged indicating a likelihood of a response to drugs, particularly Herceptin and Iressa in breast and lung cancer respectively. It is worth noting that such testing has increased about threefold in the past two years.

However, there are problems surrounding, in general, the translation of research on pharmacogenetic tests into applications. At present there is little incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to develop the genomic tests because the business model relies on the consumption of a product—a rather blockbuster approach—to ensure a return on the substantial R&D investment which is needed to bring a drug to the market. However, stratified medicine targets a much smaller patient group and requires the development of accompanying tests, and these tests must be developed in parallel with the therapy itself.

Professor Sir John Bell suggested that,

“the delivery of a new set of genetic tools into the clinic has proved really difficult”.

One reason for this was that diagnostic companies could not be relied on,

“to do what is done in therapeutics, which is to demonstrate clinical utility”.

This was because,

“the cost of a clinical utility programme is such that, at the prices paid for diagnostics, they would never get the money back”.

We therefore recommended flexible pricing models for therapies that rely on the use of pharmacogenetic tests, the protection of intellectual property and the concurrent development and authorisation processes for therapies and diagnostic tests that will assess the clinical utility and validity of genetic and genomic tests within the NHS.

The previous Government’s response stated that the Department of Health had commissioned NICE to develop and manage a single evaluation pathway specifically for diagnostic technologies, with a pilot scheme due to report this summer. A new committee within NICE should ensure health technology assessments look at the clinical utility and validity of diagnostic tests. Can the Minister assure us that these developments are still on course? Can he clarify how the proposed value-based pricing system will allow targeted treatments to be more available, even if at a local level commissioning decisions do not support the necessary infrastructure? There may be a potential tension here between central promises and local sovereignty in decision-making.

This is particularly important when evaluating diagnostic tests. These are inherently more complex to evaluate and yet the funds for doing so are relatively trivial. Commissioners do not know when to invest in expensive testing equipment if its utility and validity has not been assessed, and so silo budgeting acts as a barrier to capital investments, leading to a postcode lottery in diagnostics. Decisions need to be made at a national strategic level, not locally, and it is essential that clinical genetics departments are supported. They should be linked and pivotal to informing studies into the whole commissioning process. Can the Minister confirm that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is working with the Department of Health to ensure that intellectual property systems and management of intellectual property rights support diagnostic test development, evaluation and rollout as we recommended?

The research community is collaborating to realise the potential of the NHS for the benefit of all. The network of hospitals in the NHS is ideally placed to link with research bodies. Indeed, the funding bodies are doing just that. This year Cancer Research UK will begin to establish a network of NHS centres using similar genetic techniques to guide treatment decisions. It will be the precursor to treating every NHS cancer patient in a similar way, perhaps in as little as five years. However, other genetic tests have not been integrated properly into healthcare. Our committee heard of the patchiness of testing, as has already been alluded to, for conditions such as diabetes.

There is a lack of clarity over funding streams for the use of such tests as part of treatments within non-genetic specialties, and there are inconsistencies in the ordering of such tests during consultations. As I have said, doing the test alone is not enough; it is the clinical context that is key. Genetic testing is usually in the genetics department’s budget and so is not necessarily more widely available. The cost of testing is increased if the patient has to be referred to be seen in genetics rather than a treating clinician taking responsibility for the whole process. Meanwhile, genetics departments are increasingly taken up with the delineation of single gene disorders as a subset of common complex disorders, and with the co-ordination of care for those with single gene, multi-system complex disease. Genetics departments are already facing potential overload.

To ensure better use of drugs we need a red flag system of automated warnings rolled out to ensure that appropriate tests happen routinely. This will result in a cost saving through stopping inappropriate prescribing and inappropriate testing and avoid adverse reactions.

The area that concerns me most of all is the failure of the Human Tissue Act to promote single gene testing for single gene sudden death disorders that mean that many young lives are lost. For more than 20 years we have been able to perform gene testing in the family and make an early diagnosis in the family of a risk of sudden cardiac death. NICE recommended the testing but at a clinical level it is not readily available.

One problem is that there is no clear definition at post-mortem of “retention” for tissue samples, so, whether or not anything is seen macroscopically, samples are not always sent for DNA testing. If the family is not integrally linked into the process, samples can fall between pathology, genetics and the coroners system, and a diagnostic opportunity for others in the family can be lost. Will the Minister assure me that we will look urgently at this matter so that all patients who die of suspected sudden cardiac death will have tissue removed post-mortem for comprehensive DNA analysis? That will be linked to genetic support. Such testing should be for multiple genes, because it will save lives.

The UK Genetic Testing Network is meant to be undertaking a review of service provision within the NHS to inform a consistent approach for single-gene disorders and single-gene subtypes of common disorders. Does the Minister know when we can expect the Government's comprehensive assessment of this? I realise that it is difficult for a Government who have only just taken over something already in progress.

An extension of genomic medicine is epigenetics; that is, changes in the gene expression caused by mechanisms other than a change in the underlying DNA. The molecular basis of these changes is related to the packaging proteins known collectively as chromatin. The changes are not encoded in the genome sequence so are not generally passed from generation to generation. We are seeing ever more examples of underlying genetic links, such as the link with addiction, where it seems that the serotonin and dopamine in the brain’s reward systems may be linked in some people when other factors come into play with developing addictions. However, it does not mean that everybody with that piece of genetic code will necessarily become an addict.

Understanding these developments provides a “fantastic window” on different types of common diseases, but genetic counselling and genetic support are key if we are going to use any advances appropriately. I must declare an interest: I am at Cardiff University, which has one of only two established MSc courses in genetic counselling in the UK. It is well on its way to becoming an independent discipline.

We need to ensure that genetic testing and services are supported today to ensure that developments are used to best advantage when they appear tomorrow.

20:22

[Lord Colwyn]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his effective chairing of this committee. I thank Professor Tim Aitman for his professional guidance and acknowledge the hard work of Christine Salmon Percival, Rachel Newton, Elisa Rubio, Cathleen Schulte and Cerise Burnett-Stuart. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winston, a member of our committee, on his guest appearance on the Front Bench.

This report has been described as a,

“remarkable summary of the state of science and the steps that the government should take if the NHS is to make the most of genomic medicine”.

I have been almost overwhelmed by the hundreds of documents and complexity of the information, but I am proud to have been associated with this inquiry into genomic medicine.

Ethical questions now need public discussion. I realise that any reference to “Government response” refers to the previous Administration and very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s views on behalf of the new Government.

It seems likely that, in a few years, many babies will have their genetic code mapped at birth. One reading taken from a tiny drop of blood, as with the test for cystic fibrosis, will produce the single unit of heredity responsible for how we develop, grow, live and die. This will herald a new approach to medicine, where conditions such as diabetes and heart disease can be predicted and prevented. By examining inherited genetic variants, it is possible to identify raised risks of many conditions. Those at high risk can be screened more regularly and given advice and drugs to lower their chances of becoming ill.

This personalised medicine signals an enormous advance, revealing who is at risk, who will respond best to particular drugs and who will suffer the side effects of various treatments. These findings could lead to, for example, a genetic test of breast cancers to help doctors choose the right treatment for an individual patient, avoiding the current trial-and-error approach that in some cases exposes patients to the toxic side effects of a cancer drug that is destined to be ineffective.

The risks and social challenges posed by genetic tests and other health services sold direct to consumers have prompted various inquiries into personalised medicine. While DNA screens, personal MRI scans and internet advice services that bypass GPs have the potential to empower patients and encourage people to take greater responsibility for their health, they also have drawbacks. Genetic profiling services which screen DNA variations for links to disease traits are marketed as a way of identifying health risks that might be reduced by lifestyle changes or medical treatment. Companies sell products over the internet for a wide range of fees and many require no genetic counselling or medical supervision. Some tests have been criticised for delivering potentially misleading, unreliable or inconsistent results. There is not yet any evidence of real health benefits. The Select Committee made recommendations on the evaluation and regulation of genomic tests within and outside the NHS. The Government response to this, and to Peter Furness’s advice that the evaluation of diagnostic tests is inherently more complex and difficult than for therapeutic interventions, is vague.

The health service needs increasingly to involve the expertise of its laboratory scientists to turn a growing understanding of the human genome into better patient care. Training for NHS scientists should provide a broader grounding in genetics and equip scientists to be able to advise hospital doctors on which DNA tests might be appropriate and how to interpret the results. As part of this process, scientists may attend consultations between doctors and patients. They may play a key role, explaining to patients what the results are showing and working together as a team.

There were plans to trial a pilot scheme in the West Midlands last October before consideration of a national scheme. It was designed to help the NHS adapt to the rapid advances in genetics which could change the way that medicine is practised. As noble Lords will have heard, it is predicted that it may be possible to sequence a patient’s genome for £1,000 or less in the next two or three years, which may help doctors to provide care tailored to individual genetic profiles. The Select Committee believes that these developments require urgent reforms to NHS training and infrastructure.

Last year, there were many examples of the benefits of genetic screening tests. The first baby was born who had been screened to ensure that it was free of the breast cancer gene carried by a parent. At least 8 per cent of breast cancer cases are caused by specific genetic mutations. Identifying the rogue genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, before the onset of disease will give people the chance to lead a lifestyle that minimises the chances of disease taking hold. Women with these defective genes are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than those without the mutations. Faulty genes are responsible for between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer that occur in Britain each year.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, more personalised care has been promised following the discovery of a genetic signature that can determine whether breast cancer is likely to respond to common treatment. This allows doctors to predict which types of chemotherapy are most likely to benefit patients, sparing them some of the more toxic and unpleasant regimes that are unlikely to work.

The complete genetic codes of various cancers are being mapped. This information will transform treatment of the disease and has been described as the most significant milestone in cancer research in more than a decade. It is predicted that by 2020 all cancer patients will have their tumours analysed to find the genetic defects that cause them, with the information being used to select the appropriate treatments.

The Government agreed with the committee’s recommendation that the Department of Health, via NICE, instigate a programme for the evaluation of validity, utility and cost benefits of all new genomic tests for common diseases, including pharmacogenetic tests.

A genetic screening test could more than double the chances of pregnancy for women who undergo fertility treatment. A trial last year found that two out of three women having IVF became pregnant if their embryos were checked for abnormalities before being implanted, compared with less than one-third when the test was not used. The technique known as comparative genomic hybridisation checks chromosomes in the developing embryo and ensures that only those embryos with the best chance of becoming a healthy baby are used in fertility treatment.

The role of genetics in insurance has emerged as a controversial issue, with the development of increasingly reliable tests for DNA mutations and variations that are linked to disease. The possibility of an ability to sequence entire genomes at a reasonable cost within a few years and the widespread use of this test could open a new personalised approach to medicine in which diseases can be predicted and prevented, but the same data could be used by insurers to raise premiums for those whose genomes suggest an increased risk of illness, which could be a disincentive for taking tests.

The Association of British Insurers has placed a moratorium on genetic testing until 2014, with a revision due in 2011, the only exception being the Huntington’s predictive test whereby companies can demand test results for life policies worth more than £500,000 and health cover above £300,000. Privacy campaigners and some scientists have called for this to be hardened into legislation along the lines of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed by the US in 2008. One issue that the Government response did not address was the committee’s recommendation that Government should negotiate with the ABI a new clause in the code of practice, moratorium and concordat on genetic testing and insurance that prevents insurers asking for the results of genetic tests which were carried out while the moratorium was in place. The committee said,

“we accept that action needs be taken to address a concern that the “sunset clause” of the insurance moratorium may deter individuals from taking genetic tests for fear of not being able to purchase adequate insurance cover after 2014”.

Some insurers have suggested that customers who take personal DNA tests may pay lower premiums because the results encourage a healthier lifestyle and that people who take genetic screening are likely to act on the results and therefore present a much better risk profile. Insurers may reflect this in premiums regardless of whether results are disclosed.

Currently, genetic susceptibility has reached a stage where only careful experimentation will provide the information needed to show whether testing should become part of the accepted standard of care. There is a danger of widespread testing without sufficient background information and the development of a market where products are not related to public health priorities and without benefit to the individuals and populations in greatest need.

In conclusion, having successfully managed to cut my speech from 28 minutes to l4—and now to 10—I thank the many experts and organisations who gave evidence to this fascinating inquiry. I think that it has made a significant contribution to improved health in the future. I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate how this can be taken forward.

20:29

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I begin by saying what a privilege it was to serve on this inquiry, which was so skilfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We owe him a great deal of gratitude for ensuring the presence of scientific stars of a positive World Cup standard, who appeared before us to give evidence that helped to inform our report. I also look forward to the appearance of my noble friend Lord Winston on the Front Bench. I wish only that the Labour Party had thought of the idea of guest spokesmen on the Front Bench when I was a Minister. I thank Tim Aitman and wish him a happy birthday and thank all the clerks’ office staff for the work that they put in.

This was an important report for the NHS and patients. It is based on extensive evidence-gathering. As a committee, we were fully seized of the state of the public finances, and we went to some trouble not to produce a wish-list of things to please scientists and damage the Government’s finances further. We have been hard-headed in the recommendations we have made, with a strong focus on things that will benefit patients. What is, however, clear is that in the world of genomic medicine things will not stand still but will change at a rapid pace whatever a UK Government do about this report. It looks as though linking therapies for identifiable individuals with common diseases is progressing very rapidly, and we cannot ignore, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, the speed of that progress.

The UK has traditionally been a world leader in the field of genetics and we were told consistently that it has punched above its weight in genomic research. That was reflected in the 2003 White Paper that I was involved in as the responsible Health Minister. The world moves on, with many advances overseas, especially in the US and China, but the UK still has a major advantage if we choose to use it wisely—a National Health Service, with universal population coverage and health data. This provides a strong scope for population-based approaches to early diagnosis of diseases and targeted personal drug therapies. Moreover, the cost of burgeoning genetic knowledge is falling rapidly, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, described so well.

The pace of change presents serious challenges to government and the NHS. To be honest, I found the previous Government's response to our report disappointing and, if I may say so, in some respects slightly complacent. I note that respected bodies such as the Wellcome Trust, and others, were also disappointed in that response. Too much of it looked back to what the Government had done rather than forward to what the Government and the NHS needed to do, given the pace of change. I can see that there could be a case for setting up a Human Genomics Strategy Group, which seems to be the cornerstone of the previous Government's response, but my fear is that this will be a poorly resourced talking shop with no clear mission statement and without the authority to drive change. For me, the unwillingness to produce a new White Paper that looks ahead for five to 10 years and sets out a new agenda for genomics within an NHS context is a sign of the Department of Health's reluctance to define and drive a new agenda through a HGSG or alternative machinery. After so many years around government, I have developed an expertise in recognising bureaucratic inertia, which is what this could be interpreted as. So my first question to the Minister is whether he and his colleagues in the new Government are willing to revisit the issue of producing a forward-looking White Paper and creating a more sharply defined machinery for driving forward a new agenda in this area. That would be totally consistent with the efficiency and quality agenda for the NHS that the new Government wish to produce.

I shall confine myself to a few specific issues on the other points in the report around the translation of this new knowledge into patient benefit. The NHS in my experience has a mixed track record in translating discoveries from the lab to the bedside. There are four of these translation aspects in the report that I have concerns about. The first is extending the remit of NICE to evaluate validity, utility and cost-benefits of genomic tests for common diseases. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has spoken in more detail about this critical area. We thought that it was best to place this responsibility on an existing, respected body, and I think that that was the right thing to do. However, as a former Minister responsible for NICE, I know how many new duties have been piled upon it. Can we be confident that NICE will have the resources, including the specialised expertise, to take on this demanding new role, and when can we expect to see this new role featuring substantively in NICE's work programme?

My second area of concern relates to pathology, on which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has spoken. We deliberately proposed centralising laboratory services for molecular pathology as a way of making the efficiency savings that would fund much of the new equipment that will be required and on the basis of evidence given to us, particularly in relation to Oxford from Sir John Bell.

Amalgamation also goes with the flow of the two reports on NHS pathology services by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles, who, if I may put it this way, I unleashed on these services when I was a Minister nearly five years ago. However, never underestimate the capacity of parts of the NHS to resist change. As the committee indicated in its report, implementation of the Carter proposals has been painfully slow, given the scale of the possible savings that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, described. The previous Government’s response on this issue was hardly galvanising, even though they sort of accepted our recommendation. Their proposal was that SHA medical directors were to lead work on pathology service redesign to bring together pathology and genetics laboratories. I certainly would not have bet the farm on this achieving change quickly in the face of longstanding resistance from many local consultant pathologists, but if SHAs are to be abolished in 2012, I would expect even less to happen between now and then.

Will the Minister have another look at this whole area, including the Carter recommendations, and come up with a more convincing plan that is also likely to deliver substantial savings and improve services? I remind him that when I was a Minister setting up the Carter review, we were thinking then in terms of 20 per cent savings on the cost of the pathology services by consolidation and amalgamation.

My third area of concern is commissioning, where the previous Government rejected the committee's recommendation that changes were needed in the commissioning of genetic tests because of the inconsistency across the NHS in the provision of genetic tests and genetic testing for subtypes of common diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already referred to the risk of a postcode lottery with regard to the availability of these tests. The then Government wanted to rely on the web portal NHS evidence to inform commissioners, and on the current commissioning arrangements. The respected PHG Foundation has sided with the committee after expert workshops looked at this issue among others. In a report published last month, the foundation said that the DoH,

“should review how NHS funding mechanisms act as a barrier to the utilisation of new tests”,

and that, in effect, these make it difficult to realise cost savings throughout the healthcare economy. Given that the new Government have in mind new approaches to commissioning, this would seem a good opportunity to revisit the concerns over the commissioning of genetic tests that others have raised. Will the Minister be prepared to do this?

My final point relates to issue of medical bioinformatics, which is critical to success in this area, as other noble Lords have mentioned. All the evidence that we received suggested that a shortage of bioinformatics personnel and kit was likely to be one of the greatest impediments that the NHS would face in using the new genetic knowledge. I am pleased that the previous Government accepted that more secure funding for the European Bioinformatics Institute was needed. We hope that this will not be a victim of cuts. However, I have grave doubts about whether the DoH is doing enough to provide sufficient bioinformatics capability to the NHS through its Modernising Scientific Careers programme, which seems to be its process of choice. That is why we recommended the establishment of an institute of biomedical informatics. I encourage the Minister to get his colleagues to look again at this proposal, particularly drawing on the potential for savings, as a number of us have said, from consolidation in the pathology area.

I recognise that there is a lot of detail in these questions and that the Minister may well need to take further advice. We should say to him, though, that the Science and Technology Committee—I hope—will continue to keep a beady eye on this area and progress in it.

20:44

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel and members of the Science and Technology Committee on this excellent report. I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House when the report was first published but I have had the opportunity to speak to my noble friend about its recommendations, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Sutherland of Houndwood that the implications of the report will be read throughout the world. It is a thorough, thoughtful and authoritative piece of work, and I am sure that many other Governments and authorities will wish to consider its recommendations as they consider an issue that will affect the provision of healthcare throughout the world.

The advances in genomic medicine that we have heard about in this debate are profound and, as we have heard, are starting to affect clinical practice today in the management of common diseases. There is no doubt as we move forward that the research that is being undertaken in this country and in other parts of the world will start to resonate, in terms of both what is available for our patients and what our patients and the general public hear about. This will drive patient and public expectation. We have heard that genetic testing and new diagnostic strategies will be available, not only through mechanisms provided through the National Health Service and other care institutions, but, as we have heard, will be available independent of healthcare institutions and systems. This will pose a considerable challenge for medical practice. Medical practitioners will be keen to do the very best for their patients and respond to their inquiries, but they will not be able to do that if they are not trained and educated in the new science of genomic medicine.

I shall concentrate on the issue of the recommendations in chapter 7 of the report—those related to education, training and workforce planning. If we do not get this right, many of the potential advantages and benefits that we could potentially provide to society will be lost in the medium term, and in fact there will be opportunities for misunderstanding as the available science is misunderstood and clinical practitioners are not able to respond.

Some important areas have been identified in the report regarding the question of primary education, subsequent training and continuing professional development. With regard to undergraduate medical education, the General Medical Council, in its publication Tomorrow’s Doctors, which was updated in 2009, has recognised the importance of including a requirement for the teaching of genetics in the curriculums offered by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom offering primary medical qualifications. There is no doubt that these will be adopted because the recommendations in Tomorrow’s Doctors will have to be applied by 2011-12, so we can feel certain that new generations of medical students moving into the next stage of their training will have knowledge about this important new science and will therefore be ready in their subsequent training to learn how to apply it.

We need to be certain that those training programmes both for primary and secondary care across the disciplines and sub-specialties have a requirement to ensure a core competency in the understanding of genomic medicine as it applies to that specific discipline. That has been agreed in terms of the Government’s response, but we need to make certain that it is applied. The coming together of the General Medical Council and the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board certainly suggests an opportunity for that to happen. I hope that the noble Earl will confirm that this will remain an area of focus so that the training we provide ensures the opportunity for practitioners to be able to respond not only to knowledge currently available but knowledge that will become available in the near and medium-term future. As we have heard in this debate, so much research is taking place in this particular area that advances will come thick and fast.

Then there is the issue of current practitioners—a very large proportion of the workforce—who were educated and undertook their training prior to the whole emergence of the field of genomic medicine. They will be seeing patients and members of the general public with the results of tests and inquiries about the implications of genetic and genomic medicine on their own health day in and day out, but they have not been trained to date. We need mechanisms for continuing professional development that ensure that as advances become available, and are being considered by our healthcare systems, they can be readily made available to practitioners so that they are able to respond to inquiries from their patients. That will be hugely important because large numbers of doctors and other healthcare professionals will be confronted with these challenges. We need to make sure that we have considered this and that we have appropriate mechanisms available to ensure that continuing professional development also provides opportunities as we go forward.

If we do not do that, the advances that come from all the excellent research and technology that we have heard about will not be readily available to patients as soon as we would hope. That will cause anxiety and unhappiness. It will miss opportunities in terms of protecting people and providing early opportunities for diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. Therefore, I urge the Government to look at this whole area of training and education in terms of taking forward the excellent recommendations in this report.

20:50

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I find myself in a slightly strange position. That is partly because I am speaking for the Opposition but when the Opposition were in Government we produced the reply to this Select Committee. As a member of that committee, I would like to say how grateful I am for the remarkable chairmanship of who I hope I can call my noble friend Lord Patel and the expertise of that committee in general. I am also grateful to Professor Aitman who is a colleague of mine at Imperial College, and to the wonderful clerks on the Select Committee.

I hope that it is in order for me to say what a privilege it is to be speaking opposite the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I have not yet had a chance to congratulate him on his appointment as a Minister. It is only fair to tell him that on this side of the House he is greatly respected and admired at the Dispatch Box. His general approach to difficult areas of medicine has been quite remarkable.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, started by talking about single-gene disorders, because clearly that is one area where this kind of medicine has an immediate impact. It is worth bearing in mind that there are around 6,000 single-gene disorders. These are defects in the printing of a gene that can make for a serious, often fatal, disease, quite commonly in very young people and usually in young children. These diseases are truly frightening and when they affect families they are very serious indeed, with the exception of one or two, such as colour blindness.

Of course, the problem is that many of those 6,000 genetic diseases have different printings in the DNA. For example, the biggest single-gene defect is one in the dystrophin gene which makes muscle, which is 2.5 million base pairs or so long. In the region that codes for the protein, there can be one of several hundred different printing defects that may give different versions of the disease, which makes genomic medicine not quite as easy as it sounds. That kind of problem is echoed constantly throughout genomics.

One of the problems is that, very often, there are misprints or changes in printing in the 3 billion pairs of letters, hence the important plea of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about the need for bioinformatics. My goodness, he is right. He is spot on. Without that computer information, it will be a very difficult job to untangle many of these things. That must be a key issue for the Government to consider as urgently as possible, because we need to be collecting that data. Some of our witnesses suggested that that might be more easy than perhaps was at first suspected. Dame Janet Thornton, for example, said, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, during one of our sessions,

“we need somewhere in the UK which has a clear mandate to handle the biomedical records with that as their first priority”.

The idea that she could localise those kinds of services fairly simply is one that we need to look at in the health service which, it is fair to say, has been bedevilled with computer problems and difficulties with storing information in IT.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, said also that the response of the Government was poor. I would be inclined to agree, although as a Front-Bench spokesman—however much as a guest—I have to be careful how I handle that issue. The response was not entirely poor. To be fair, one of the concerns, as the noble Lord pointed out, is that there have been massive developments, even in the past six month. That is one reason why some of the recommendations in this report that were rather poorly responded to last year might be worth revisiting—for example, the extraordinary speed at which we can now carry out genome sequencing, whereby we can measure not only the genome itself but the state of the genome. I want to talk about that again in a minute, because the state of the genome will be the key to some aspects of genetics over the next decade.

This is one of the most important genetic issues facing the NHS. There can be no more important subject in medicine than our genes. That is why the massive hype about the genome project was quite understandable. It was a gross exaggeration of Mike Dexter of the Wellcome Trust to say that the project was more important than the invention of the wheel, because 10 years later the wheel has not actually turned. When President Clinton talked about it in terms of our humanity, I would argue that we actually learnt more about our humanity from the 1599 copy of Hamlet, produced in London. We must have a sense of proportion, and that is very important for the Government when learning how and where they have to focus precious resources. I will come back to that.

None the less, the genome is an extraordinary issue in medicine. It is quite different from anything else, because essentially the genome does not deal with disease, but primarily with well people. That is where the information has to come from, and that is why it is rather different from most kinds of treatment. It is also the basis for pretty well every human disease. That is a curious paradox of a sort. The genome goes beyond just disease. It includes our well-being. It includes, to some extent, our status; we have hereditary influences in our genome which affect all sorts of human aptitudes. They are important in human society, and the genome will in time no doubt contribute to that when we understand it better.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the epigenome. I should like to explore that a little, because for some people it is a mysterious topic. It is extraordinary that the state of the genome—what is happening to the DNA at any one time; not the printing, which is what we measure in a sequence—is really important. Researchers are beginning to understand that it is of growing importance. For example, in this country we have an important centre at the University of Southampton. Work is continuing in other universities, at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, in Singapore and in the United States. It turns out, for example, that subtle influences on the DNA printing can decide whether or not that portion of the genome will actually work. That is what epigenetics is at least partly about.

Let me give noble Lords just one extraordinary example. A few years ago, a massive ice storm affected the eastern part of Ontario and just beyond. As a result, literally tens of thousands of power lines went down, there was a massive power cut, many people were left in darkness for up to six weeks, they lived in freezing temperatures and the temperatures outside were often minus 20. There were women trapped in their houses for six weeks; they could not use the telephone and they could not go out to shop. The interesting issue is that Michael Meaney, from McGill University, has shown that a number of women who were between 18 and 24 weeks pregnant gave birth to children who displayed quite significant differences some years after they were born. For example, their cognitive ability was different. We do not fully understand why that should be, but it was almost certainly modulated by the hormone cortisol, which occurs in times of stress, and it is probably an epigenetic effect.

As animal research grows, we see more examples of states which affect our well-being in all sorts of ways that are important in epigenetics. There are also other patterns of inheritance which are not just related to the DNA but involve possibly proteins, certainly micro RNAs and probably parts of the chromosome. This pattern of inheritance is difficult and we do not fully understand how generational it is—that is, over how many generations these changes may occur. The thought that you might change somebody in childhood, and that that change is then inherited by the next generation, is something that we need to concern ourselves with very carefully.

Drug development has been mentioned by a number of speakers. The key problem for the drug companies is that to develop a new drug costs around half a billion pounds. I have a good deal of sympathy with this and do not know how the Government should handle it. It requires many years of development to screen 5,000 or 6,000 compounds to find one that is of use. We know that there are specific drugs which clearly help individual cancer victims, but at present—as I know from sad personal experience—several people with cancer have visited units in the United States to get specific genomic treatment for their cancer. It seems rather sad that our own patients cannot get this treatment.

In other areas, the classic example is of a drug designed for asthma. Most asthma in children responds to a very common and cheap drug—salbutamol. However, some patients do not respond. It is thought that those patients can be picked out by research going on around the country in several different centres, and which might influence their chest disease. One should not forget that asthma can be a very serious disease—sometimes almost fatal in some children.

Several people, including the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, mentioned the Human Genomics Strategy Group. Given the rapid increase in knowledge, my noble friend Lord Warner’s plea for a White Paper has a lot of merit. However, if there was a strategy group, its problem would be how to focus what it does and make it absolutely pertinent. To whom would it be answerable? How do you implement the effects, the research and the evidence that it takes? This kind of problem is always a difficulty for Parliament. I know my noble friend Lady Royall said that she might have struck lucky this evening; I am not sure that she has. My noble friend Lord Warner was rather kind as well but we will gloss over that rather quickly.

Preventive medicine, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is a key issue and almost the reason for this report. The problem is that preventive medicine in general has quite a chequered history. It has always been difficult, in practice, to find what you can prevent successfully. The noble Lord is right, but I am not certain about how we can best do that.

The work that is going on in Newcastle is, as the right reverend Prelate said, marvellous. It is a wonderful university, doing some fantastic work. Among other things, it does something key which is mentioned in the report in some detail—that is, public engagement. The Government’s response to that is less than adequate. It is not sufficient just to add Sciencewise, much as I champion it. There are all sorts of things that we should be doing in schools and universities to promote better understanding of genomics. We should make sure that research councils and possibly even charities write into their research grant applications that there is some need to present this work in a way that is accessible to the public; and that we, as scientists, listen to the public’s concerns. This is equally important and something that we must continue to emphasise.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, Cancer Research UK does wonderful work, but we should not leave this collection of data entirely to a charity. This poses a major problem for us. The Government must co-ordinate it; if not, we will be lost in the long term.

The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who I do not think is in his place, was rather kind to me as a guest spokesman. However, I see that he is sitting on the Woolsack, which makes him even more respected. He mentioned the breast cancer gene BRCA1. That research started in my laboratory, so I am rather proud of the fact that pre-implantation diagnosis, and what followed, has been widely adopted. The problem is that it has been very difficult to get the sequencing from NHS units because of the fragmentation of the NHS. Co-ordination across the NHS in this respect is still poor. We have to be rather careful about promoting the screening of embryos in general. Although it is interesting, to impose another clinical procedure on a developing egg may not be wise and could in time cause its own epigenetic problems. That is another reason why we need more research in this area.

I wish to make a few points to wrap up. The Government have a tremendously difficult job in this regard, as would any Government, and I do not envy them. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to our implementation of MRI. I first put a rabbit in an MRI machine at Hammersmith Hospital in about 1975, before people were doing it with biological organisms, but it took some 25 years before we began to use MRI regularly with patients. However, it has been remarkably difficult until recently to get MRI scans done because of the colossal expense for the NHS. That is a massive issue. Moreover, common diseases of the genome are still very elusive. Heart disease has been mentioned, but mental illness poses another huge problem for the health service, as do degenerative disorders. Diabetes is particularly elusive in terms of its genome, but perhaps that will change. To some extent the prediction, at least, of cancer is still a problem.

In recognising genomics, we must not forget the need to continue with genetics. Some witnesses have tried to draw a distinction and argue that we should use only the term “genetics”, and the Government have commented on that. I argue that we need to recognise that some of the research that we have to do, which must involve the animal model, particularly rodents, must be protected. That is often difficult to do, given the regulatory framework. It is possible, but sometimes not easy, to get through that, but young researchers may be put off that research. It needs to be connected up with our work on genomics.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said. This report shows the Select Committee at its best. The committee members were clearly totally impartial, expert and willing to learn and work hard. Looking across the Chamber, I find it impossible to tell which members of the committee were hereditary Peers or what political affiliation they had, if any. We worked together as a team and showed exactly what the House of Lords is about and should be about. The report sets a good example and I am pleased to think that it might have influence outside this country.

Although we as doctors want to chase diagnoses, we must not forget that what the patient needs is treatment. There is a risk in all this of relying simply on the laboratory. We have to remember that the key skill for a doctor is less and less evident in the modern health service—the need to continue to listen to our patients.

21:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his excellent introduction to this debate, which was of particularly high quality and which was crowned by the coruscating contribution that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It provides the new Government with the chance to hear, first hand, your Lordships’ views on this important area of science—one that offers so much potential to improve the health of our nation, as we have heard.

The United Kingdom has a well deserved worldwide reputation for its work in the field of genetics—the study of individual genes—and now genomics, which is the study of the interaction between genes: if genomics is like a garden, genetics is like a single plant. It is now more than half a century since Watson and Crick published their research on the double helix, while this year marks the 10th anniversary of the human genome project. The sequencing of the human genome has not only revolutionised the way in which we view ourselves as human beings, but it has led to many practical benefits, including new medicines and diagnostic tools. Throughout, British scientists have been at the forefront of this groundbreaking technology. It is a technology that increasingly brings economic benefits, as well as important improvements in healthcare.

The inquiry by your Lordships’ committee was thorough in its investigation and forthright in its conclusion, which was that this reputation, and the benefits that the science could bring, would be at risk if action were not taken to ensure that we remained at the forefront of genetic technology. The benefits are real—for patients, business and society. That is why the government response was a joint one from the Department of Health and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That collaboration continues, ensuring that the UK is a place where technology and enterprise can flourish within a transparent, facilitating regulatory environment that encourages, not stifles, innovation. This includes eliminating obsolete and inefficient regulation. We want regulation to complement, not complicate, the way in which people work—not, incidentally, just in the UK but also at a European level. We will work with the EU to improve current guidelines and ensure that initiatives on research and regulation meet UK objectives.

As your Lordships’ committee rightly said, the 2003 genetics White Paper recognised the potential impact of genetics and the genome project, as well as the importance of preparing the NHS to take advantage of these developments. These were laudable aspirations, and some advances were made in the diagnosis and treatment of rare single gene disorders, yet the accompanying strategy has proved incapable of keeping pace with the speed of change in this field—a point well made by a number of noble Lords. This inability to respond to a rapidly changing landscape means, as the committee rightly concluded, that doctors, nurses and other healthcare specialists are unable fully to exploit these developments for the benefit of their patients. Clearly, this Government want NHS patients to be able to access the best medical advances that genomics will bring.

As many noble Lords mentioned, the Human Genomics Strategy Group has already been established under the chairmanship of Professor Sir John Bell. Its remit is to develop strategic options for genomics in the NHS—that is, to work with the objective of ensuring enhanced patient services through the better use of advances in research and technology. We are fully supportive of the work of that group. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, made various proposals for the group’s remit and I shall see that that remit and the development plan for the group are shared with the Science and Technology Committee. I will invite him to share his thoughts on both documents with the chair, Sir John Bell. He may like to know that the group had its inaugural meeting on 25 May.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, asked about the funding of the group and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, expressed a few fears on that front. I agree that we need to ensure that the group is properly supported. That is why we provided this support through the Department of Health, which I trust will continue.

As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and many other noble Lords pointed out, we are already seeing some important developments in relation to patients with diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Scientists are finding new genetic mutations that can help to define alternative treatments. We can identify patients who respond better or who suffer more severe side effects from a particular drug, helping to ensure that it is appropriately prescribed. The development of these stratified medicines has the potential to improve patient outcomes without increasing the cost to the NHS.

In laboratories, the new DNA sequencing machines have increased capacity so that a single laboratory can sequence more data in one day than was achieved during the entire human genome project. Utilising this capacity effectively across all branches of medicine will save the NHS millions. We are linking DNA sequencing with advanced IT to diagnose children born with severe congenital problems and to help guide their treatment and care. All these achievements are opening up a new world of healthcare that can be tailored more effectively and efficiently towards individual patients.

The Government are determined to develop a patient-led NHS that delivers better health outcomes. It is clear that genetics and genomics have an important role to play in achieving this aim. However, before moving forward, we must ensure that we are getting the most from the investment already made. Services should be commissioned by those best placed to make the decisions—doctors in consultation with patients who are free to make confident choices about their own healthcare, and better manage it as well. To make that happen we need a commissioning system that is consistent and provides appropriate services to NHS patients and their families. The UK genetic testing network is already working with specialised commissioners to determine how these services can be improved.

While we need to ensure that the NHS benefits from advances in genomic medicine we must also make sure that existing services are fit for purpose and are accessible. As the report rightly pointed out, ensuring that NHS staff have the necessary skills to use genetic testing effectively is a vital component of providing better services. We want to see that addressed as soon as possible so that the roughly 400 types of genetic tests already available are better used by NHS staff. That is why we support the work of the GMC’s Tomorrow’s Doctors programme, which sets out the requirements for the knowledge, skill and behaviours that undergraduate medical students should learn. It includes a requirement on medical schools to cover genetics in their curricula and provides flexibility on how best to cover its application and its place in diagnosis.

Reducing the budget deficit is the main priority of the Government but even if that were not the case the public still have the right to expect NHS services to be provided in the most cost-effective way possible. We have a duty to identify any practice that is not providing value for money and to take action to remedy the situation. That is why the Department of Health is pushing ahead with the recommendations of the Carter review on modernising pathology services, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. They deliver the highest volume of genetic testing services by far. This will see the services rationalised and reconfigured to increase the quality, productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of pathology services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the size and importance of these services mean that we have a duty to ensure that they are as effective and efficient as possible. The Carter review estimated that the reconfiguration of services could improve quality and realise £250 million to £500 million efficiency savings annually. It is our challenge to realise that potential.

The public have a right to hold us accountable for the way in which we invest in the NHS and to be confident that its primary focus is to improve outcomes. The Government will ensure that these principles are applied across all genetics testing services available to the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about clinical trials. Currently, the Department of Health, the MHRA and the MRC are considering what the obstacles are to the initiation and conduct of clinical trials in the UK and how these might be addressed. The MHRA is also working with European colleagues to identify any issues at a European level. The Government consult all interested parties when considering changes to legislation.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of inconsistencies in access to the provision of genetic services. Clearly articulated commissioning competences will ensure that commissioners can incorporate new scientific developments into their commissioning decisions and deal with unacceptable variations in access to care and treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, rightly pointed out, one of the keys to this is education. That function is currently provided by the National Genetics Education and Development Centre based at Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust. We have agreed a work programme for 2010-11 with the trust. It is agreed to target key professional groups for the programme. Future provision will be further considered through the work of the strategy group and in consultation with the trust and the centre.

The National Genetics Education and Development Centre has already made good progress in raising the need for genetics to be part of the curricular and CIPD programmes across the medical professions, but we recognise that this conversation must be had with the royal colleges and the GMC, which are best placed to advise on curricular content for the professions that they represent.

My noble friend Lord Selborne, whose speech on bioinformatics I listened to with close attention, asked a number of questions. It is still very unclear what type of bioinformatics will be needed for genetic testing, and what their true role will be in supporting genetic services. Work is already under way at Manchester National Genetics Reference Laboratory, and the NHS chair on pharmacogenetics based at the University of Liverpool is carrying out further research into how this new technology can best be utilised.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Selborne asked whether the Government intend to establish an institute for bioinformatics. The Government’s main priority is to reduce the budget deficit and so I cannot give a commitment now on this matter. However, the Human Genomics Strategy Group will lead on giving this issue further consideration as it looks at how best we might take forward issues such as the proposed institute.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and my noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to predictive genetic testing. My noble friend rightly said that there is a moratorium on predictive genetic test results until 2014—certainly by insurance companies. We are due to review the concordat and moratorium in 2011 and we believe that that is the right time to review the Select Committee’s recommendation. We will specifically examine the question about whether a long-term agreement about the use of genetic testing for insurance purposes is appropriate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether the Department of Health had commissioned NICE to develop and manage a single evaluation pathway specifically for diagnostic technologies. Good progress has been made. NICE’s evaluation pathway programme for medical technologies and diagnostic assessment programme are already helping the NHS to adopt effective and cost-effective medical devices and diagnostics more rapidly and consistently. She asked about the role of value-based pricing and perhaps I may write to her on that. It is a matter slightly for the medium term, but I will write to her on that even though our thoughts are not yet fully worked out.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of BIS working with the Department of Health to ensure that the intellectual property system supports diagnostic test development. Intellectual property issues will be considered as part of the innovation sub-group of the Human Genomics Strategy Group and BIS is fully engaged with the department in taking that matter forward. She also spoke about single-gene testing for sudden cardiac death. As she knows, the taking of human tissue for any scientific or medical purposes is governed by the Human Tissue Act, which is essentially based on consent. However, I would like to provide the noble Baroness with a fuller answer and so I will take this issue away and ask my officials to supply more detailed information.

My noble friend Lord Colwyn spoke about genetic testing kits sold to the general public and expressed his worry about that. Often, the answer proposed is that there should be some form of regulation. We have thought about that carefully, but we cannot see that compulsory regulation would be effective, given the cross-border nature of the market delivered by the internet. The Human Genetics Commission’s common framework of principles provides what we see as a proportionate and effective response, given the support that it has received from the international industry and other interested parties.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked whether NICE was evaluating genomic tests for common diseases. Good progress has been made. NICE’s new medical technology advisory committee has been appointed and NICE’s evaluation pathway programme for medical technologies and diagnostics assessment is already helping the NHS to adopt effective and cost-effective medical devices more rapidly. The noble Lord referred to the excellent and interesting report by the PHG Foundation, a copy of which I have. We have noted that report with considerable interest. The Human Genomics Strategy Group has been asked to note the recommendations in that report as part of its work to develop a strategic vision.

The noble Lord spoke about the commissioning of genetic testing in the NHS, which was a subject raised by several noble Lords. The UK Genetic Testing Network is part of the national specialised commissioning team in the London NHS. It currently offers more than 400 genetic tests for single gene disorders. Those are available across the NHS. It is held up as an excellent template for the evaluation and commissioning of genetic tests. It is widely admired and copied across the world.

Several noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have put the $64,000 question to me about the possibility of a White Paper. I have to disappoint the noble Lord, because we do not believe that there is compelling evidence for a White Paper on genomic medicine at the moment. The point of a White Paper would be to address a perceived lack of strategic direction. I hope that I have shown that that is not an issue, not least because of Sir John Bell’s strategy group. That is particularly true because the White Paper of 2003 was reviewed in 2008; several initiatives were refreshed, including the strengthening of specialised genetic services, building genetics into mainstream services, spreading knowledge across the NHS and generating new applications. That is clearly a matter that we will have to keep under review.

Like your Lordships’ committee, we want a future strategy for these services. That strategy must be clear, patient-led and deliver better health outcomes at a time when the national finances are in a mess. We look to Sir John Bell to provide us with that road map. We need to look at what we have already achieved and ensure that the system is delivering what the NHS needs. If not, we must be committed to making the necessary changes to make it work. Finally, we must be creative in how we deliver to ensure that we not only maintain our reputation for the science in this area but translate that science into services for NHS patients.

It is my hope, as it is the Government’s, that Members of this House, especially the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will continue to provide us with the benefit of their knowledge in this area and that they will remain at the forefront of this debate over the years ahead.

21:28

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I quite understand that, at this early stage in their life, the new Government are unlikely to commit to major projects. I am, of course, disappointed by the fact that they will not take some things forward but, on the other hand, I am extremely encouraged that the Minister committed himself to look at other things further or to observe their progress, particularly through the strategy board. It is encouraging that the pathology service mentioned in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, will be taken forward.

As far as information technology is concerned, I think that the Minister’s advisers will be proven wrong. We know what kind of biomedical information system we require. We also know that, if we have an adequate bioinformatics system, it will regenerate information that will be helpful not only for healthcare but for developing biomarkers.

On the whole, I thank the Minister. I know that he takes medical issues seriously and that he will do so in future. I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate and I am gratified that so many did so. Finally, my noble friend Lord Winston should do more guest performances because he is rather good at them. I look forward to hearing him again.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.30 pm.